1) Conservatives are more racist than liberals. Although you will find racists on the left and the right, the left is much more racist on the whole. That's why we still have to create majority black districts in order to get significant numbers of black Americans elected to Congress -- because even though blacks vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, a large percentage of white liberals won't return the favor and vote for black candidates running on the Democratic ticket. According to a study at Yale, "(W)hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black...In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black." That 25% of Republicans has nothing to be proud of, but as you can see, the Democrats are far worse.
Meanwhile, another study from a professor at Stanford showed that Democrats were prejudiced about whom they chose to donate money to after Katrina,
"But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority....(While Republican) responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."
No big surprise there. Republicans were formed as an anti-slavery party and they believe in a colorblind society, while Democrats supported slavery and were the ones turning water hoses and dogs on black protestors in the sixties. Remember George Wallace? Democrat. Bull Connor? Democrat. But, what about the revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964? 82% of Republicans in the Senate voted for it while only 64% of Democrats did. Even today, the driving force behind policies like Affirmative Action is the liberal belief that American blacks are too inferior to make it in America without help from the left. That's why it's too bad so many black Americans have bought into the liberal propaganda about conservatives hating black people. Neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on bigots, but far more of them are on the left than the right.
2) Liberals are more compassionate than conservatives. Just as robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't compassion, taking tax dollars from one person and giving that money to another isn't compassion either. Giving your own time and your own money to help other people? That's real compassion and liberals just don't measure up to conservatives in that area,
It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood.
3) Liberalism is the ideology of science. It has been said that if we ever have fascism here in America, it will be called anti-fascism. Similarly, it's liberals who politicize science to fit their ideological goals and then declare that their opponents are the ones who have rejected reason. Let's take a look at the two most prominent examples.
The first is stem cell research. The truth is that adult stem cells are far more promising than embryonic stem cells as a potential cure for disease. While adult stem cells have already been used to cure a significant number of diseases, embryonic stem cells haven't even made it to their first human trial yet. That's why there is such a push to acquire taxpayer funds -- because private companies don't think embryonic stem cells are worth the investment.
But, because the left can dupe desperate people like Michael J. Fox into accusing conservatives of withholding a cure from them for religious reasons, they're willing to keep pushing embryonic stem cells for the sake of politics, even though taxpayer money would be much better spent on adult stem cell research. Sure, there are conservatives who have objections to embryonic stem cells on religious grounds, but isn't the fact that embryonic stem cells don't merit taxpayer funding in the first place a much bigger issue?
Then, of course, there's global warming. The earth has always been warming and cooling and because of our limited understanding of the climate, we don't fully understand why. Moreover, our best scientists can't accurately forecast what the weather is going to be like a few months from now, or for that matter, next Friday, yet we have global warming alarmists making wild, absolutely unprovable predictions about what the temperature of the planet will be like in fifty to a hundred years. Additionally, they claim to be certain that mankind is responsible for the one degree temperature increase we've seen over the last century, even though from roughly 1940 to 1975, as man was pumping larger and larger amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the planet was cooling, not warming. As if all that wasn't enough, honest environmentalists will admit that even if man is responsible for global warming, there is no realistic way, with our current technology, to cut our greenhouse gasses enough to make a difference. Let me also add that there is a scientific theory that adequately explains the small increase in temperature we've had over the last century much better than anything Al Gore has ever come up with: that being, the sun, not man is primarily responsible (see here and here for more details).
When people point out all the flaws in the liberal "reasoning" about global warming, the response is almost inevitably an attempt to cut off debate. Scientists who fail to toe the liberal line have their reputations smeared and are compared to Holocaust Deniers.
Moreover, global warming alarmists continually try to claim that there should be more discussion of whether man causes global warming because "consensus" on the issue has been reached in the scientific community. This is despite the fact that there are more than 17,100 scientists who say that,
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Why is the left so hellbent on proving that mankind is responsible for global warming, if the facts don't seem to point in that direction? Because it's a great way for them to attack big business, particularly oil and a wonderful excuse to raise taxes. Additionally, because America has the world's biggest economy, we'd be heavily damaged by ridiculous treaties like Kyoto and the opportunity to punish America for being so successful is a big motivator for the left. So, as you see, it is liberals, not conservatives, who are disregarding science in order to further their political concerns.
|
Score: 2
John Hawkins | 12:20 AM |
(0)
Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity. "
The rich give more because they have more money. The poor give more of their money because they know what it is to be poor.
Posted by massdebater
2007-03-09 01:06:57
I wonder if the middle class is, overall, the most conservative class. Experience seems to show this to be this case. And they give the least to charity? Big surprise there.
Of course (and here's something you're unlikely to ever hear a conservative offer)...I could be wrong about the political tendencies of the middle class.
Posted by massdebater
2007-03-09 01:10:16
Posted by EvilOtto
2007-03-09 05:43:53
Posted by CavalierX
2007-03-09 06:28:26
Have you guys noticed the extreme similarity to wino? He has it all, the liberal talking points, the ability to ignore proven facts, BDS and the hatred of Christians!
Posted by Don_cos
2007-03-09 07:31:24
You can only expect so much from a guy named Masturbator.
Posted by Glibertarian
2007-03-09 08:10:59
Well, if the stingy middle class liberals weren't so damn stingy, that wouldn't be a problem, now would it? Because, as the article notes:
"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:
'Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches,' he says. 'The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities.'"
Frankly, we're tired of carrying your non contributing asses along...
Posted by jasamc
2007-03-09 08:13:37
Posted by blue-hog
2007-03-09 08:15:27
The Democrat Party has been the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and socialism.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-03-09 08:16:08
Posted by Don_cos
March 9, 2007 7:31 AM
*********************************************
Well if he describes anything as a small, fruity, unpretentious, red with slight overtones of bordeaux, then we'll really know.
Posted by mojoe
2007-03-09 08:19:45
Yeah, but I think it's due to the fact that lefties like "massdebater" (cough) are not born, they are grown in vats, programmed with the same goodthink, and unleashed upon the world.
Posted by EvilOtto
2007-03-09 08:25:10
Anyone receiving more than a 50% disability check?
Anyone with more than one lawsuit pending vs. Walmart?
Posted by mojoe
2007-03-09 08:25:46
Besides himself, you mean?
Posted by EvilOtto
2007-03-09 08:26:18
Masturbator, you do realize that John posted an article about Conservative vs Liberal charitable giving and you attempted to counter it by offering an argument about Rich vs Poor charitable giving.
Apples and Oranges my friend, Apples and Oranges.
Posted by Glibertarian
2007-03-09 08:27:47
Hope ya' look good in a little black dress.
;)
Posted by Cartman
2007-03-09 08:31:21
Posted by Cartman
2007-03-09 08:36:41
Well, his constituents's daughters...
Posted by CoolCzech
2007-03-09 09:00:58
Either it's him, or - just as likely - they sprouted from the same pumpkin patch.
Posted by CoolCzech
2007-03-09 09:07:39
So what happened to the Regean Conservative Revolution? It was hijacked by the Neocons and Social Conservatives (who are not conservatives at all because they both advocate big government/big brother to support their foreign and moral policy agendas. Both policies require huge expenditures (aka our tax money or national indebtedness) for oversight and maintenance.
Lets start with the Neocons. Like someone informed me in another post, Neocons were former liberals who became "conservatives". Well not really. They brought with them and never shed a liberal elitist attitude which advocates that the US must maintian a big government in order to control world events.
Next, lets look at the "Social Conservatives". The word "social" should be a clue right from the get go....as in the root word for socialist. They are not true conservatives either. Rather than let folks live and let live in privacy as each chooses, they wish to impose their concepts of morality on us and our institutions via the legal system which again requires a big government to enforce.
The lesson here? If true conservatives tell the hijackers to take a hike and will get back to their roots (low taxes, small government, balanced budgets, and individual freedoms) the common folk will support you at the poles.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 09:26:13
If that post had any more crap in it, I could use it for fertilizer.
Social conservatives are socialists???
Neocons (your word, not mine) are liberal elitists???
Man, next thing you're going to tell me is that you're a moderate.
Posted by jasamc
2007-03-09 09:31:11
Man, I could feel brain cells dying just from reading that bull.
Next thing you're going to tell us is that you're a moderate.
Posted by Don_cos
2007-03-09 09:47:42
Hmmmmm... that sounds awfully familiar... now where have I heard that before?
Oh yeah, right here at RWN! This is what we've been saying for a very long while now. Thanks for noticing.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-03-09 09:48:22
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-03-09 09:54:42
Exactly. As a moderate, I did not fully understand how the toleration of Necons and Social Conservatives in the mix was so toxic to the true conservative movement. Thanks to folks like yourself, I got my education on that matter right here on RWN. I thank folks such as yourself who have been so patient with me.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 09:56:45
So, change the first, second, and third paragraph (replacing Neocon w/ RINO, and deleting the part about social conservatives), completely remove the fourth paragraph, but leave the fifth alone. You're right, it does make sense, but it isn't quite the same post now...
