Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
. . . bilmore's assertion . . .

You have the wilfull reading comprehension of a doughnut.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Remember what we do. I can find a doc who will sign an affidavit saying anything I want. They have them on all sides. But, are you willing to interpose your own medical knowledge on this? If twenty docs signed saying her cc was fine, and twenty signed saying it was mush, would you automatically disbelieve the first group?

The thing is no one said it was fine and the cerebral cortex wasn't mush. Not one of those 17 experts touched the finding of the court that the cerbral cortex is basically liquid. The closest any of the "experts" would go on the cerebral cortex issue is that maybe there are other tests than catscans and MRIs.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But Article I also empowers each House to establish its own Rules, and these rules plainly may have the effect of preventing the majority from voting in favor of something. That surely was understood by the framers, since it was a robust feature of the English parliamentary tradition on which they drew.

I acknowledged that. I was just telling gatti his blog-provided analogy was completely inapt.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
You have the wilfull reading comprehension of a doughnut.

You have the critical reading facilities of a donut. We are a great match.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If a jury votes to convict and sentence to death a murderer, and the murderer gets a direct appeal, a collateral state appeal, and then an opportunity to prove in federal court that the evidence or trial procedure was flawed, and then gets to appeal for clemency to the governor, I don't care what 20 "experts" say--they've gotten plenty of chances. Schiavo's family has gotten far more chances than any murderer (of course, she wasn't a murderer). But the point is ultimately the same--at some point, a person has exhausted all reasonable avenues to persuade someone that they're right. They've failed to, and continuing to pursue it through any channel is undignified and disrespects the very person they're purporting to "save".

Whose right are you describing? Who argued on her behalf? Hubby wanted her dead, and parents were essentially told "no standing" at certain key points. Look, I agree at this point with these results - But there's two very different burdens here for the gov to meet.

And, "disrespect"? If she's truly brain dead, she's not going to care, and if she's not truly brain-dead, "disrespect" might be a small price to pay.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why on earth didn't you make an effort to keep him out of the no-guy area? And why didn't the girl take him out of that area if she was so into him?

1) Being in the no guy area was the best place to be. The thing I forgot to tell him is that the bouncers could be ignored. You didn't have to beat them up.

2) That is a Japanese cultural questions that would just take to long to explain. But a Japanese girl would never show that kind of iniative.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I actually do not blame the parents. I feel bad/sad for them. I was, as I said somewhere, reacting to bilmore's assertion that the husband is just in it for the money.

So I see. Sorry. Well, um, carry on then.

(note to self: STP, Not Bob, STP.)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore

And, "disrespect"? If she's truly brain dead, she's not going to care, and if she's not truly brain-dead, "disrespect" might be a small price to pay.

So you're indifferent, when you die, between a proper burial or cremation, and being left out by a dumpster?

BTW, her parents got a majority of the state legislature to pass a bill protecting her, which was found unconstitutional. I hardly think they've been denied standing--they've lost the argument that her husband, not they, are the first person to whom the court should look to discern her wishes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So I see. Sorry. Well, um, carry on then.

(note to self: STP, Not Bob, STP.)

Wouldn't have helped. That's not what I said.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So you're indifferent, when you die, between a proper burial or cremation, and being left out by a dumpster?

Me? Yeah, except for the impact it might have on my survivors. SHould we judge TS's case by the impact on her parents?

BTW, her parents got a majority of the state legislature to pass a bill protecting her, which was found unconstitutional. I hardly think they've been denied standing--they've lost the argument that her husband, not they, are the first person to whom the court should look to discern her wishes.

If she got 80,000 people to cheer for her at the Super Bowl, it would be touching, but, since they can have no effect on the results, I think her standing problem remains.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Did you see that? I thought it was total grandstanding.

eta:

• We're at war in Iraq, at war in Afghanistan, threatened by Al Qaeda, mired in budget deficits, faced with gargantuan liabilities in Social Security and Medicare, struggling to sustain the fighting capacity of our military forces--and what does this committee think warrants its urgent attention? Whether a handful of overpaid entertainers are taking forbidden pills to improve their performance.
  
  The hearing rests on two well-worn premises that ought to offend the conservative sensibilities of Republicans, who control this committee and Congress. The first is that absolutely everything is a federal responsibility. The second is that the private sector needs incessant guidance from government.

http://www.instapundit.com

I couldn't agree with you more. However, as Huey Long said, politics is entertainment.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
. . . politics is entertainment.

This is essentially our board motto.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I acknowledged that. I was just telling gatti his blog-provided analogy was completely inapt.

OK. I was just keeping things going while we wait for club to finish reading through Madison and Hamilton's thoughts on the subject.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Whose right are you describing? Who argued on her behalf? Hubby wanted her dead, and parents were essentially told "no standing" at certain key points. Look, I agree at this point with these results - But there's two very different burdens here for the gov to meet.

And, "disrespect"? If she's truly brain dead, she's not going to care, and if she's not truly brain-dead, "disrespect" might be a small price to pay.

(a) There was an actual trial, where the judge had to make specific findings of fact that it was, in fact, her wish not to be kept alive by a feeding/hydration tube. All sorts of people testified, including her parents (if memory serves).

(b) At some point in the proceedings, the court appointed a guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem's job was to act on her behalf.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Being in the no guy area was the best place to be. The thing I forgot to tell him is that the bouncers could be ignored. You didn't have to beat them up.

2) That is a Japanese cultural questions that would just take to long to explain. But a Japanese girl would never show that kind of iniative.

Why are you at a stupid bar that has a no-guy area but lets guys be in the no-guy area? JESUS that is fucked up.

I'm taking my fucked-up uses of scarce resources frustration out on you and your friend.