Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No one knows? So this is one of those questions a court just can't assess, and therefore we have to keep the woman alive in a vegetable state so you and your right-wing friends can get together at church and celebrate how you've done something just soooo valuable?

I think the court and the state should err on the side of life. If you make your wishes known in a written document (living will etc) then you are covered, otherwise we err on the side of life (which is the same rationale that is part of my evolution to anti-death penalty. Once someone is dead you can't correct the mistake).

Originally posted by Sidd Finch


Let me guess -- you believe her husband killed her. Right? That would be true Penske-think. (Sorry for the oxymoron.)

I don't find it anymore or less possible than the hypo that hall of fame football player and generally nice guy celeb OJ Simpson would bludgeon his wife to death.

And nice politics of personal destruction attack there. From here on I will refer to you as Carville-lite.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch


And the carrot joke is just for your benefit, asshole. But please -- let's not pretend that you or anyone else gave a shit about her family.

The carrot joke shows your disrespect for her and her family. She was not a voluntary public figure but rather a victim and the comment is disrespectful regardless of where or to whom it is made. Sad that the liberal kool-aid has made you so callous to human tragedy.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So it was okay for your friends to pull their baby out and crush its head, but not okay to let Terry Schiavo die a natural death consistent with what she wanted?

There is a substantial question as to whether or not it was what she wanted. Perhaps some day justice will be served there.

eta: and I am not in favour of partial birth abortions as a matter of law and public policy, but if they are legal, they are legal. I respect the rule of law and I am not a proselytizer and there was nothing to be gained from trying to dissuade them. They weighed the choices and made an informed choice that was right for them and legal. You seem to have a vested interest in demonizing me so I can see why you would hope that I would confront and compound the misery of their position, but unfortunately for your vendetta, I am a compassionate conservative

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

Ooooh, we can foist our disabled children on the state -- relinquish custody. Medicaid can cover. Nifty.

An estate lawyer actually pitched an option like that to someone in my immediate family as a way to get the state to cover expenses of a disabled relative who's in long term care. The good republican he was, he said "Why give up the estate when you can keep the money and get the state to cover em's care." Fucking gross pitch.

I wonder how many people take that option. Its legal (like Rove's little leak), but seems really sleazy. My guess is a whole lotta pro lifers warehouse their defective relatives on the state dime. It always seems to work that way with moralizers.

Hey Penske - next time you say I'm ruining the country, remember, I've actually lost money doing the right thing. What have you given up for the betterment of all of us, not just your own fucking family?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The Dems should ask questions and seek a full hearing. They should be respectful and professional, and honor him as the public servant he is (sort of like the Repubs are doing with... oh, never mind).

They should not take him to task over arguments he has made in briefs, where he was asserting a position as counsel for a client. Nor should they push to get dox. that are subject to the atty-client privilege.

And they almost certainly should not filibuster, unless something no one currently knows about comes to light.

In other words, they should treat the hearing like a hearing, not like an opportunity to make a speech or score points. Hopefully the Repubs will allow that, and will do the same.

Refreshing.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally posted by nononono
FYI, the rate of miscarriage/issues with an amnio is probably far lower for your ob than the 1/200 - it will vary by experience and skill level of the giver. And no, amnio gives you a pretty-close-to definitive answer on most of the conditions screened for.

Me, I chose to have the information - whatever the choice, I would want to be prepared. If it's a baby with serious problems, I would not want to scramble post-birth when I'm just trying to get used to the baby itself.

The sources I have read put the miscarriage rate of normal babies between 1/100 and 1/400 for amnio, depending on the study, but averaging out to about 1/200 or 250, and is slightly higher for CVS (CVS also measuraby increasing risk for club foot and other limb deformities). Given that at my age, the risk of Downs is only about 1/1000 or so, it does not make sense to have it. We very likely will do the non-invasive screens, to prepare for possible circumstances.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
If a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion

They do. I know it galls you, but it's true.

gay marriage, pornography, criminals’ rights, and property rights

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. What liberal position on any of these are you talking about? Incoherence in defense of liberty is not a virtue.

–liberals wouldn’t Blah, blah, blah. Blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah. [/b]

Congratulations, you've achieved full self-caricature.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
An estate lawyer actually pitched an option like that to someone in my immediate family as a way to get the state to cover expenses of a disabled relative who's in long term care. The good republican he was, he said "Why give up the estate when you can keep the money and get the state to cover em's care." Fucking gross pitch.

