Arab TV: How to Beat Your Wife

[quote name='bmulligan']PAD may indeed be a racist bastard, but I don't know him personally so I can't say I know for sure. But at least he's not an ignorant bastard like some on these boards who play race police and point fingers at everyone they FEEL is racist without any supporting evidence save their opinion. Then the banning brigade inevitably chimes in as well, furthering the lynch mob swelling of intolerence for anything not blessed as holy by the CAG PC elite force of doom.

Poting a news story about a cultural practice by MUSLIMS does not imply that PAD hates ARABS. Arabs are not necessarily muslim, nor are muslims necessarily Arabs. Those that can't distinguish this should be pointing their racist fingers at themselves. And enlightening us to the cultural diffences does not necessarily imply that PAD hates these people, but perhaps only the practice.

It is interesting to see those who claim to speak against hatred seem to be overflowing with it themselves...[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it's because this is the fiftieth time PAD has pointed out a distasteful fact about radical Muslims while saying nothing about the filthy hypocracies of the radical American religious right (Schaivo, Priest/Altar boys, make-believe creationist science, and banishing of independent political thought from baptist / evangelist / fundamentalist churches just to name a few)

By singling one race / religion for hypocritical behavior while ignoring the vile deeds of a similar segment of the population that shares his race / religion, PAD has qualified the accusations against him.
 
[quote name='camoor']Perhaps it's because this is the fiftieth time PAD has pointed out a distasteful fact about radical Muslims while saying nothing about the filthy hypocracies of the radical American religious right (Schaivo, Priest/Altar boys, make-believe creationist science, and banishing of independent political thought from baptist / evangelist / fundamentalist churches just to name a few)
[/QUOTE]

You liberals think you're all perfect. I often don't agree with the right on many social issues, but it's the left that sickens me so often.

Never mind that most conservatives I know (read: clergy in the Catholic Church) supported Schiavo's right to life and support the teaching of evolutionary science. (Hell, I was taught evolution in a parochial high school)
 
[quote name='Rich']You liberals think you're all perfect. I often don't agree with the right on many social issues, but it's the left that sickens me so often.

Never mind that most conservatives I know (read: clergy in the Catholic Church) supported Schiavo's right to life and support the teaching of evolutionary science. (Hell, I was taught evolution in a parochial high school)[/QUOTE]

Here's a poll that was done some months ago:

Sixty-two percent say they favor teaching creation science in addition to evolution in public schools; 26 percent oppose such teaching, the poll shows. Forty-three percent favor teaching creation science instead of evolution in public schools; 40 percent oppose the idea.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/

I live near boston and went to catholic school. Creationism was never even mentioned, neither in science classes or religion classes. It was just not something that was accepted at my school. But that's not the norm. New York (mentioned below your avatar) isn't quite as liberal, but it's more liberal than most of the states below it. And those conservatives are gaining quite a bit of ground lately.

Though I don't understand why you'd keep someone alive if they don't want to be.
 
[quote name='Rich']You liberals think you're all perfect. I often don't agree with the right on many social issues, but it's the left that sickens me so often.

Never mind that most conservatives I know (read: clergy in the Catholic Church) supported Schiavo's right to life and support the teaching of evolutionary science. (Hell, I was taught evolution in a parochial high school)[/QUOTE]

What sickens you? My position on the Schaivo case? Yes, I don't support useless suffering. Why don't you try and make a non-emotional case that doesn't rely solely on anecdotal evidence or the fact that your feelings were hurt.
 
[quote name='camoor']What sickens you? My position on the Schaivo case? Yes, I don't support useless suffering. Why don't you try and make a non-emotional case that doesn't rely solely on anecdotal evidence or the fact that your feelings were hurt.[/QUOTE]

You're aware Schiavo was allowed absolutely no rehabilitation and Michael threatened to have nurses fired just for putting towels in Terry's clenched fists? She was able to swallow and was even responding to outside stimulus and laughing. Three out of the five doctors were positive they could rehabilitate her out of the vegitative state. The entire case was about Michael Schiavo's attempt to get rid of her so he could continue living with the new wife he married years before.

Now if you'd like to legalize euthanasia, that's your owe perogative, but for someone that could clearly be helped and most likely wanted to live?
 
