Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is about who gets to decide what Terry Schiavo would have wanted -- her husband, or a bunch of Republican elected officials.

Love your word choice. Parents have been begging the courts for years to please let them take care of their kid, saying that hubby wasn't doing what he should. Courts kept saying, no, go away, he's acting in her best interests. They keep trying. Nope. Now, hubby says, kill her, it's time. Parents STILL say, let us take care of her, please. Courts say, nope, hubby's her boss, not you. Go away while we kill your daughter.

I'm not arguing that she's coming back, nor that the fed action was right. Just that this has been a horrid example of merciless proper procedure over humanity.

And you leave the parents right out of your either/or choice.

(And seemingly forget that almost 50% of the Dems who voted, voted for the bill, too.)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy


You learned nothing during the 90s, when Bill Clinton showed y'all how a country should be run?

In fairness, Bill Clinton is to blame for the rise of the evangelicals.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In fairness, Bill Clinton is to blame for the rise of the evangelicals.

In fairness, Monica is to blame for the rise of . . .

Naw, too cheap.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Anyone who's ever read the FB knows that I like to check the box.

I've checked out a few boxes in me days, myself thank you. :yum: Still got me a sanctified marriage though.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In fairness, Bill Clinton is to blame for the rise of the evangelicals.

What?!?!?!?!

Ever hear of Jerry Falwell and an organization called The Moral Majority? The evangelicals were kind of significant in the 1980 election. Not just in bouncing Jimmy Carter, but also in bouncing a bunch of longstanding Democratic senators, and making Howard Baker majority leader for a few years.

One could even argue that they helped Barry Goldwater seize control (temporarily) of the GOP in 1964.

(uh, am I whiffing?)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Bob
What?!?!?!?!

Ever hear of Jerry Falwell and an organization called The Moral Majority? The evangelicals were kind of significant in the 1980 election. Not just in bouncing Jimmy Carter, but also in bouncing a bunch of longstanding Democratic senators, and making Howard Baker majority leader for a few years.

One could even argue that they helped Barry Goldwater seize control (temporarily) of the GOP in 1964.

(uh, am I whiffing?)

Well, now we're back to where I was before Greedy interrupted with his bimbo eruption.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Love your word choice. Parents have been begging the courts for years to please let them take care of their kid, saying that hubby wasn't doing what he should. Courts kept saying, no, go away, he's acting in her best interests. They keep trying. Nope. Now, hubby says, kill her, it's time. Parents STILL say, let us take care of her, please. Courts say, nope, hubby's her boss, not you. Go away while we kill your daughter.

I'm not arguing that she's coming back, nor that the fed action was right. Just that this has been a horrid example of merciless proper procedure over humanity.

And you leave the parents right out of your either/or choice.

(And seemingly forget that almost 50% of the Dems who voted, voted for the bill, too.)

There are no good choices for her -- death, or lingering in a vegetative state. Reasonable people can differ about which they'd choose, but reasonable people admit that it's a tough choice. By denigrating the moral choice that Michael Schiavo has made to, "kill her," you make clear how reasonable you are about it. It's not just a question of process. It's not a question of procedure over humanity. Many of us look at what the parents have done and have a hard time seeing it as humane. I have a hard time criticizing them, since they've lost and are again losing a daughter. So I'll save my criticism for all of those looking to score cheap points out of their tragedy.

I left the parents out because a respect for the sanctity of marriage means more than lip service -- it means that the husband has rights the parents don't. I also left out her friends and other relatives. They are surely hurt by what's happening to her, but that doesn't mean they get to substitute their beliefs for her husbands, either.

I can imagine a situation in which Schiavo's parents wanted to let her die, and her husband didn't, and the cultural conservatives side with him and trashed them. They don't care about the marriage here -- other things are more important.

And I haven't forgotten the Dems who voted for the bill. What do you want me to say about them?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Love your word choice.

****

Go away while we kill your daughter.

Love your word choice too, bucko.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not just a question of process. It's not a question of procedure over humanity.

Ty, do you or do you not, agree that this Schiavo case rightfully raises issues in the minds of reasonable persons? Cause I can see good points made on both sides of the issue. If you think anyone who goes beyond "she is married and husband is guardian" is a crazy wingnut, then fine. But if you don't, why not go ahead and tell us what YOU believe are reasonable points that reasonable minds could make on the side of "I question or am against the pulling of the tube."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
By denigrating the moral choice that Michael Schiavo has made to, "kill her," you make clear how reasonable you are about it.

I'm speaking of what this is doing to her parents. After spending years fighting them for control, he couldn't have the decency to relinquish that control when he decides there's no hope, to someone who does? Like he's protecting her from some pain, when all admit, and he advocates, that she can feel none? They're first told that they need to stay out of it because he's doing everything, and then to stay out of it because he's in charge? No, I'm not reasonable about this. This court outcome sucks, and not for any "legal" reason.

They don't care about the marriage here -- other things are more important.

Exactly right.

And I haven't forgotten the Dems who voted for the bill. What do you want me to say about them?

"About them"? Nothing. But maybe acknowledge, throughout your anti-Repub diatribes in this saga, the fact that it appears bipartisan.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think Michael Schiavo was willing.

I thought Fringy's comment was the funniest thing I had heard in a month. But your response may have topped it. Two Gold Stars.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I thought Fringy's comment was the funniest thing I had heard in a month. But your response may have topped it. Two Gold Stars.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Them's fightin' words, spankme.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Ty, do you or do you not, agree that this Schiavo case rightfully raises issues in the minds of reasonable persons? Cause I can see good points made on both sides of the issue. If you think anyone who goes beyond "she is married and husband is guardian" is a crazy wingnut, then fine. But if you don't, why not go ahead and tell us what YOU believe are reasonable points that reasonable minds could make on the side of "I question or am against the pulling of the tube."

Absolutely. But there is a difference between discussing the hard choices and trying to use the government to substitute your decision for (here) the husband's. Families work through these problems all the time. What makes this case unique is the way that the parents have mobilized political support to try to change things when the usual resolution did not please them. It's one thing to question pulling the tube. It's quite another to line up politicians to pass laws to overrule the judge who decided the tube should be pulled.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm speaking of what this is doing to her parents. After spending years fighting them for control, he couldn't have the decency to relinquish that control when he decides there's no hope, to someone who does? Like he's protecting her from some pain, when all admit, and he advocates, that she can feel none? They're first told that they need to stay out of it because he's doing everything, and then to stay out of it because he's in charge? No, I'm not reasonable about this. This court outcome sucks, and not for any "legal" reason.

To feel this way, you have to ignore that her husband thinks she would have wanted the tube to be pulled in these circumstances. You are sacrificing her interests, and his, for those of the parents.

"About them"? Nothing. But maybe acknowledge, throughout your anti-Repub diatribes in this saga, the fact that it appears bipartisan.

Give me a break. Democrats did not make this a statewide or national political issue. Republicans did. Bill Frist is running for President. Tom DeLay is running from his ethical problems. We all know what's going on here, and the fact that some Dems voted the way they did is not particularly material. They can answer for their votes, but the GOP has to answer for exploiting the tragedy and foisting it on the national stage.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In fairness, Bill Clinton is to blame for the rise of the evangelicals.

I thought it was Nixon who had the Southern Strategy and then Reagan who perfected it. Why is Bill Clinton at fault? As a loyal Republican, I think we have to take the blame for this one.