You are simplifying what is a complex equation. I believe the Sunday NYTimes had an article on this over the weekend, or the weekend before. Estate preservation is an important tool for many spouses to preserve their ability to live independently (and based on wealth demographics not usually in luxury) after a spouse goes into a nursing home.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hey Penske - next time you say I'm ruining the country, remember, I've actually lost money doing the right thing. What have you given up for the betterment of all of us, not just your own fucking family?

Hmmmmm, outside of other charitable contributions, last year I gave about $5K to assist poor children in the inner city of Seattle to have an opportunity to obtain a quality education that the teachers' union destroyed public schools cannot give them. I also just wrote a check for $1000 for a food bank. Does that count (assuming my family doesn't eat $1000 of the food banks' fare)?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
They do. I know it galls you, but it's true.



I'm not even sure what you're saying here. What liberal position on any of these are you talking about? Incoherence in defense of liberty is not a virtue.



Congratulations, you've achieved full self-caricature.

It was a quote from the article you posted the link to, moron.

You maintain a consistent record of never being correct. Never. Ever.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The Dems should ask questions and seek a full hearing. They should be respectful and professional, and honor him as the public servant he is (sort of like the Repubs are doing with... oh, never mind).

They should not take him to task over arguments he has made in briefs, where he was asserting a position as counsel for a client. Nor should they push to get dox. that are subject to the atty-client privilege.

And they almost certainly should not filibuster, unless something no one currently knows about comes to light.

In other words, they should treat the hearing like a hearing, not like an opportunity to make a speech or score points. Hopefully the Repubs will allow that, and will do the same.

2. No reason not to.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It was a quote from the article you posted the link to, moron.

You maintain a consistent record of never being correct. Never. Ever.

Fine. Can you explain what the hell she was saying?

ETA: Never mind - I withdraw the question. Asking you to explain something like the thought processes of AC, and expecting it to be something the board could comprehend, is going to be complete waste of electrons.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SEC_Chick
The sources I have read put the miscarriage rate of normal babies between 1/100 and 1/400 for amnio, depending on the study, but averaging out to about 1/200 or 250, and is slightly higher for CVS (CVS also measuraby increasing risk for club foot and other limb deformities). Given that at my age, the risk of Downs is only about 1/1000 or so, it does not make sense to have it. We very likely will do the non-invasive screens, to prepare for possible circumstances.

See, this is the analysis docs will give, nononono.

But if the negative value of a downs baby is 4x the negative value of a miscarriage, one should go with amnio. Yet docs are afraid to even suggest that calculus.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Fine. Can you explain what the hell she was saying?

I think she is saying that the liberals need to improperly legislate from the Judiciary because their public policy desires are not supported by a majority of people and would fail in the legislative arena.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You are simplifying what is a complex equation. I believe the Sunday NYTimes had an article on this over the weekend, or the weekend before. Estate preservation is an important tool for many spouses to preserve their ability to live independently (and based on wealth demographics not usually in luxury) after a spouse goes into a nursing home.

Hmmmmm, outside of other charitable contributions, last year I gave about $5K to assist poor children in the inner city of Seattle to have an opportunity to obtain a quality education that the teachers' union destroyed public schools cannot give them. I also just wrote a check for $1000 for a food bank. Does that count (assuming my family doesn't eat $1000 of the food banks' fare)?

Are you brain damaged? Look, a relative died. That grandparent had a pretty ok estate. Everybody could have run off and left a disabled sibling in the care of the state. One sibling did. The rest came together and decided to pool the remainder to care for the disabled sibling in a nice facility.

There's right and there's wrong. Its wrong to lay a person you can pay for off on the state. Thats not estate planning. Its making you and I pay the cost through taxes, and its robbing resources from people who truly need them. That iss simple.

I'm all for ass-screwing Uncle Sam all I can, but even I can't oblige that shit.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm all for ass-screwing Uncle Sam all I can, but even I can't oblige that shit.

Would you at least have the decency to give him a reach around?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Fine. Can you explain what the hell she was saying?

ETA: Never mind - I withdraw the question. Asking you to explain something like the thought processes of AC, and expecting it to be something the board could comprehend, is going to be complete waste of electrons.

Read what I wrote. It proves you wrong again. Where is lo-berry to declare you the wrongest? Where bilmore, where?