Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Gallop did a poll - All groups, DEMS, GOP and Independents, polled believe by healthy margins that she shold be permitted to die.

Even if you just consider Republicans in red states who call themselves conservative Christians and worship Tom DeLay as the second coming?

You've got to think of the core constituency.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Even if you just consider Republicans in red states who call themselves conservative Christians and worship Tom DeLay as the second coming?

You've got to think of the core constituency.

I realize that. It just seems odd to take this on when a strong majority of your party disagrees with it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

George Bush, 10/29/04:

• Unfortunately – unfortunately, my opponent, tonight, continued to say things he knows are not true – accusing our military of passing up a chance to get Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora. As the Commander in charge of that operation, Tommy Franks had said, it’s simply not the case.

Hank Chinaski, 10/20/04:

• General Franks takes my side on the Tora Bora issue. Does this mean I win?
  
  

  First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Associated Press, 3/23/05:

• A terror suspect held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, helped the al-Qaida leader escape his mountain hide-out at Tora Bora in 2001, according to a U.S. government document.
  
  The document, provided in response to a Freedom of Information request, says the unidentified detainee ''assisted in the escape of Osama bin Laden from Tora Bora.'' It is the first definitive statement from the Pentagon that bin Laden was at Tora Bora and evaded U.S. pursuers.

The lesson: Lying works!

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I realize that. It just seems odd to take this on when a strong majority of your party disagrees with it.

It's a chance to add to your right-to-life credentials with minimal political cost. Plus, DeLay needs something to distract everyone from his ethical lapses, and Bill Frist wants W's Christian bloc in '08.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Gallop did a poll - All groups, DEMS, GOP and Independents, polled believe by healthy margins that she shold be permitted to die.

Unfortunately, most people thought they were being asked about Barbara Streisand.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I realize that. It just seems odd to take this on when a strong majority of your party disagrees with it.

My guesses are as follows:

1.) Activists! Activists! in the Judicary.

2.) Distraction. 2 year anniversary of Iraq war. Social Security "reform" sort of sputtering. The House Majority Leader's small ethical problems that seem to mount daily. You're the only one as far as I can tell that's not been distracted by this whole thing.

3.) Most importantly. Pissed off religious right that was threatening to loudly bolt because ya'll were spending too much time on stuff like bankruptcy and social security and North Korea when you should have been saving the soul of the nation. They brought in the votes but weren't seeing no love. Ya gotta dance with those what brung you and all that.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My guesses are as follows:

1.) Activists! Activists! in the Judicary.

2.) Distraction. 2 year anniversary of Iraq war. Social Security "reform" sort of sputtering. The House Majority Leader's small ethical problems that seem to mount daily. You're the only one as far as I can tell that's not been distracted by this whole thing.

3.) Most importantly. Pissed off religious right that was threatening to loudly bolt because ya'll were spending too much time on stuff like bankruptcy and social security and North Korea when you should have been saving the soul of the nation. They brought in the votes but weren't seeing no love. Ya gotta dance with those what brung you and all that.

Does your analysis allow for room for people who are sincerely troubled by society's seemingly coarsening attitudes towards the sanctity of life? Who are maybe choosing the wrong case in which to speak up, but whose motives are something a bit more honorable than how you characterize them?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Unfortunately, most people thought they were being asked about Barbara Streisand.

Awww, did they not incwude oozums, ickle bunny boy? Maybe you should fax your officey-wofficy number to all the pollster-wollsters.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My guesses are as follows:

1.) Activists! Activists! in the Judicary.

2.) Distraction. 2 year anniversary of Iraq war. Social Security "reform" sort of sputtering. The House Majority Leader's small ethical problems that seem to mount daily. You're the only one as far as I can tell that's not been distracted by this whole thing.

3.) Most importantly. Pissed off religious right that was threatening to loudly bolt because ya'll were spending too much time on stuff like bankruptcy and social security and North Korea when you should have been saving the soul of the nation. They brought in the votes but weren't seeing no love. Ya gotta dance with those what brung you and all that.

I disagree on #2. The war is a positive for this administration right now, and no one gives a shit about Delay, other than you.

On #3, I'd say "stay home" instead of bolt. They're not going to the other side.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Does your analysis allow for room for people who are sincerely troubled by society's seemingly coarsening attitudes towards the sanctity of life? Who are maybe choosing the wrong case in which to speak up, but whose motives are something a bit more honorable than how you characterize them?

You know, I count myself among these, and I am a Dem who could support legislation that took a different tact than pure self-determination in plug-pulling.

But the circus over this poor woman and her family, and the way Congress (with little opposition from the Dems, by the way), the President, and brother Jeb have handled it, is just downright disgusting, opportunist, and unprincipled.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Does your analysis allow for room for people who are sincerely troubled by society's seemingly coarsening attitudes towards the sanctity of life? Who are maybe choosing the wrong case in which to speak up, but whose motives are something a bit more honorable than how you characterize them?

I'm troubled by it, but as long as we allow people to choose to refuse medical treatment, this is not an issue in this case.

[bilmore]

Here's a different take on the brain scan stuff that I hadn't seen before, written in a fairly well-respected doc's blog. He strongly disagrees with the current accepted line on the decomposed CC. Brain scans included so you can play along.

(If he's a quack, someone tell me. It's my impression that he's not.)

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codebl...dblogs_co.html

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Does your analysis allow for room for people who are sincerely troubled by society's seemingly coarsening attitudes towards the sanctity of life? Who are maybe choosing the wrong case in which to speak up, but whose motives are something a bit more honorable than how you characterize them?

Not really, because I was mainly looking at Congress and the President's actions. I don't really think of that level of politician as particularly moral.

ETA: And because the Dems in the House were merely told "vote your conscious." The Republican talking points aren't exaclty something to be proud of.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I did. What's your point?

That your questions were addressed repeatedly over the past few days, by, among others, RT and me.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does anyone know if the Full Faith & Credit Clause obliges the federal government to respect state judgments?

When you say gov't, you mean the judiciary, which has developed doctrines such as Rooker-Feldman, to do essentially that? Or do you mean Congress, which is all-powerful and is free to ignore almost any result a state reaches?