| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2005 05:37:12 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Here is another clip from Stewart on this case.
An exerpt:
Jon: All this strengthening of federal powers seems to go against the very republicans core principles doesn’t it?
Stephen: Jon, there are principles for every occasion. Yes its true republicans used to argue very much for states rights but that’s when they didn’t control the federal government. Now they do, so... there’s that. |
Interesting post, obviously deriding the Republicans for being inconsistent in the Federal rights vs. States rights approach to legislation.
Now, to show that it isn't just a Republican approach, we offer this:
Many opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment are now taking the "states rights" tack, but the most blatant hypocrisy in this regard has come from Senator John Kerry, the probable Democratic Party nominee for president. Kerry was one of only 14 senators to vote against the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. The central purpose of DOMA was to leave the issue to individual states, so that marriages in one state would not be imposed on all states by the federal government through the constitution's "full faith and credit" clause.
Senator Kerry now says he wants to leave the definition of marriage to individual states, which is precisely what the law he voted against does. These two positions are diametrically opposed to each other.
In June 2003, Kerry supported the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling, stating, "When the law is twisted to stigmatize one group of Americans, it diminishes the rights of all Americans."
Senator Kerry now says he wants to allow states such as Texas to deny gays the right to marry. This is the clear implication of his current "states rights" stance. Either something fundamentally changed in the last 8 months, or this is pure political posturing.
But aren't both sides being equally hypocritical here? Didn't conservatives and Republicans support the "states rights" ideal in Lawrence vs. Texas, and now they want to nationalize the definition of marriage? Well, no. It's not so simple. Regarding Lawrence, conservatives argued that the state legislature of Texas should decide Texas law, not the Supreme Court. No state legislature has voted to legalize gay marriage. Instead we have judicial fiat in Massachusetts, rogue anarchist local officials like the mayor of San Francisco ignoring clear state law which bans issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and the potential for the federal courts to impose gay marriage nationally. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 07:37:20 PM · #327 |
I had been bothered earlier by an earlier linking to the affidavit of a certain Carla Sauer Iyer and her allegations regarding Mr. Shiavo's treatment of Mrs. Shiavo at the hospice. The only information I could find on the web were links to the affidavit itself and condemnations of Mr. Shiavo based on that affidavit by the owners of those websites, but I couldn't find anything regarding the affidavit's effect at court. Well, I had a little time today and found what appears to be the court's decision. The court found Ms. Iyer's affidavit to be "incredible," which, in legal parlance, means not credible. In relevant part, which can be found at the bottom of page 5, it states:
"The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the very least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center, the Guardian of Person, the Gaurdian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler."
So, according to the judge, if Ms. Iyer's affidavit is to be trusted, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler were part of a cover-up to protect Mr. Shiavo's alleged reprehensible behavior toward their daughter. I also find that hard to believe. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 07:53:10 PM · #328 |
| Well, what I find hard to believe is that our laws are such than a mom and dad can't take their daughter back to care and love her when her husband has abanded her and spent most of the money awarded for her rehabilitation on lawyers who are tring to kill her. It just isn't right he should have this power. In business this is misappropiation of funds. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 07:56:59 PM · #329 |
| I read Ms. Iyer's affadavit and it doesn't sound like something that would come from a health care professional. She made it sound like the convalescent center accepted abusive behavior from Michael Schiavo towards the staff and that they were taking orders from him. Nothing could be further from the truth. They would not allow something like that as it would open them up to law suit. Any health care facility would have had M. Schaivo thrown out if he acted like that. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 08:02:40 PM · #330 |
| On the news this morning they had an "expert" on the case who said Michael Schiavo was awarded 1.5 million dollars when Terri first went into the hospital with her injuries..he sued for malpractice and won. Then the expert continued to say that Michael never mentioned anything about Terri's "wishes" not to be kept alive until well after the lawsuit and well into her hospital stay. The "expert" also mentioned the affadavid, he said that Michael Shiavo kept doctors from starting therapy on Terri. Hence why she's never made any progress. I'm using quotes around "expert" not because I doubt what he said but because I realize there are many sides to the story. However, his was very convincing. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 08:04:19 PM · #331 |
It could be that John Kerry voted against it because DOMA would have redefined marriage in the federal code as ONLY between a man and a woman. Anyway, when all else fails, and a legitimate answer can't be forthcoming to a valid question from the left, attack the democrats, whether it be Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc...