[quote name='Rich']You're aware Schiavo was allowed absolutely no rehabilitation and Michael threatened to have nurses fired just for putting towels in Terry's clenched fists? She was able to swallow and was even responding to outside stimulus and laughing. Three out of the five doctors were positive they could rehabilitate her out of the vegitative state. The entire case was about Michael Schiavo's attempt to get rid of her so he could continue living with the new wife he married years before.

Now if you'd like to legalize euthanasia, that's your owe perogative, but for someone that could clearly be helped and most likely wanted to live?[/QUOTE]

Her brain was melted. If she could be revitalized, where were those doctors in the last 15 years? This is pure propoganda, if you want to prove me wrong then cite your source on this 3 out of 5 doctor claim.
 
[quote name='Rich']You're aware Schiavo was allowed absolutely no rehabilitation and Michael threatened to have nurses fired just for putting towels in Terry's clenched fists? She was able to swallow and was even responding to outside stimulus and laughing. Three out of the five doctors were positive they could rehabilitate her out of the vegitative state. The entire case was about Michael Schiavo's attempt to get rid of her so he could continue living with the new wife he married years before.

Now if you'd like to legalize euthanasia, that's your owe perogative, but for someone that could clearly be helped and most likely wanted to live?[/QUOTE]

Umm.... the doctors who were taking care of her all said it was hopeless. And there was rehabilitation done at the beginning. All the doctors involved with her said she was not responding to outside stimulus, just appeared to be to those who did not know her condition. I think you need to stop reading propaganda sites.
 
[quote name='Rich']You're aware Schiavo was allowed absolutely no rehabilitation and Michael threatened to have nurses fired just for putting towels in Terry's clenched fists? She was able to swallow and was even responding to outside stimulus and laughing. Three out of the five doctors were positive they could rehabilitate her out of the vegitative state. The entire case was about Michael Schiavo's attempt to get rid of her so he could continue living with the new wife he married years before.

Now if you'd like to legalize euthanasia, that's your owe perogative, but for someone that could clearly be helped and most likely wanted to live?[/QUOTE]

-_-

What an asshat, you just made all of that up.
 
[quote name='camoor']Her brain was melted. If she could be revitalized, where were those doctors in the last 15 years? This is pure propoganda, if you want to prove me wrong then cite your source on this 3 out of 5 doctor claim.[/QUOTE]

Not allowed to work with Terri, as were Michael's orders.

Yes, Quackzilla, I made it up. You're a fucking tool and serve no purpose in this forum. Please leave us grown ups alone before you make the left wing look worse.

Over the past several weeks, it has come to my attention that significant debate has developed regarding the Terri Schiavo case. I have read various e-mail messages between Cathy Beal, Father Cekada, Father Dardis, Bishop Sanborn, and two letters appearing in the St. Gertrude the Great Church bulletin.

Let me begin by stating that I do not feel I have either the theological expertise (mine is limited to a minor in theology at Xavier University, a Jesuit college in Cincinnati) or moral authority to adequately address the theological aspects of this case. However, I do feel that my background as a neurologist with additional
specialized “fellowship” training in both neurological critical care (the subspecialty of neurology which deals with patients in comas and other critical neurological illnesses) and stroke, at the Cleveland Clinic and University of Cincinnati respectively, put me in a position to contribute some thoughts on the medical aspects of her case. Since completing medical school, I have over 15 years of experience training, practicing, and doing research in these areas. I have also had the opportunity as the result of my training and expertise in these areas to testify as an expert witness in such matters in medical malpractice and
pharmacological product liability lawsuits. I state the above not to be prideful, but to give you some tangible appreciation of the fact that, simply speaking, there are few people in the country with any better training background or practical expertise to understand in detail the scientific and medical aspects of the care of
patients like Terri Schiavo, whom I deal with on literally an almost daily basis.


I have reviewed the CT scan images of Terri Schiavo’s brain, watched the video of her taken by her family members, and also reviewed some summary comments/ excerpts regarding testimony given in deposition transcripts in her medical malpractice case. These again are all things I do on a very frequent basis. They are, to be frank, part of how I make my living. Having clarified the context in which I share my thoughts with you, I offer the following thoughts on this matter:



1) Terri Schiavo was NOT in a persistent vegetative state. The video taken of her clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that, at least at times, she is in a minimally conscious state and capable of interacting in a rudimentary way with her family and environment, which by definition excludes her from being medically
classified as comatose or in a persistent vegetative state.