Posted by jasamc
2007-03-09 10:02:33
No I'm on the money about the Necons and Social Conservatives being poison for the true conservative movement. It is easy for the public to distinguish Rino's, Liberals, and even Moderates from true Conservatives. Its the sneaky Neocons and Social Conservatives who wish to hide behind the Conservative banner that gives Conservatism a bad name.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 10:05:50
I am always amused when the partisan liberal hacks... er... ah... I mean moderates, tell us what is and is not good for for the Conservative movement.
Posted by StanW
2007-03-09 10:10:14
You are welcome to attack me and ignore the facts I just know that is was the GOP Neocons and Social Conservatives who took the hits in the 2006 elections...not true GOP conservatives nor even the GOP RINOS. For example, Rick Santorum (a die hard Neocon and Social Conservative) helped cost the GOP control of the Senate. There was another one in Missouri (I forget his name) who went down in smoke over the Social Conservative issue of embryonic cell research.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 10:21:18
While you may draw a correct conclusion or two in your post, it is abundently clear that you have no clue what a neocon or social conservative is. And while your underlying premise (true Conservativism win, while fakes and RINOs lose) is right on the money, your analysis is flawed and misleading.
BTW, being slightly to the right of Hillary Clinton and Dan Rather does NOT make you a moderate.
Posted by StanW
2007-03-09 10:26:56
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 10:39:57
Stop....
You've used Neocon in every single post so far.
That's not quite the vocabulary of a moderate now is it?
Posted by Glibertarian
2007-03-09 10:43:31
Those that advocate social conservatism and are politically aware of the current situation are, nine times out of ten, also fiscally conservative as well. The two just go hand in hand.
I suspect, if this is not blatant obfuscation on groundhog's part, that he has taken media reports of what social conservatives actually want as gospel instead of doing his homework and finding out what the SocCon's are actually saying. Contrary to what the popular media reports, social conservatives do not desire a Theocracy any more than the next person.
Posted by DCS
2007-03-09 10:47:30
It is why Jefferson is in charge of HS instead of in prison, and Murtha can openly try to undermine today the very troops he voted in 2002 to send into combat.
The American people can see this too, especially by viewing the Democrats take no action to act on the alleged mandate in Iraq.
2008 will be another good year for Republicans. The key will be a transitional Republican who touches the center. The far right will need to reach back to the center, for the sake of the win.
Posted by PaulN33
2007-03-09 10:54:49
I can easily refute your premise that SocCons are also fiscal conservatives. The outlawing of abortion requires tax money to pay for the investigation, arrest, trial, and incarceration of those who might violate that law. That is not smaller government.
Before you get into a snip, let me advise you that I personally support the Catholic position on abortion...a sin..answerable to God..no exceptions..even when the life of the mother is at stake. I don't need a big brother government to come between me and God on that issue.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 11:01:02
Posted by CavalierX
2007-03-09 11:01:34
Posted by CavalierX
2007-03-09 11:02:15
Really? I always assumed they were spawned off of wet locker room floors.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 11:05:21
Well, if you disregard the un in unpretentious...
Posted by CavalierX
2007-03-09 11:05:31
Posted by Trogdor
2007-03-09 11:06:09
Naah, locker rooms imply sports, and sports are competition, and competition is inherently unfair...
Posted by CavalierX
2007-03-09 11:07:09
Posted by groundhog
March 9, 2007 11:01 AM
Good for you, I look forward to your religious-based argument against laws prohibiting rape, murder, etc.
Posted by PaulN33
2007-03-09 11:07:18
Therefore, according to your "reasoning," any laws are inherently non-Conservative. Go back to class and tell your teacher to do a better job next time.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-03-09 11:09:19
Do yoga rooms have wet floors?
Posted by bjlillo
2007-03-09 11:16:08
It isn't that Cav. Both Liberals and Conservatives Looooooove laws. They must, they make so many them.
Where is diffence comes in is in the enforcement of those laws. Liberals HATE laws that are enforced. They especially hate laws that are enforced ON THEM.
Posted by StanW
2007-03-09 11:17:13
Posted by Bill_Dalasio
2007-03-09 11:18:58
Not really wet....sticky.
Posted by xtremewing
2007-03-09 11:19:54
March 9, 2007 11:09 AM |
No fair Cav, you stole my argument.
------------------------------------------
I can easily refute your premise that SocCons are also fiscal conservatives. The outlawing of abortion requires tax money to pay for the investigation, arrest, trial, and incarceration of those who might violate that law. That is not smaller government.
Posted by groundhog
March 9, 2007 11:01 AM |
Not a good example groundhog, for the exact reason that CavX states above. It's not a matter of bigger or smaller government in the case of abortion, it's a case of government defending what it was designed to defend, innocent life.
Now, if you can give me a good example of a socially conservative idea that is requiring a larger government, then we can debate that but so far you're off base.
Posted by DCS
2007-03-09 11:20:22
Oh, that's easy - *ahem* God (not the Christian God, but any other, unless you don't believe in one, which is just as good) has blessed Liberals and has decided that they will not be punished for rape (Clinton), murder (Kennedy), etc. (DNC).
Posted by jasamc
2007-03-09 11:23:23
In the interest of not turning this worse than it already is, I'll just say thank you for clearing that up for me.
Posted by bjlillo
2007-03-09 11:28:38
Goddammit, I am so incredibly tired of your arrogant attitude. You, sir, have no business accusing anyone else of not being a “true conservative”. The only conservative belief you actually claim to support is fiscal discipline, which is such a vague position that I wonder if you even know what it means.
Right. Because John “I hate the First Amendment” McCain is really conservative.
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who claimed that national security was a form of “big government”.
Enforcing the minimum wage requires huge expenditures for oversight and maintenance too. I guess we better throw it out then, right?
Says who? What authority do you base that definition on? I’ve read lots of sources that claim “neoconservative” is really just a code word for “Jewish”. I guess that makes you an anti-semite, doesn’t it?
So what? It’s also the root word for “socialize” and “socialite”.
The word liberal used to mean “favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms” but I have yet to meet a liberal today that wasn’t in favor of decreasing individual rights in favor of collectivism.
Groundhog, what exactly do you think a law is if not an imposition of someone’s morality?
If I were to claim that murder laws are preventing serial killers from “living in privacy as they choose” would you support that too?
It’s interesting how fake conservatives like Groundhog think they can swirl us up into witch-hunts for “untrue” conservatives. It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 11:32:35
That's probably 75% of both sides' ideology condensed into one basic idea.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-03-09 11:35:44
Let's see, stripping the Federal government of a power that they shouldn't have... Nope, that doesn't sound like big government to me.
Sorry for taking the bait, y'all, but I felt like it needed to be said.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-03-09 11:45:38
That's quite possibly the worst argument I've ever heard against social conservatism.
Laws against murder, theft, and armed insurrection cost money to enforce too...are we all flaming liberals because we support them? Of course not.
For having a GOP Congress and a supposedly friendly Bush in the White House for 6 years, the social conservatives don't have much to show for it. Nearly all progress on their adgenda has been at the state level (where it should be done anyways). Aside from the "faith based initiative" that went nowhere fast and a squirrely partial birth abortion ban, little else has been done at the federal level to advance the social conservative adgenda. For all the liberal crying about "theocracy" and "Jesusland", the evangelicals and social conservatives really didn't get much of a return out of Bush and the GOP.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-03-09 11:45:42
You made my point for me. True conservatives support smaller government. You do not if your ox is being gored. But, let me get to another example.
Scocons demand that "intelligence design" be taught in science classes at public schools. Science classes mind you...not philosphy etc, but Science. Science is about the objective discovery of repeatable events that can explain observed phenomenon. Intelligence design is like God at the moment...Intelligence design is not an objective repeatable event that explains the origin of the Universe. But to demand that it be taught in a public school science class is asking for bigger government. Additional lab materials and equipment will have to be bought that can be set up to prepare an experiment to prove or disprove "Intelligent design" (I don't know how a teacher would even know what to order or how to set it up....do you?????)
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 11:51:20
Which explains why you are wrong. It would cost almost nothing. Intelligent Design backers think that there should be a caveat to the present curricula - they would not be teaching ID, just saying that the information being given isn't fact, it's theory. So, the cost is approx. 2 minutes of each science teacher's salary, per year. Let's see, 190 days per year, 10 hours per day, 60 minutes each day comes to 11400. If teachers are paid $33K, then the total cost, per school is...$3.