Originally posted by RonB:
Interesting post, obviously deriding the Republicans for being inconsistent in the Federal rights vs. States rights approach to legislation.
Now, to show that it isn't just a Republican approach, we offer this:
Many opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment are now taking the "states rights" tack, but the most blatant hypocrisy in this regard has come from Senator John Kerry, the probable Democratic Party nominee for president. Kerry was one of only 14 senators to vote against the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. The central purpose of DOMA was to leave the issue to individual states, so that marriages in one state would not be imposed on all states by the federal government through the constitution's "full faith and credit" clause.
Senator Kerry now says he wants to leave the definition of marriage to individual states, which is precisely what the law he voted against does. These two positions are diametrically opposed to each other.
In June 2003, Kerry supported the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling, stating, "When the law is twisted to stigmatize one group of Americans, it diminishes the rights of all Americans."
Senator Kerry now says he wants to allow states such as Texas to deny gays the right to marry. This is the clear implication of his current "states rights" stance. Either something fundamentally changed in the last 8 months, or this is pure political posturing.
But aren't both sides being equally hypocritical here? Didn't conservatives and Republicans support the "states rights" ideal in Lawrence vs. Texas, and now they want to nationalize the definition of marriage? Well, no. It's not so simple. Regarding Lawrence, conservatives argued that the state legislature of Texas should decide Texas law, not the Supreme Court. No state legislature has voted to legalize gay marriage. Instead we have judicial fiat in Massachusetts, rogue anarchist local officials like the mayor of San Francisco ignoring clear state law which bans issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and the potential for the federal courts to impose gay marriage nationally. |
Message edited by author 2005-03-27 21:07:53. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 10:56:05 PM · #332 |
I will never let my spouse starve to death. Would you?
Answer YES or NO only...... unless you have some "opinion" that you think the world NEEDS to hear.
Message edited by author 2005-03-27 23:07:38. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:02:01 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, what I find hard to believe is that our laws are such than a mom and dad can't take their daughter back to care and love her when her husband has abanded her and spent most of the money awarded for her rehabilitation on lawyers who are tring to kill her. |
Unfortunately for your position, that's the law. Firstly, the courts ruled, based on statements made by Mr. Shiavo and others, that Mrs. Shiavo would not have wanted to live in a persistent vegetative state. Secondly, it is legal in Florida to refuse medical treatment, including the medical treatment of an inserted feeding tube. Thirdly, it is consistent with Florida law that Mr. Shiavo has the right, as legal guardian, to start that process. That conclusion was reached years ago and every decision since then has supported that conclusion. After seven years, how has due process not been served in the Terri Shiavo case? |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:03:37 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
I will never let my spouce starve to death. Would you?
Answer YES or NO only...... unless you have some "opinion" that you think the world NEEDS to hear. |
What's a spouce? |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:08:22 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
I will never let my spouce starve to death. Would you?
Answer YES or NO only...... unless you have some "opinion" that you think the world NEEDS to hear. |
What's a spouce? |
Good job, and way to avoid the question. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:10:38 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Good job, and way to avoid the question. |
Way to avoid the question. What's a spouce?
Second question: how is your question relevant to the legality of the case?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:16:20 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Good job, and way to avoid the question. |
Way to avoid the question. What's a spouce?
Second question: how is your question relevant to the legality of the case? |
Bill, I am sorry spelling is not my strong suit. It is funny that you can not even answer the question without trying to put me down. It has nothing to do with the legality of the case. It was just a question that I knew people like you could not answer with one word. So far I am right. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:18:43 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Bill, I am sorry spelling is not my strong suit. It is funny that you can not even answer the question without trying to put me down. It has nothing to do with the legality of the case. It was just a question that I knew people like you could not answer with one word. So far I am right. |
Yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife? |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:19:46 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
[quote=dsmboostaholic] I will never let my spouce starve to death. Would you?
Answer YES or NO only...... unless you have some "opinion" that you think the world NEEDS to hear. |
How loaded is this question? Given the current options available, one would have no choice but to say yes, as there are no viable alternatives.