2) The parts of Terri Schiavo’s brain which would allow her to perceive pain, here thalami, were clearly intact and visible on her CT scan images shown by her husband, Michael Schiavo, on national television (which I rarely watch, and by the way, I have never voluntarily watched “Oprah”)

3) The parts of Terri Schiavo’s brain which would allow her to perform complex cognitive function, or which would enable her to speak or understand speech, were clearly damaged.

4) The parts of Terri Schiavo’s brain which would allow her to swallow on her own were intact and, in fact, she did not suffer from medically significant dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). If she had, she would have been dead long ago from a condition known as aspiration pneumonia, an infection in the lungs which is the result of inhaling one’s own saliva.

5) The parts of Terri Schiavo’s brain which would allow her to move her arms and hands to feed or hydrate herself were clearly damaged.

6) The parts of Terri Schiavo’s brain which would allow her to experience discomfort and/or pain due to hunger were undamaged.

7) Other tests were available to better clarify the full extent of Terri Schiavo’s awareness or lack thereof, such as MRI scanning of her brain ( a more detailed picture of the brain than a CT (CAT) scan, EEG (a brainwave test), and evoked potential studies, which could decipher the extent to which she could hear or
see. These studies were refused by her husband, Michael Schiavo.

8) Terri Schiavo did not receive or require intravenous hydration or nutrition (so-called “TPN” or total parenteral nutrition.

9) Oral or stomach tube feeding via an “NG” (nasogastric tube) (a tube put down one’s throat to the stomach) or (more commonly) via a “G-tube” are routinely used to feed stroke victims, both temporarily and indefinitely in patients with stroke or other brain injuries who cannot feed themselves, whether due to
swallowing problems (which occur at least temporarily in most stroke victims). Such feeding and hydration are by modern medical standards considered as ordinary and unburdensome as eating and drinking on one’s own. Such feedings are, in fact, less expensive than what an average American spends on food and water, and are easily administered a few times a day by a family member, requiring much less effort than
cooking three meals a day. Terri Schiavo’s husband, parents, or siblings could easily administer such feedings. They are by no logical measure extraordinary or unduly burdensome by any reasonable standard (moral, medical, or economic).

10) Terri Schiavo could have been cared for at home with some home health care assistance at modest to at most moderate expense which would not by any common sense standard be deemed economically burdensome.

11) Terri Schiavo’s stomach and intestines were fully functional and capable of digesting food, even normal food if it was placed in her G-tube.

12) Terri Schiavo could have received sequential neurostimulation therapy to her throat muscles, which may have further improved her swallowing function to the point that she may have been able to chew or swallow at least some types of normal food and/or liquid if placed in her mouth. This and other similar available measures were denied to her by her husband.

13) Terri Schiavo’s brain, while severely damaged, had not “failed.” When someone’s brain “fails” i.e. is irreparably and totally damaged, they are, by definition, dead. While we can keep people alive when other vital organs such as the liver, kidneys, lungs, and even heart fail (via dialysis, organ transplantation, etc.), not
even 2005 era medicine can keep one alive if one’s brain has failed, because all other organs shut down within 5 days when this occurs, even when every maximal effort possible is made.

14) Terri Schiavo did not require, nor to the best of my knowledge did she ever receive intravenous nutrition (TPN), as was suggested in one of Father Cekada’s e-mail messages. Lifelong TPN, in contrast to tube feeds, is widely considered to be an extraordinary, burdensome, and expensive means of prolonging life, and are comparable to a respirator in that regard.

15) Terri Schiavo’s doctors did, in my opinion, probably commit malpractice by failing to order routine pre- procedure labs which would have disclosed severe electrolyte disturbances secondary to her bulimia.

16) Medical malpractice care awards/settlements are often grossly overinflated due to plaintiff’s attorneys hiring so-called “life care planners” who add up every conceivable convenience and treatment imaginable as “necessary” for the rest of the patient’s life. Their overestimates are typically further compounded by overestimating the patient’s life expectancy. Furthermore, all the money is paid in advance at today’s dollars, meaning the real money value of the award is much higher than the actual cost of such care in the vast majority of such cases. Terri Schiavo’s true care needs would certainly be far less than 750,000 or
1,000,000 dollars.