Posted by jasamc
2007-03-09 11:57:12
Posted by Bill_Dalasio
2007-03-09 12:00:20
I don't know that there is a whole lot they can do. How do you stop the gay marriage movement, when people vote against it and courts overturn the will of the people? How do you stop abortion on demand when liberals couch it as personal choice in health care? How do you make people see the wisdom in our War on Terror, when every major newspaper, TV show, and anchorman says that it is horrific and how stupid are you not to see that?
It has to start with people. People need to actually think before they act. They need to see pregnancy for what it is - a baby. They need to see the WoT as an evil necessity.
I don't know. You tell me what they should do.
Posted by jasamc
2007-03-09 12:12:23
Bullcrap. There are no moderates on RightWingNews or any other political blog for that matter. Most moderates just can’t be bothered to comment on politics at all and the few that do are not nearly passionate enough to expend the time and energy to come here and argue.
Plus, the term “moderate” implies a linear political spectrum where someone is either “liberal” or “conservative” or some degree in between. I defy you to find a single person in this world that fits perfectly on that scale.
I don’t fully understand why you think you are fooling us. So I guess we’re even.
Ah, the age-old “My argument is correct because I say it’s correct” tactic. I’ve missed it so.
In other words, people like you.
I thought you said you were opposed to big government? Shouldn’t you therefore be against federal funding for stem cell research?
Oh wait, I forgot. You’re not really a conservative.
No one I know has ever claimed that neoconservatives caused or believe in any of those things. In fact, I am of the strong opinion that “neoconservatism” does not even exist. It’s nothing more than a petty insult used by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
The outlawing of theft requires tax money to pay for the investigation, arrest, trial, and incarceration of those who might violate the law. That is not smaller government.
Seriously though, what I’m trying to say here is, no frikkin’ duh, moron!
EVERY law requires tax money to enforce. You need to stop calling yourself a moderate and start calling yourself an anarchist, because that's what you're advocating here.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 12:13:49
I'm more of a functionally social conservative instead of one who wants to advance a social adgenda legislatively, but there are a couple things.
I'd like to see a comprehensive national program to address child exploitation and sex offenders. (Sadly), that stuff is big international business so the Feds have the right to intervene. Users and producers of the material should be aggressively investigated and prosecuted (working with foreign governments when necessary), and we need to come up with some kind of consistent plan to deal with these people long term. Can they be rehabilitated? Are they "born that way" and need long term imprisonment or permanent severe personal restrictions? I think that's a question bigger than the Indiana state legislature or some appeals judge.
A few things that need to end are Roe V. Wade, the federal blackmail of highway funds being tied to state laws about the drinking age, and any federal involvement in hands-on education. All are legally and socially damaging and an end to federal involvement in all would only help.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-03-09 12:19:16
The federal government should be responsible for national defense. Most everything else should be done at the state and local level with the federal government providing block grants only.
As a social conservative, I want to see the federal government down size and let the state and local government's do their job without federal mandates and standards.
Posted by gnqanq
2007-03-09 12:24:34
But explain to me your theory to me why Rick Santorum (a true dyed in the wool Neocon and Social Conservative Senator if there ever was one) got beat so bad in his Senatorial re-election bid.
All conservatives in his state were so upset with RINO Specter that they took it out on Rick?? Sounds suicidal to me.
The social conservatives in his state were so upset with developments like the page scandal that they chose to sit home and dump one of their strongest supporters in the Senate..Also sounds very suicidal to me.
How about a lot of voters in his state were tired of watching big government grow, problems not get solved, deficits increase, and the Iraqi war linger much longer than promised while the Senate spent days debating the Teri Shivo issue in Florida (which was a states right issue if ever there was one). Does that sound more likley to any of you?
Or you may have your own reasons that I have not considered. Please feel free to respond..Please.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 12:27:39
Intelligent Design is not philosophy, it is not creationism, and it is not mutually exclusive from evolution.
Pop quiz, Groundhog. In Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, what did Darwin credit as the catalyst for evolution?
Of course it is objectively repeatable event. Animal breeders have been performing intelligent design for countless millennia.
Demanding that students be exposed to alternate points of view is big government? Clearly one of us is very confused here.
...And?
So what if additional lab materials and equipment are needed? By that logic, ANY extra expenditure is “big government”. So if you want to get rid of big government, you’d better get rid of all the textbooks, sports equipment, and computers in our public schools.
We wouldn’t want Groundhog The Terrible to accuse us of “neoconservatism,” would we?
How would a high school teacher set up an experiment to demonstrate evolution? Unless he has a few million dollars just lying around somewhere, I don’t think he do anything other than quote the textbook.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 12:28:33
You HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING.
There is no one more conservative in Missouri than him. He just had a bad campaign.
Posted by Big_Mo
2007-03-09 12:28:53
And Michael J. Fox lying about him in his bullshit TV commercials didn't help.
Posted by MediumHeadBoy
2007-03-09 12:30:23
There’s a problem with your question. Social conservatism does not automatically imply increased government power. For example, I consider welfare (in all its forms) to be a social issue, and as a social conservative I am opposed to it. However, by opposing welfare I am actually advocating smaller government rather than bigger government.
But if you really want to ask that question, then I would say that gay marriage is one issue in which I would support bigger government (my preference would be for the government to get completely out of marriage, but that’s unlikely to ever happen). I believe that it is important that the federal government prevent activist judges from legalizing gay marriage in defiance of the will of the people. If the people of Massachusetts vote to legalize gay marriage, that’s their choice. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t live there so I don’t care. But if a judge decides to use judicial review to forcibly legalize gay marriage, I have a problem.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 12:39:28
And Michael J. Fox lying about him in his bullshit TV commercials didn't help.
Posted by MediumHeadBoy
Yeah, that election sucked. McCaskill is about as rookie as you can get. She sounds like every other dem...same crap. I got tired of the "Sportsman for McCaskill" adds. They kept saying how making sure land is available is the most important thing. What people do with their hunting land is not the govt's responsibility...but given the flurry of eminent domain stuff, im not suprised a group like that would back her. We do have a second amendment right that the NRA backs, and I cant seem to find an amendment that gurantees we have hunting land.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-03-09 12:41:06
Posted by jasamc
March 9, 2007 11:23 AM |
When was Clinton convicted on a rape charge, hell when was he even charged with rape???
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 12:41:15
The democrats did not run on a platform except "we are not republicans". They stayed low to the ground and off the radar screen.
Democrats ran moderate to conservative candidates in certain swing districts.
The republicans got tagged with corruption due to members like Ney, Delay and others.
The republicans were more concerned with power and spending than resolving problems.
Republicans got tagged with the failings of the Iraq war because the administration mico managed the war vs allowing the military to run it.
Republicans did not publicize the booming economy.
People are concerned about immigration and loss of jobs due to out sourcing - what have the republicans done to address this - nothing.
Some of our candidates did not run good campaigns - Allen, DeWine, Talent. How many seats did we give away in the House because of situations like Ney, DeLay, Foley and others that we would normally win.
Posted by gnqanq
2007-03-09 12:41:50
If the government is going to stay in charge of our public school system, they need to force the each state to institute a voucher system that allows students in failing schools to get a proper education.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 12:42:46
I might have been able to help his campaign. I bet he would have done much better if he had stuck to true conservative principles such as lower taxes, balanced budgets, smaller government etc and stayed away from the SocCon "tar baby" of embyonic stem cell research.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 12:46:49
March 9, 2007 12:39 PM,
mightysamurai,
Actually, not so much a problem as you might think. By and large, the responses here (They were essentially consistent with your own) were pretty much what I expected, albeit not what is generally portrayed in the media and popular culture. Nope. No "fundies" hiding under the bed just waiting to take control of people's lives. The self-identified social conservatives on a conservative website basically want smaller, more federalist, government, just like the rest of the conservative movement. And no, this was not so much a test, as a proof.
Posted by Bill_Dalasio
2007-03-09 12:49:09
Not surprisingly, you're wrong on most of the reasons.
Santorum hurt himself by supporting Specter over his conservative opponent in 2004. Casey was also a statewide office holder and the son of a popular ex-governor. He was also pro-life, meaning that issue was a wash for social conservatives. It was also no secret that Santorum had his eye on 2008, which would leave the state without meaningful representation for a year or more...and Casey was successful in exploiting it. Plus a poorly produced attack ad and several small nagging scandals soured a lot of moderates to Santourm.