I can assure you however that my spouse and I will not be caught in this predicament, as we have tended to our affairs, filled out all the requisite documents, and named executors to ensure that our will is carried out.
You may do what you choose, but I for one would not wish to visit this dilemma on my family, nor do I wish for any government body to dictate any course of action to decide what is best for me.
Just a thought...
Ray
Message edited by author 2005-03-27 23:29:44. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:21:03 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Bill, I am sorry spelling is not my strong suit. It is funny that you can not even answer the question without trying to put me down. It has nothing to do with the legality of the case. It was just a question that I knew people like you could not answer with one word. So far I am right. |
Yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife? |
I am not married yet. What does that have to do with anything? |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:22:44 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
I am not married yet. What does that have to do with anything? |
Look up the definition of a "loaded question" and try to see how that applies to your original request. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:25:22 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
I am not married yet. What does that have to do with anything? |
Look up the definition of a "loaded question" and try to see how that applies to your original request. |
Why are you avoiding the original question? If you do not wish to answer then dont. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:27:07 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Bill, I am sorry spelling is not my strong suit. It is funny that you can not even answer the question without trying to put me down. It has nothing to do with the legality of the case. It was just a question that I knew people like you could not answer with one word. So far I am right. |
Yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife? |
I am not married yet. What does that have to do with anything? |
I think Ray (okay, AND Milo) made his point abundantly clear: that your initial question was loaded and dishonest because it did not deal with the circumstances in their full context. If you're really interested in finding out how those that hold an opposite position to yours think, then please read the full thread -- your concern has already been addressed in a candid and sensible manner.
Message edited by author 2005-03-27 23:30:25.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:27:47 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Why are you avoiding the original question? If you do not wish to answer then dont. |
Here. I've done your homework for you.
From here:
Loaded Question: a question with strong direction or dictation of the answer desired through the use of name calling or emotionally charged words.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:28:41 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
I think Ray made his point abundantly clear: that your initial question was loaded and dishonest because it did not deal with the circumstances in their full context. If you're really interested in finding out how those that hold an opposite position to your think, then please read the full thread -- your concern has already been addressed in a candid and sensible manner. |
Hey, man, credit where credit's due! |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:31:30 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Bill, I am sorry spelling is not my strong suit. It is funny that you can not even answer the question without trying to put me down. It has nothing to do with the legality of the case. It was just a question that I knew people like you could not answer with one word. So far I am right. |
Yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife? |
I am not married yet. What does that have to do with anything? |
I think Ray made his point abundantly clear: that your initial question was loaded and dishonest because it did not deal with the circumstances in their full context. If you're really interested in finding out how those that hold an opposite position to your think, then please read the full thread -- your concern has already been addressed in a candid and sensible manner. |
Go ahead and use all the circumstances!!! I read the thread, I understand the situation. Can you not answer the question? |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:32:07 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by bdobe:
I think Ray made his point abundantly clear: that your initial question was loaded and dishonest because it did not deal with the circumstances in their full context. If you're really interested in finding out how those that hold an opposite position to your think, then please read the full thread -- your concern has already been addressed in a candid and sensible manner. |
Hey, man, credit where credit's due! |
Okay, my bad, (jeesh) just amended my original post.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:35:17 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Okay, my bad, (jeesh) just amended my original post. |
Ha, no worries. It's just that I spent a whole thirty seconds of my precious time on the one sentence retort. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:35:20 PM · #349 |
| DSM, you are making this into a black/white issue, and it's not. I think after 15 years stopping the tube feeding may be the most humane thing to do. Most hospice professionals believe that witholding hydration and nutrition is an ethically viable solution for the terminally ill. |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 11:36:30 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by bdobe:
I think Ray made his point abundantly clear: that your initial question was loaded and dishonest because it did not deal with the circumstances in their full context. If you're really interested in finding out how those that hold an opposite position to your think, then please read the full thread -- your concern has already been addressed in a candid and sensible manner. |
Hey, man, credit where credit's due! |
I would like to inform the DPC audience that the comments alluded to by bdobe are not mine but rather those of milo655321....and it's all bdobe's fault.
Ray |
|