17) Attorneys representing patients and defendants in medical malpractice and other medicolegal matters often “shop around” for expert witnesses until they find experts who will give an opinion which suits their client’s needs. Thus, it is no surprise that George Felos, a well-connected euthanasia advocate, was able to find three physicians to testify that Mrs. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. In fairness, likewise it is no surprise that Terri Schiavo’s parents and siblings’ attorneys found expert witnesses who testified that she was not. One should certainly be suspect of the testimony of an expert witness who has spoken to the
Hemlock Society and concludes that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state.

18) Terri Schiavo died of dehydration, not starvation. Dehydration kills one much faster than starvation, barring the exception of extreme malnourishment, which was not the case here.

19) Terri Schiavo had an average life expectancy despite her brain injury, and would not have died were it not for her being deprived of nutrition and hydration. The proximate legal and medical cause of her death in my opinion was dehydration.

20) Laws regarding who has legal authority over health care decisions vary greatly by state. In Pennsylvania, for instance, children and siblings have as much right to make medical decisions as spouses, unless a pre-specified durable power of attorney designating one of them pre- exists the illness, or unless a living will was written by the patient. Other states require a durable power of attorney to be obtained no matter what. Ex- spouses, unless they are made durable power of attorney, have no legal right to make medical care decisions in any state.

21) Discontinuation of tube feeds or any form of food in general causes intense hunger pains for 2-3 days, which Terri Schiavo would have had the capacity to feel and suffer.

22) Death by dehydration occurs slowly, eventually causing hyperosmolarity often resulting in shriveling, cracking, and bleeding of the mucous membranes. This causes pain, nosebleeds, and as consciousness begins to wane, patients often begin aspirating blood from the nosebleeds, thickened, mucus or saliva, or both, causing aspiration pneumonitis. The aspiration along with accumulation of unsecreted organic acids results in progressive shortness of breath which further compounds the mucus membrane injury. Observing this struggling to breath and choking is often very disconcerting to family members as well as potentially painful and discomforting to the patient. This is why such patients are often administered morphine, which both relieves pain and suppresses this so- called “air hunger.” This is also I suspect why the judge in the Terri Schiavo case barred pictures or video of her being taken while she dehydrated and starved. Much as those who are pro- abortion most detest the one thing which actually shows people what happens in the case of abortion (pictures of aborted babies), euthanasia advocates do not want people to see the visible suffering which often occurs in cases like Terri Schiavo’s.

23) Cases like Terri Schiavo’s are, thankfully, rare. This is why when they occur and ultimately result in legal battles, we hear about them on the media. Collectively, even if one were to assume each and every one of them were to result in a lifetime of tube feedings, would be far less of an economic burden on society than a new football stadium.



Cases like Terri Schiavo’s understandably evoke a wide range of emotional responses and theological arguments. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church, theologians, and bioethicists in general lag far behind in their scientific understanding of the rapid and increasingly complex advances in medical care, which often occur literally even prior to our ever having the opportunity to contemplate their moral and theological implications. It is in the spirit of attempting to help simplify and clarify some of the medical aspects of the Schiavo case that I share the above thoughts with those who are inclined to read them. Finally, I would advise each and every person to prepare a living will as you would a normal will so that your families might be spared the pain and anguish of having to decide what care measures you would want should a grave or terminal illness occur. Had Terri Schiavo done so, her family and many others would have been spared from the bitter, divisive, and expensive series of legal battles which followed, which were the real extraordinary
burden to society in her case.