Ultimately, Santorum had the misfortune of being an uncompromising conservative leader (who may have been a little too eager in that category) that lived in a moderate blue state. Moderates and social conservatives that Santorum turned off found an easy replacement with the popular, pro-life Casey.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-03-09 12:52:24
Many of the problems that the GOP brought upon itself as you mention paragraphs 4-6 and 8 can be layed at the feet of the BushII Neocons and/or the SocCons.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 12:54:55
March 9, 2007 12:52 PM
I'll add that Santorum suffered from foot-in-mouth disease. Although conservatives who understood the arguments usually knew what he was getting at, he had a habit of mangling arguments in a way that made him look really, really, bad to people who weren't familiar with the arguments he was getting at.
Posted by Bill_Dalasio
2007-03-09 12:56:46
Not really. We just think that wrong-ness is the natural state of your being.
Because he says inflammatory things that attract criticism from the MSM. It’s the same reason why someone like Niel Boortz will never be President.
You weren’t around back when every third person on RWN was talking about “punishing” the Republicans for being too liberal, so I’ll excuse that statement.
It sounds perfectly logical to me. A true social conservative is, by definition, intolerant of scandalous politicians. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable for Santorum’s constituents to drop him if they thought he was involved.
When did anyone make a “promise” about when the Iraq War is going to end? I remember a lot of cautiously optimistic predictions but I don’t think anyone said “The War will be over on June 3, 2005 at 10:15am.”
Yet again, Groundhog comments on something he knows nothing about.
The Terri Schiavo controversy became a federal issue when a Florida court decided to removed Terri’s feeding tube based on faulty evidence and hearsay testimony from a compromised witness. Both the US government and the Florida legislature were forced to intervene to prevent that from happening. In fact, the US government is specifically empowered to weigh in on issues like this in order to protect the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 13:04:17
Maybe you ought to spend less time worried about campaigns and candidates in Pennsylvania and Missouri, and more about the dearth of 'solid conservatives' in our Washington state. That is, if you really, really care about lower taxes and less government.
You may consider yourself a moderate, but that's only because the people you've elected to rule over me are just to the left of Fidel Castro.
Posted by jimg
2007-03-09 13:05:51
As a social conservative, I believe in certain values but at the same time I can not impose that on another person. But that does not mean I have to fund it either (abortion, stem cell research) which would keep me within my fiscal conservative values as well. That is how I believe social conservatives can affect policy by keeping the government out of those areas (staying neutral on the issue).
Posted by gnqanq
2007-03-09 13:08:34
Posted by mightysamurai
March 9, 2007 1:04 PM |
What you leave out is that "faulty" evidence turned out to be right and the federal govt has no business getting involved in a family dispute, period.
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 13:08:57
You throw out this neocon label with such venom. If you really understood the meaning of the word, you'd know that if he were still alive today, one of the great Democrats of our time, Henry "Scoop" Jackson would most certainly be a neocon.
Stop with labeling people you disagree with ... especially if you don't understand the definition of that label.
sigh ... from Scoop and Maggie to Murray and Cantwell. We used to be such a nice state.
Posted by jimg
2007-03-09 13:09:08
Posted by groundhog
March 9, 2007 9:56 AM"
[rolls eyes, smiles and nods]
Posted by n_obrain
2007-03-09 13:09:23
Bush has never been charged with voter fraud but that hasn’t stopped liberals saying he stole the election.
Turnabout is fair play.
Ah. I didn’t realize you were making a point. My apologies for misunderstanding.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 13:10:43
Posted by crthns
March 9, 2007 12:41 PM |"
Well, he was accused of rape.
Don't liberals 'always believe the woman'?
Posted by n_obrain
2007-03-09 13:11:29
Posted by crthns
March 9, 2007 12:41 PM |"
Well, he was accused of rape.
Don't liberals 'always believe the woman'?
Posted by n_obrain
March 9, 2007 1:11 PM |
So he was accused of rape and that somehow not equates with him actually doing it, I understand so Libby is guilty as charged since he was accused of perjury.
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 13:14:05
Posted by crthns
March 9, 2007 1:14 PM | "
Oooo, look, a shiny spoon!!!!
Posted by n_obrain
2007-03-09 13:15:58
Posted by crthns
March 9, 2007 1:08 PM
I agree. The courts should have stayed out of it. Excellent point.
Posted by PaulN33
2007-03-09 13:18:31
So, “all’s well that ends well”? Is that how you really think the government should work? I don’t know about you, but if my life were at stake I’d want the evidence to be crystal clear before the government decided that it was too inconvenient for me to go on living.
What if the evidence had turned out to be wrong? Would you be able to live with the knowledge that you sent an innocent woman to her death based on hearsay and bad evidence?
It has every right to get involved in situations like this, as I have already shown.
The federal government is empowered to defend the rights of life, liberty, and property. If a state government violates or appears to be violating one or more of those rights, the federal government must step in to rectify the situation.
And by the way, Michael Shiavo made it the government's business when he petitioned the courts to remove Terri's feeding tube.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 13:22:44
Liberals didn't have a problem with it in the Anita Hill case.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 13:24:48
Suppose a federal law had been passed making it illegal to remove Terri's tube unless parents, siblings, and spouses all agree.
First, the law could not just apply specifically to Terri, it would have to apply to all US citizens and perhaps even non citizens being cared for within the boundaries of the USA.
Second, just imagine all those folks in Terri's condition who are and ever will be on life support and also on medicaid (taxpayer supported).
Next, imagine how many of those folks have no living will or have not designated a power of attorney for health care.
Further imagine the federal courts being jammed up with disputes between the family members on whether to carry on life support for said folks on medicaid.
Finally imagine some faimily members prevailing in court to have the life support continue for said folks until death.
Can you get a picture of the potential costs to taxpayers?
Geez, I should have used that as an example of SocCons demanding bigger and more expensive government.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 13:26:45
It's also the Constitutional duty of Congress to define the jurisdiction of the courts...which is what they did to try and get Terri Schiavo another hearing.
Congress did nothing to exceed its power during the Schiavo case. And considering what they did was in response to Florida courts essentially writing its own euthanasia laws and legally defining food as "life support", it was a small gesture.
So Florida decides that anyone who can't speak for themselves can be legally starved to death, and Congress wants the Schiavo case heard in Federal court. Who is in the wrong here?
Posted by Mike_M
2007-03-09 13:32:11
Believe me, no apologies necessary. Your response and the responses of other social conservatives were precisely the point. Actually, thanks!
Posted by Bill_Dalasio
2007-03-09 13:33:42
Yes, you should have. Imagine. Passing a law for one person.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 13:34:15
Happens all the time. They're called http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-628.htm">Private Bills. They're less common now than they used to be but they still exist and are written, debated, and passed just like all other legislation.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-03-09 13:42:43
Do you honeslty believe that the members of congress would have passed a bill which impacts life or death and that would have only applied to a single person in the USA.
Private Bills that you speak of are used for special situations such as a constituant who was adversley impacted by a tax law in a way that was never imagined nor intended by congress.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 13:57:45
Okay, I’ll consider your hypothetical situation, even though I have never, not once in my entire life, advocated any such thing.
But I’m a nice guy like that.
If you really think anyone here has any love for government-funded healthcare, then boy are you pissing up the wall.
What relevance does that have? Just because they have no living will doesn’t mean they would want to be taken off life support. And before you ask, a friend, family member, or co-worker does not have the authority to take someone off life support by claiming “He/she would never want to live this way.”
That’s called “hearsay” and last I checked it doesn’t count as evidence.
Why? If the law says that you can’t be taken off life support unless everybody agrees, then what basis do they have for a legal suit?
Are you finished? Good.
Now, pay attention this time while I once again instruct you on the basic subjects that you should have been taught in high school.
In a democracy, you cannot twist and bend the law based on a personal whim. If a situation arises that makes a current law inconvenient, you cannot say “Well, maybe just this once...”
That isn’t democracy. That is tyranny in the making.
The proper thing to do when a law becomes inconvenient is to allow the people, or their duly elected representatives, to change it through a fair, democratic vote.
But you don’t want that, do you?
No, you’re perfectly comfortable with a man in a black robe being able to bang a wooden spoon and sentence people to death left and right based on poor evidence and questionable testimony.
God? Why have you cursed Groundhog with such an abnormally thick skull?
Except that no social conservative that I have ever heard of is in favor of government healthcare. So you didn’t have a leg to stand on anyway.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 14:04:36
You could be right about Jackson. I am going to revert to my intial language started many theads back and hence forth refer to the BushII Neocons.
To paraphrase the late Senator Benson "George Bush is no Scoop Jackson'"
Neither is Murray, but at least she is hounding to government to look after the returning wounded Iraqi veterans that the BushII Neocons hoped could be cheaply written just like they "planned the whole Iraqi war on the cheap" to paraphrase GOP Senator Lyndsey Grahm from South Carolina.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 14:06:36
Posted by Mike_M
March 9, 2007 1:32 PM |
Oh I see, you are for states right's except when you disagree with their decision and then you want the Fed govt. to move in.
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 14:12:12
You mean like Roe v. Wade?
Really? Only a single person?
So there’s never been any other case (besides Terri Shiavo) in which family members were in disagreement over whether to pull someone off life support?
Never?
Terri Shiavo was also adversely impacted by a law in a way that was never imagined nor intended.
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Fifth Amendment, I don’t think they ever considered the possibility that a state court might decide to sentence a woman to death without any concrete evidence to support their decision.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 14:14:10
You'll notice the criteria doesn't really fit the Schiavo situation.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 14:14:50
Well, considering that in 2000, they passed 17 of them just on immigration (http://www.visalaw.com/00dec3/12dec300.html)
I would guess, yes, as a matter of fact, they would.
Posted by jasamc
2007-03-09 14:15:26
You just don't get it, do you?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Terri Shiavo was being deprived of her life and, unless I'm mistaken, hearsay testimony and faulty evidence don't count as "due process".
Refute that.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 14:18:47
Erm, as has been repeatedly pointed out by many in several posts crthns: the Federal Government can intervene to protect the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and so on when kangeroo courts like those in Florida overstep their bounds and trample on those rights. Says so in the Constitution. There was no inconsistency in positions here as you would like to pretend. But I am not surprised you can not make that distinction.
Posted by AlexinCT
2007-03-09 14:24:22
Answer this question if you could: what did the Federal government do in this case? What was the action taken, how did they intervene?
Do you even know? I only ask because every single previous case when some lefty brings up this canard, they don't even know what happened. They just read it was bad from Kos or some usual lefty outlet and presumed it to be true without even bothering to find out.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-03-09 14:24:26
Refute that.
Posted by mightysamurai
March 9, 2007 2:18 PM |
What "faulty evidence" are you referring to. Also her due process rights were not violated, her parents were able to go to court on her behalf as was her husband, you just dont like how the verdict turned out so you claim that she didnt get due process.
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 14:25:12
Erm, as has been repeatedly pointed out by many in several posts crthns: the Federal Government can intervene to protect the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and so on when kangeroo courts like those in Florida overstep their bounds and trample on those rights. Says so in the Constitution. There was no inconsistency in positions here as you would like to pretend. But I am not surprised you can not make that distinction.
Posted by AlexinCT
March 9, 2007 2:24 PM |
Oh look Alex is back, so when that court in Florida rules in your favor are they still a "kangaroo court" You just didnt like the decision.
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 14:26:44
Look again.
A private bill is one providing benefits to specified individuals (including corporate bodies). Individuals sometimes request relief through private law when administrative or legal remedies are exhausted, but Congress seems more often to view private legislation as appropriate in cases for which no other remedy is available, and when its enactment would, in a broad sense, afford equity.
Terri Shiavo had no other remedy available.
No House rule defines what bills qualify as private, but most private bills have official titles stating them to be "for the benefit of" named individuals. House Rule XXII, clause 2(a) prohibits private bills for granting pensions, building bridges, correcting military or naval records, or settling claims eligible for action under the Tort Claims Act (Title 28 U.S. Code). Subjects of contemporary private bills (and House committees receiving referral of those bills) include:
Immigration (e.g., naturalization, residency status, visa classification): Judiciary.
Claims against the government: Judiciary (domestic claims); and
International Relations (foreign claims).
Patents and copyrights: Judiciary.
Vessel documentation: Transportation and Infrastructure.
Taxation (e.g., income tax liability, tariff exemptions): Ways and Means.
Public lands (e.g., sales, claims, exchanges, mineral leases): Resources.
Veterans' benefits: Veterans' Affairs.
Civil Service status: Government Reform and Oversight.
Medical (e.g., FDA approvals, HMO enrollment requirements): Commerce.
Armed services decorations: National Security.
Wow. So Terri’s Law could have fallen under two different classes of private bills. Medical AND claims against the government (what with her being unjustly sentenced to death, and all).
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 14:27:16
According to the law, the decision was up to her husband. Congress thought differently. And they should be ashamed.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 14:29:06
I find it hard to follow your logic. You have admitted that you supported Congress getting involved on behalf of Terri. Well the only way they could do that in a manner tht would have had any muscle would have been to pass a law regarding her situation. A law to protect life (as you put it) would not have just applied to her. Neither would such a law provide that that folks on medicaid are not protected by said law. Folks go on medicaid every hour of every day whether you or I think such health care sucks or not. And we the taxpayers fund medicaid whether we want to or not. Having a living will or power of attorney has everything to do with the taxpayer nightmare scenario that would have been wrought if you had had your way regarding congressional interference in the case. That was the problem in the first place. Had Terri written and had notorized a living will and a power of attorney for health care the case would have been moot game over no dispute allowed to go forward etc.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 14:29:37
What a bunch of bullshit! I guess the homeless, druggies, bums, down and outs, etc., are all conservatives because they are most likely to give blood. Where do you think the red cross gets most of it's blood from - paid volunteers!
Posted by fiza
2007-03-09 14:32:30
How dare you point this out CT? If the ACLU and NYT say our rights are being trampled on and America is now a fascist state because of the Patriot Act, it is true!
If Gore says man-made global warming is the fault of rich Americans and the only cure is to let the UN redistribute the world's wealth, it is true!
If the MSM & donkeys continue to claim Valerie Plame was undercover and outed by the WH to hurt her husband (despite Richard Armitage admiting he was the original source and he did it to hurt the WH and the courts proving that Plame was not a secret operative and no law was broken other than by the Wilsons & the CIA in this case) and that there was little justice sinnce only Libby paid for the WH being a den of liars, it is true!
If these leftists claim that Bush lied about WMDs, despite the fact everyonne agreed with what he said and was saying the same things he did for years before he ever said it, it is true!
If lefties say it is so then it is, and you better believe it or they will come for you!
Posted by AlexinCT
2007-03-09 14:32:36
Yeah, I do occasionally have to work for a living.
crthns: so when that court in Florida rules in your favor are they still a "kangaroo court" You just didnt like the decision.
Except that the Florida court is only second to that inn the 9th district on making rediculous decisions that have to be overturned on a higher level. Like that crap during the elections in 2000, you know...
Posted by AlexinCT
2007-03-09 14:34:41
What a weak argument. Are you saying that when a law is being abused just because it is the law there should be no recourse D-Vega? According to the law in many states the death penalty is also legal but I see tons of lefties fighting to get rid of it (for misguided reasons all).
Her husband, whom was now shaking up with another woman and even had kids with said woman, didn't "remember" that she had wanted to die until it became obvious he was not going to cash in on that big settlement if she was kept alive. i do not know about you, but if I was in her place I would sure as hell hope that "the law" was not going to be used as an excuse to let him kill me off so he could cash in.
Posted by AlexinCT
2007-03-09 14:40:07
Um, druggies can't give blood (hep C, HIV, etc).
Posted by jasamc
2007-03-09 14:44:00
Let me get my facts straight. You reallly beleive some senator says lets pass a private bill just to cover Teri to make sure her parents, siblings, and spouse must all agree before life support can be withdrawn. Then all the other senators say "sounds good to us...we have no issues with it as it has not, nor ever will have, any bearing on the lives of the the citizens of our states...we can never forsee such a situation ever arising in our states"
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 14:45:54
What a weak argument. Are you saying that when a law is being abused just because it is the law there should be no recourse D-Vega? According to the law in many states the death penalty is also legal but I see tons of lefties fighting to get rid of it (for misguided reasons all).
Her husband, whom was now shaking up with another woman and even had kids with said woman, didn't "remember" that she had wanted to die until it became obvious he was not going to cash in on that big settlement if she was kept alive. i do not know about you, but if I was in her place I would sure as hell hope that "the law" was not going to be used as an excuse to let him kill me off so he could cash in.
Posted by AlexinCT
March 9, 2007 2:40 PM |
Alex,
There is no basis in fact for your statement, if there is please show it. Again you didnt like the decision, unfortunatly for you the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the case after Congress got involved. The Florida Courts ruling stood as it should have, given the medicial evidence and testimony of the doctors that cared for Teri, these people who are experts in their field of medicine were the ones whose opinions should have been given the most weight. Congress never should have gotten involved with this personal family decision. Most of the country agreed.
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 14:49:47
Posted by AlexinCT
March 9, 2007 2:34 PM |
Exaclty what crap are you refering to? Do you even know what their decision was in the 2000 election???
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 14:50:50
Several things.
For example, three neurologists testified in court that, based on their interpretation of Terri’s CT scan, she was in a permanent vegetative state. There is just one problem.
Neurologists don’t interpret CT scans. Radiologists do.
Radiologists are specifically trained to look at a CT scan, X-ray, or MRI and diagnose a patient. They have to look at an image, come to a conclusion, dictate their findings and fill out a report. This report becomes a part of the official legal record for which the radiologist is liable.