Respectfully,
James M. Gebel Jr., M.D., M.S., F.A.H.A.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- As Florida officials weigh whether or not to take Terri Schiavo into custody to investigate abuse and neglect allegations against her estranged husband, two leading nuerologists say Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state.[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dr. Joseph Fins of New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center reviewed Schiavo's medical records for the Florida Department of Children and Familes.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dr. Fins indicated Terri's condition amy have been misdiagnosed and that she was more likely in a state of minimal consciousness rather than a PVS patient as courts and many media outlets have alleged.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Such a minimally conscious condition is sometimes mistaken for a persistent vegetative state, Fins explained. However, Terri Schiavo is not PVS, he said.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I think now it can be argued that with the advent of minimally conscious state (as a diagnosis), that permanent vegetative state as a diagnosis becomes much more certain," Fins said in a telephone interview with the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, Dr. William Cheshire of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, also believed Terri is minimally conscious rather than a PVS patient.
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In addition to reviewing Terri's medical records, Fins watched videotape footage of her and observed her at her hospice, although he was not permitted by Michael Schiavo from examining her.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In a press conference about their analysis, Florida Governor Jeb Bush said the information lent credence to actions to take Terri in protective custody.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"This new information raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action," Bush said.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Florida officials have filed a petition with a state court seeking to take Terri into custody and the Florida DCF may do that with or without the court's permission.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dr. David Stevens, the president of the Christian Medical Association said that he agreed with the nuerologists' assessment.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Saying he also disagreed with the PVS diagnosis, Stevens said PVS is a "pejorative because it labels a person as being a vegetable -- taking away their humanity."[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It is also impossible to establish this diagnosis," Dr. Stevens explained. "Some patients who have come out of PVS have stated that their mind was in a prison but they knew what was going on around them."

[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
And according to the many nurses Michael fired, Terri was able to eat jello on her own.

[/font]Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years. Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.
 
I have reviewed the CT scan images of Terri Schiavo’s brain, watched the video of her taken by her family members, and also reviewed some summary comments/ excerpts regarding testimony given in deposition transcripts in her medical malpractice case. These again are all things I do on a very frequent basis. They are, to be frank, part of how I make my living. Having clarified the context in which I share my thoughts with you, I offer the following thoughts on this matter:

States right there, he didn't examine her. I think this is also the doctor who the parents dug up, his credibility was questionable from what I remember.

Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years. Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

cnsnews has clearly affected the way this was written. That aside, it really says very little. All it says is that a doctor can treat a patient without actually visiting them, and that he was suprised at how aware she appeared. Problem is, people in a persistent vegitative state often appear to respond, and act alert, even though they are not. It also just took snippets of what he said (not even quotes, which make this very suspect due to its source). If I took the stand and said "I was suprised at how aware she appeared, but from my experience and observation of her, I believe she is in a pvs", that summary still fits.

The middle one (finally figured out something actually was there), seems to have no credibility. It has an unreliable source (lifenews), a doctor who seems to be basing his opinion on his opposition to the use of the term "vegetable" (who is head of the christian medical assocition, very likely indicating a conflict of interests with his morals), and yet another doctor who never examined her.

I still want to know where the 3 out of 5 claim came from. Considering you only showed one doctor who examined her say anything that coould possibly be considered as support for keeping schiavo alive (a short summary of some of his words in a mountain of editorial), and you did nothing to indicate the amount of doctors who examined her and agreed with the prevelant diagnosis.

There have been people who emerged from a pvs, but not after even 5 years. Most of the time it's a matter of months if they do emerge. There still seems to be another issue, what is there to suggest schiavo would have thought any differently if she was minimally aware, the level of a 2 year old child or so (whatever the level argued by the parents was)?

Rich, get better sources. Your information will be more accurate and your arguments will be better and actually carry weight. All your sources seem to be in the "michael is the devil" category, take the word of any doctor who agrees as more valuable than those who actually examined her, and possibly take things out of context.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Rich, get better sources. Your information will be more accurate and your arguments will be better and actually carry weight. All your sources seem to be in the "michael is the devil" category, take the word of any doctor who agrees as more valuable than those who actually examined her, and possibly take things out of context.[/QUOTE]

That was nothing more than a very brief google search / terrisfight.org search. I really don't care enough to search for credible sources when I'd be searching through archives 2 months old. Besides, what for? To have Quackzilla comment?
 
[quote name='Rich']That was nothing more than a very brief google search / terrisfight.org search. I really don't care enough to search for credible sources when I'd be searching through archives 2 months old. Besides, what for? To have Quackzilla comment?[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you agree that your political position on this is a joke. For a minute I thought you were serious about Lifenews.com being a half-way legitimate source! And they say conservatives don't have a sense of humor. Good one Rich! :lol:
 
[quote name='Kayden']No.... Shes dead... no one fucking cares. Get over it. Its none of anyones business anyways.[/QUOTE]

Uh, yeah, I think it's our business when it sets a precedent for legal and forced euthanasia.