Neurologists don't do that. They don't go on the record, alone, in written legal documents stating their impressions about CT's of the brain. The neurologist doesn't get sued for making a mistake on an opinion of a CT of the brain, the radiologist does.
On top of that, a neurologist named Dr. William Hammesfahr as well as Dr. William Maxfield, AN ACTUAL RADIOLOGIST, testified that Terri was in a “minimally conscious” state.
Due process is not satisfied just by “going to court”. By that logic, even the most corrupt kangaroo court in the world counts as due process.
Due process of law is only satisfied when all of the rights of the accused are respected fully by the government. Sentencing Terri Shiavo to death based on bad evidence and hearsay testimony from a compromised witness is the opposite of due process.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 14:59:15
That's quite a stretch there, sam.
First, it was not a claim against the gov't. The gov't was not sentencing her to death. The gov't was just following the law , which said the decision was up to her husband.
Second, it was not an FDA approval or medical legislation. It was Florida law.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 15:04:23
Neurologists don't do that. They don't go on the record, alone, in written legal documents stating their impressions about CT's of the brain. The neurologist doesn't get sued for making a mistake on an opinion of a CT of the brain, the radiologist does.
On top of that, a neurologist named Dr. William Hammesfahr as well as Dr. William Maxfield, AN ACTUAL RADIOLOGIST, testified that Terri was in a “minimally conscious” state.
Also her due process rights were not violated, her parents were able to go to court on her behalf as was her husband, you just dont like how the verdict turned out so you claim that she didnt get due process.
Due process is not satisfied just by “going to court”. By that logic, even the most corrupt kangaroo court in the world counts as due process.
Due process of law is only satisfied when all of the rights of the accused are respected fully by the government. Sentencing Terri Shiavo to death based on bad evidence and hearsay testimony from a compromised witness is the opposite of due process.
Posted by mightysamurai
March 9, 2007 2:59 PM |
Mighty,
Thank god you are not a doctor, a radiologist doesnt diagnose a patient based on a CT scan, they interpret the scan you are right, but they dont make diagnoisis based on this, they simply give their report to a neurologist who along with other tests that he has done does make a diagnosis. So you have two experts that claim Terri could survive, three others determined that was not the case and many more submitted testimony that she was not able to survive, which turned out to be correct. Again you didnt like the decision that was made by the courts, includint the Supreme Court of the United States.
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 15:06:37
These decisions are made on a daily basis and Congress and Republicans couldn't care less.
Which is his right after so many years. That has no bearing on whether he should have the decision.
The way I understood it, for fifteen years he cared for her and the medical expenses. Who is the gov't to step in?
Nonsense. It was politicized because Republicans felt they could cash in on a backlash and it back-fired. People, liberals and conservatives, were disgusted by it.
And let me ask one question, given the same health circumstances and with her husband and parents in agreement that the feeding tube be removed, would you still have supported the gov't stepping in to prevent it?
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 15:10:03
Yeah, shocking how refusing to feed or give water to a person for a long period of time has that effect...
Posted by CavalierX
2007-03-09 15:10:55
Please stop lying. The government did not "step in." He petitioned the court for her death.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-03-09 15:14:35
crthns: There is no basis in fact for your statement, if there is please show it.
Michael Schiavo was living with Jodi Centonze with whom he had not one, but two kids. For the longest time the lefties were saying that the reason Terri's parent's were battling Michael was the big settlement she was wawarded. That went away as soon as other people pointed out Michael also suddenly remembered Terri wanted to be take off life support after the settlement, because it sure painted Michael in a bad way. Google it.
My statement has countless facts to back it up. You could have also found them if you did anything more than just use the same tired tactics of ignoring evidence when you do not like what it does to your idiotic arguments and ideology. But I am used to this crap from you.
Posted by AlexinCT
2007-03-09 15:18:21
Hell no, D-Vega. The point was that Michael Schiavo used the courts and the left to kill his wife so he could profit financially.
Posted by AlexinCT
2007-03-09 15:21:28
By groundhog
Don't sell yourself short hog. you are so dense you would sink to the bottom of a pool of mecury.
And don't let any body tell you different.:)
Posted by airfr8er
2007-03-09 15:29:52
How melodramatic. It was his decision as her husband. The courts were blocking his right under the law.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 15:32:05
First, I'm glad you admit it had little to do with saving her life.
Second, that may be your point, but it is not a fact. The settlement money went to rehab and lawyers. There was little profit for him in this at all. On the contrary, the right-wing puppeteers ruined his life.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 15:37:47
Posted by D-Vega
March 9, 2007 3:32 PM
Can you back that up? Can you show us this law you think gave Michael the right to kill Terry?
Posted by bthewolf
2007-03-09 15:37:53
They should be ashamed for trying to protect an innocent woman’s life?
Terri Shiavo’s husband was perhaps the worst example of a compromised witness that I have seen in my lifetime. Not only did he have children with a woman other than his wife at the time he was trying to have Terri’s feeding tube removed, he only petitioned for it to be removed once the insurance money ran out.
You seem to find it hard to follow logic in general.
*sigh*
Okay. Let me take a deep breath and calm down.
Now, I want you to go back and read what I wrote a second time.
“Just because they have no living will doesn’t mean they would want to be taken off life support.”
If there is no living will then there is No. Basis. for pulling someone off life support. You can testify all day long about what the person on life support allegedly claimed their wishes are, but without any actual evidence to support your claim it is nothing more than hearsay.
And again, just because the testimony comes from a friend or family member does not mean it should have any legal weight. There are plenty of people out there who are so twisted or psychologically damaged that they would jump at the chance to yank their relatives off life support and they are quite capable of lying to justify it.
Which is what I have been saying for nine years.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Who said the “homeless, druggies, bums, down and outs, etc.” were giving the most blood? I certainly hope that they aren’t, given the high levels of blood-borne diseases common to all three of those groups.
Have you ever given blood? Have you ever had someone stick a piece of metal in your flesh and suck out so much blood that you actually have trouble standing up under your own power? Trust me, the money is not that good.
I beg to differ. You’re the one who thinks that a price floor is good for the economy.
Groundhog, what exactly is your point? I really don’t care whether Terri’s Law was a private bill or a public law. The only thing I did refute D-Vega’s argument that Terri’s Law does not fit the qualifications for a private bill.
And anyway, it’s beside the point. The Florida courts should never have ruled in favor of removing Terri’s feeding tube. They had no concrete evidence of PVS or her wishes and they did it in direct defiance of both the Florida Legislature and the Governor of Florida.
Surely you, a self-proclaimed “moderate” and proponent of small government, must understand the need for a balance of power between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches.
Much obliged:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/005350.php
I’ve already shown you the difference between a neurologist and a radiologist. Don’t make me do it again.
“Most of the country” agreed with slavery at one point.
“Most of the country” agreed with segregation at one point.
Do I really need to go on?
You mean the one where the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause by demanding a recount without using a state-wide standard?
That decision?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 15:43:20
Posted by mightysamurai
March 9, 2007 3:43 PM |
And your medical expertise is in what field? The courts heard from numerous neruoligists in this area and made a determination, the correct one I might add in hindsight.
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 15:49:41
Posted by mightysamurai
March 9, 2007 3:43 PM |
Yes you did one interprets a CT scan, the other makes a diagnosis on brain or spinal cord injuries.
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 15:51:00
Posted by StanW
2007-03-09 15:52:04
That decision?
Posted by mightysamurai
March 9, 2007 3:43 PM |
Good at least you are educated, however to call it crap is a little misleading dont you think?
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 15:52:09
Does "Unconstitutional and Illegal" have a better ring than "Crap"?
Posted by StanW
2007-03-09 15:53:32
Posted by crthns March 9, 2007 3:49 PM
Even with hindsight, how did you come to the conclusion that allowing Terri to be starved to death was the correct determination?
Posted by StanW
March 9, 2007 3:52 PM |
The decision to take her off of life support so as not to remain in a vegatative state, was according with her wishes. This of course means that she dies from starvation.
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 15:53:52
Posted by crthns March 9, 2007 3:52 PM
Does "Unconstitutional and Illegal" have a better ring than "Crap"?
Posted by StanW
March 9, 2007 3:53 PM |
How was it unconstitutional and illegal for Gore to have asked for a recount, which Florida law allowed for???
Posted by crthns
2007-03-09 15:55:18
Other than the word of her cheating and unfaithful husband, there is *NO* evidence that this was her wish.
Posted by StanW
2007-03-09 15:56:40
Because it was different than what Florida law allows. Basically, they wanted to change the rules of the game, after the game had been played.
Posted by StanW
2007-03-09 15:59:54
Because it is left up to the designated relative, in the case her husband. If her parents agreed, we would not even be having this conversation.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 16:03:24
Correct, but irrelevant, Vega.
•If there had been a living will, would not be a problem.
•If multiple people had heard her say this was her wishes, would not be a problem.
•If her husband had revealed this information earlier in the process, would not be a problem.
There was no urgency to take her off life support when the malpractice case was going on, or during her treatment. Only when the settlement money ran out did Michael "suddenly" rememebr that Terri didn't want to be kept alive.
Posted by StanW
2007-03-09 16:07:55
In light of the debate tactic currently being employed by Crthns’, I’m going to claim that you only believe that because you disagree with the decision.
It was a bill to overrule the judicial branch. It’s been awhile since high school civics, but I’m almost positive that the judicial branch is part of the government.
Then what were they sentencing her to? A sneak peak at Jesus?
The law also says that hearsay may not be used as evidence in a court of law, which is what Michael Shiavo’s testimony amounted to.
Oh for God’s sake.
Those were examples, D-Vega! They aren’t the sole requirements for a private bill!
You’re right, I used the wrong terminology. I’m not a doctor and I never claimed to be perfect.
But it still begs the question: Why did the courts listen to the neurologists and not the radiologist?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 16:10:32
Say what? How do you conclude that I was not concerned with saving her life based on my answer to this hypothetical where everyone was in agreement and honoring the patient's wishes? If a patient wants to be taken off life support and her family all agree, I have had no reason to feel any kind of intervention was needed. Did I misinterpret the scenario here or are you just pulling this out of your ass?
The problem in the Schiavo case was that there was no evidence that this was what Terri wanted other than her husband - whom was living with another woman he had kids with and just saw here be awarded a big settlement - suddenly remembered that. The fact it came up after so long and then after she got money is suspect. Especially since he had moved on with his life, had a new pseudo-wife and children, and centered his entire argument on getting it done fast so he could cash the check and marry the new beau. You fond nothing there to give you pause? People keep trying to make Michael the hero here, but I see no hero and only a scumbag looking for cash.
Or is it that you were expecting for someone to say they would have resisted this anyway so you could hammer them with some lefty pap? My response blindsided you and forced you to resort to this desperate answer that makes no sense?
D-Vega: Second, that may be your point, but it is not a fact.
Let's recap the facts. Michael had moved on, and not only had a new woman, but children with here. It was also well known that she demanded he hurry and marry her on numerous times and that he had not made that choice based on the chance of a settlement. He did not remember some obscure conversation that Terri wanted to be taken off life support until the court told him the money would go towards her care and not him and the lawyers. He made the claim that her parents were fighting him not because they cared about her, but for the money. Sounds like my point of view is very informed and based on facts. Maybe you need to be more careful dismissing it outright as it shows your obvious bias.
D-Vega: The settlement money went to rehab and lawyers.
Yeah, and he suddenly remember that she wanted to be taken off life support when he was told it would be spent on rehab and care. Had he gotten his way and her parents not fought him, he would have walked away with a sweet pot of cash.
D-Vega: There was little profit for him in this at all.
Bullshit. The only reason he didn't profit was because he didn't get his way and this dragged on forever. His motivation was pure ands simple profit but circumstances combined to deny him that. You may be naive enough, or is it blinded by ideology, to think that because in the end he got nothing he was doing it for the right reasons, but I see the evidence and know better.
D-Vega: On the contrary, the right-wing puppeteers ruined his life.
He should have been locked up for murder. And I will not sink to your level and make the claim that the left wing puppeteers killed Terri Schiavo.
Posted by AlexinCT
2007-03-09 16:10:38
Again with this “turned out to be correct” stuff. Is that the standard you want all the courts to use? That we can sentence people to death whenever we want and everything is okay as long as it all “turns out correct”? The English language does not have the words to describe how reckless that is.
So courts can never be wrong? Is that your position?
On the contrary, it is quite relevant. It presents the very real possibility that Michael Shiavo had an ulterior motive.
Until the money ran out. Then he suddenly remembered that Terri “wouldn’t have wanted it this way”.
Terri’s husband petitioned the courts. HE was the one who got the government involved, not the other way around.
And your evidence for this is...?
Is it so hard to imagine that the Republicans genuinely believed that Terri was being unjustly sentenced to death?
Well I can certainly understand their disgust, given that the court sentenced an innocent woman to death and all.
If there was no living will then I probably would.
Unless you can find a doctor who can prove, with absolute certainty, that a patient is in PVS, then I believe the government should step in. And it need not be the federal government either.
Really? I must have missed the “right to kill your spouse” amendment in the US Constitution.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 16:11:45
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 16:17:19
Goal post moved so I can continue to argue an argument I have lost on minutea.
I see you have already had other answer you what was wrong with what the Florida court did so I will skip that argument. However I want to add that one of the actions by the Gore team during said requested recount where they wanted everyone's "vote" or "intent to vote" counted, was to sick lawyers on the counters to bar as many military absentee ballots as possible because the military tends to vote by over 75% for republicans. And the court allowed it.
Posted by AlexinCT
2007-03-09 16:19:33
Again, for what must be at least the third or fourth time,
What. If. They. Had. Been. Wrong?
What if their diagnosis turned out to be incorrect? Doctors misdiagnose patients all the time, especially when they are doing things they are not supposed to do. Things like a neurologist interpreting a CT scan.
A diagnosis based on the interpretation of a radiologist. Until a radiologist interprets the scan, a neurologist cannot diagnosis. The Florida courts should never have allowed the testimony of neurologists in place of radiologists.
Oh and BTW, I was right the first time. A radiologist DOES diagnose patients.
I think it’s quite appropriate to refer to an unconstitutional judicial decision as “crap”. I can’t imagine why you would disagree with that.
Wrong. That was what her husband CLAIMED her wishes were. There was no evidence other than his word (which, as I have mentioned, was compromised).
In addition, many of Terri’s friends and family signed sworn affidavits claiming that Terri would NOT have wanted to be taken off life support. Now, I’m sure you or someone else will claim that these people were stretching the truth for their own purposes, but that leaves you in a rather uncomfortable position. If Terri’s friends and family lied when they said Terri would not want to be taken off life support, how do you know her husband didn’t lie when he said the opposite?
The recount was unconstitutional because different counties used different standards for counting the ballots. Some counties only counted fully punched ballots and some counted hanging or “pregnant” chads. This was unconstitutional because it meant that the votes in counties that only allowed fully punched ballots counted less than the votes from other counties. This was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and therefore unconstitutional.
So the parents only count when they agree with the husband?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 16:32:42
Thank you for that reminder.
Another reason why the decision was unconstitutional was that Gore (via the courts) did everything he could to disqualify military absentee ballots based on technicalities like improper postage.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 16:38:56
http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 16:42:50
March 9, 2007 4:38 PM |
The biggest part of the whole recount fiasco, was FL Election Law says SPECIFICALLY that ANY recount must be state-wide, and Gore wanted only select counties. Gore got a FL court to agree to his recount, and the Bush campaign petitioned SCOTUS to overturn the FL courts clear violation of FL law. That was where we get the 'SELECTED NOT ELECTED' meme. Libs say SCOTUS GAVE the election to Bush when they couldn't be further from the truth.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-03-09 16:44:44
That is true, but "The mean ole' Supreme Court wouldn't let us steal the Presidency" does not make an effectiver liberal talking point.
Posted by StanW
2007-03-09 16:46:56
March 9, 2007 4:46 PM |
Yeah do we got 'SELECTED NOT ELECTED', instead. Woopee!
Posted by bthewolf
2007-03-09 16:49:40
I'm going to ask you the same question, D-Vega: what did congress do? What intervention was there, what steps did they take?
Do you even know?
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-03-09 16:52:21
http://news.findlaw.com/legaln...hiavo/index.html#com
This link has all related legal documents.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 16:55:31
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 17:00:37
You mean Michael DIDN'T have out-of-wedlock children with another woman while supposedly caring for his wife?
Posted by StanW
2007-03-09 17:02:40
Posted by BigBopperShowStopper
2007-03-09 17:06:55
I'm going to assume you meant to link to the actual legal documents and not the commentaries.
1. I see several documents that denied requests for a rehearing made by Terri's parents. This supports my position that there was no other remedy available to save Terri's life, which would justify a private bill.
2. I see denials by the Supreme Court to hear the case and an Emergency Motion by Terri's parents to the Supreme Court. This further justifies my argument that there was no other option available to save Terri's life.
3. I see an Executive Order signed by Governor Jeb Bush to reinsert Terri's feeding tube. As I understand it, the Governor did this in order to buy time for doctors to determine whether Terri was in PVS, which was still disputed at the time.
4. I see an opinion by the Florida Supreme Court declaring the Executive Order unconstitutional. But given the Florida Supreme Court's rather spotty knowledge of Constitutional law, I don't give this much weight.
5. I see a Guardian ad Litem’s Report on Terri Schiavo, which states that the removal of a feeding tube is justified in cases when the patient is in PVS. Again, this was before PVS had been officially confirmed.
6. I see the "Compromise Bill" that was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. The bill authorizes the federal government to determine whether Terri's rights were violated and compels the relevent parties to reinsert Terri's feeding tube until the investigation is completed. I can't imagine how you could be opposed to this on any level.
That's all the laws, so now on to the related court cases:
Cruzan v. Director, MDH:
Chief Justice Rehnquist writes for the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, holding that “a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard [of the patient’s wishes] in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state,” and that the Constitution gives “a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition.”
Terri Shiavo was not confirmed to be in PVS until after her death, her alleged wishes were not backed up by "clear and convincing evidence," and she was not competent to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition.
In the Matter of Quinlan
New Jersey’s Supreme Court recognizes that a patient’s constitutional right to privacy includes a right to terminate medical treatment.
Again, Terri Schiavo was not competant to make that decision.
Conservatorship of Wendland
California case holding that, under the State’s law, a conservator may not withhold artificial nutrition and hydration “from a conscious conservatee who is not terminally ill, comatose, or in a persistent vegetative state, and who has not left formal instructions for health care or appointed an agent or surrogate for health care decisions...absent clear and convincing evidence the conservator’s decision is in accordance with either the conservatee’s own wishes or best interest.”
As I said before, Terri was not confirmed to be in PVS until after her death and she had not left any formal instructions for health care. Though her husband was her appointed guardian, he was, again, compromised.
Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital
Massachusetts case holding that the “State’s interest in the preservation of life does not overcome [the patient’s] right to discontinue treatment,” and that such a position is not contrary to the “State’s interest in the prevention of suicide.”
Since Terri did not have a living will, we don't know whether she would have wanted her feeding tube removed.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 17:44:53
To be fair, his in-laws did encourage him to date after Terri's collapse, so he wasn't really cheating as it is commonly defined.
However, the fact that he had a girlfriend and children does cast his testimony in a different light. If the Florida courts had been responsible they would have considered the possibility that he was only asking for Terri's feeding tube to be removed so he could marry his new girlfriend, which is something liberals here don't seem to grasp.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 17:50:24
But more important you are reporting only a portion of the data with regards to the Yale University study by Ebonya Washington.
HERE ARE THREE PARTS I PULLED THAT CONTRADICT WHAT YOU PULLED.
"Who are the Whites who are responding to a Black Democratic candidate on the ballot? They are both Democrats (who increase turnout 7 percentage points) and Republicans (who increase their turnout by 5 percentage points)."
"For Senatorial elections where unfortunately there is much less variation in candidate race, it is Republicans who are less likely to vote for their party’s candidate when that candidate is Black."
Later in his conclusion he writes:
"However both White Democrats and White Republicans have a reduced likelihood of voting for a major party candidate when that candidate is Black."
He then says he needs further research to get a more complete conclusion.
Read the paper. It is not a biased report against Dems or Reps.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-03-09 17:58:45
Interesting. Here he was eager to take care of Terri and keep her alive. He certainly doesn't give the impression that she would have wanted to be "allowed to die".
Really Michael? I thought Terri told you that she didn't want to be kept alive if she were ever in a state like this. That's rather odd.
She's his life, he wouldn't trade her for the world, and he believes in his marriage vows (does that include the one about not dating other women?). Yet only a few years later he petitioned the court to remove her feeding tube.
Curious.
"The rest of my life" eh?
He must be using that New Age interpretation: "until she becomes inconvenient to care for"
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 18:06:31
So, if you know what congress did, you're aware it was not only constitutional but minimal in it's intrusion, right? All they did was decide that a higher federal court could take the case for appeal.
Period.
What about this is so horrible, again?
To be fair, his in-laws did encourage him to date after Terri's collapse, so he wasn't really cheating as it is commonly defined.
Uh, sleeping with other women while you're married is the essence of cheating. She may be asleep or not, doesn't matter. He cheated, no way around it. He made a new life, while married. When he finally decided (nagging by his new squeeze or otherwise) he wanted to marry this new woman, Terri had to die by Catholic dogma for him to be free to do so.
So...
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-03-09 18:16:10
What about Newt Gingrich?
"He walked out in the spring of 1980.... By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said, "Daddy is downstairs. Could he come up?" When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery." - Jackie, his first wife.
And now this:
Former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich Friday told a Christian radio program he was cheating on his second wife at the same time as he was fighting for the impeachment of former president Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-03-09 18:27:13
Yeah, yeah, yeah... So What???
Rev. Jesse Jackson was advising President Clinton during this same time and had an affair *AND* a child out of wedlock.
John Kerry was married and had two children with his first wife. He then had that marriage annulled (as in the marriage never happened) to marry Tereza!
Posted by StanW
2007-03-09 19:38:51
-Marianne Gingrich
Divorce is wrong but the media bias will always be trying to get Newt back for his contract with America (which included an act to reduce welfare spending which is part of compassionate conservatism)
Posted by BigBopperShowStopper
2007-03-09 19:52:44
That's why I used the qualifier "as it is commonly defined."
I'm well aware that what Michael Schiavo did was adultery in every sense of the word, but the fact that he was specifically encouraged by his in-laws to date means that he cannot be solely blamed for having a girlfriend. The really deplorable thing is he thought that having a girlfriend made it okay to have his wife dehydrated to death.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 20:11:33
What about him? Nobody ever claimed Newt Gingrich was perfect. Not even Newt Gingrich.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 20:13:14
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 20:23:53
Geez, what did I start. Whether you like me (LOL on this forum), hate me, dispise me, ignore me, pray for me, feel sorry for me, would like to puke on me, or what ever...you have to admit one thing..The groundhog has a real talent for getting lively rock em and sock debates started on this forum.
What if I told you all that John Hawkins hired me to become a common enemy target for all you true conservatives, Neocons, and SocCons out there in hopes of getting you riled up enought to come together and prepare for the 2008 elections. NOT. Just made that up...but it sounded good.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 21:33:12
Another benefit, is that we all begin to see that most issues are not so black and white as we within ouselves might originally imagine. Neither Hillary Clinton, BushII, Duncan Hunter, RINOS, DIMS, Liberals, Conservatives, are incarnations of Satan or Michael the Archangel. None of those people or movements pose as much of a threat to us as say Osama Bin Laden. I and my family have done pretty well through the years starting with FDR and right up through GWB
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 22:00:15
That's at least half the fun of RWN. It's a cross between a drunken bar brawl and The British House of Commons. (Once I would have said The US Senate, but it's been a horribly long time since there was any serious or scintillating debate from that bunch of flatulent chair-moisteners.)
Posted by Cartman
2007-03-09 22:08:00
Mercy is for the weak.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 22:29:42
Pfft. You're an amateur. You should've been here back before 2004 when Charlemagne was still lurking about.
Hiring people would be a waste of John's time. All he has to do is dangle some bait out there (praising Ann Coulter usually gets the job done) and all the crazies come running.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 22:35:41
You have a great wit. You made me laugh at myself and also feel a bit embarrased that I was so arrogant as to promote myself on a forum that likley features the best smack talk artists in the country. Have a nice evening and God bless you.
Posted by groundhog
2007-03-09 22:49:02
However, I did not say "I give up."
Posted by D-Vega
2007-03-09 22:52:39
Not yet you haven't.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-09 23:29:25
He's a dick. But get back to us when he starves his wife to death so he can marry someone else.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-03-10 00:02:51
Agreed. If he's really discovered Jesus, good. But, then let him don sackcloth and ashes and hie himself to a nunnery to do penance. Cheap theatrics such as this were bad enough from Clinton, with his big ol' stage-prop Bible never opened without the cameras rolling first, but I'm insulted when someone supposedly one of our own tries to pull such crap.
If Gingrich's change of heart is real, just getting right with God will be sufficient.
Posted by Cartman
2007-03-10 07:52:47
SFW. Did he lie about it under oath? Clinton did, and that's why he was impeached. Nice try, though.
Posted by MediumHeadBoy
2007-03-10 09:15:53
Posted by Hoss
2007-03-11 12:57:00
Posted by mightysamurai
What's the message here, it's ok to cheat on your wife as long you don't lie about it under oath? It will be great hypocrisy if the right embraces him while preaching morality.
Posted by farmer1
2007-03-12 06:14:18
What on Earth gave you the impression that we are embracing him? Did you not see all the people who just claimed he doesn't have a chance?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-03-12 14:23:33
Yawn, troll.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-03-12 17:01:35