[quote name='camoor']Whatever he said[/quote]

Well, liberals will attack whatever source I use, so why bother using anything more than a 1st page google search? Any and every right leaning source is labelled as a joke by the left, as they run to Dan Rather and CBS news.

Here's some credible source material for you to pick apart, though:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/2/123129.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/28/134152.shtml


Hell, http://www.newsmax.com/hottopics/Terri_Schiavo.shtml
 
[quote name='camoor']So Rich, you're quoting me as "Whatever he said"?

You're a shining example of the classiest party in politics today (so says Tom Delay!)[/QUOTE]

Uh, you're taking that as an insult? It's too much of a pain to copy paste this shit in WYSIWYG mode, so I just wrote it myself.
Think of my "party" however you like, because last I checked, moderates had nothing.
 
[quote name='Rich']Uh, yeah, I think it's our business when it sets a precedent for legal and forced euthanasia.[/QUOTE]

Exactly my point. This shouldn't be a legal precident because it should be none of anyones fucking business. If a guy wants to let his wife die after she said she wanted to, he should be able to do what ever the hell he wants. If someone wants to die they should be able to.

However, if it was just a matter of it being important as being a legal precident, shouldn't the focus have been on the courtrooms and not camping out on their lawn? Any real importance this may have had was instantly trivialized when it became a media circus and you had asshat politicians trying to win favor by supporting it.
 
[quote name='Rich']Uh, yeah, I think it's our business when it sets a precedent for legal and forced euthanasia.[/quote]

Forced euthanasia? First off, she wasn't euthanized (that would have been more humane, even though she probably had no idea whatsoever that anything was happening), second the spouse has control in those situations, the parents were lucky a judge even listened to them. And, situations like this are dealt with, in the family, all the time. The only evidence available suggested that she did not want to live if in a state such as she was in, and therefore it could be argued that they were forcing her to live, not forcing her to die.




Well, liberals will attack whatever source I use, so why bother using anything more than a 1st page google search? Any and every right leaning source is labelled as a joke by the left, as they run to Dan Rather and CBS news.

Here's some credible source material for you to pick apart, though:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/2/123129.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/28/134152.shtml


Hell, http://www.newsmax.com/hottopics/Terri_Schiavo.shtml
[/QUOTE]

Newsmax, credible? Is this a joke or are you insane (I'm honestly asking this question)? Seriously, foxnews, cnn, bbc, msnbc, cbs, abc, reuters, npr, ap, gallop polls, time, wallstreet journal, newsweek, csmonitor (which continues to suprise me with sane reporting whenever I come across it) etc. are all sources that, while of varying degrees of accuracy, do have a reputation to uphold and some standards in place. I admit, newsmax isn't on par with the insane ramblings of david horowitz, but they're hardly something that should be relied on as actual evidence. And really do hope you were just being sarcastic with that. Though I've never seen anyone here linked to cbs, and I'm not sure if I've either watched cbs or gone on there website in the last few years.

Though I wonder why conservative get upset when liberals group them together, but just love throwing around the term "you liberals" whenever talking to a person believed to be liberal, as if they're all the same.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']

Though I wonder why conservative get upset when liberals group them together, but just love throwing around the term "you liberals" whenever talking to a person believed to be liberal, as if they're all the same.[/QUOTE]

I'm not conservative. Leaning to the right with reference to the board, definitely, but definitely not if you would have me give my stance on all the issues of the day. (though you could probably successfully make the i'm pro war argument) Quite honestly, I fall in the middle of almost all of these issues. (I'm definitely pro life for Schiavo and pro-euthanasia with written consent and reason beyond doubt. There was too much surroudning the Schiavo case and Michael being a douche bag for me to ever believe I'm getting the whole story to properly form an opinion on it.)

(And for the record, I know Carl Limbacher and I respect the man though his slant is a little ... irritating at times when talking to him.)

And with that, I'm dropping the Schiavo case-- it's just going to be a he says she says operation. Saying the spouse has control just doesn't cut it for me. Legality doesn't mean permissable.
 
[quote name='atreyue']This is in stark counterpoint to the widely accepted American practice of wives verbally beating their hubbies.

"if I come home from work and that lousy no-good bastard is sitting on the couch watching sports or playing a videogame, he better have mowed that damn lawn and no dishes in the sink either! Otherwise, he can look forward to some serious bitching, followed by phone calls to my girlfriends and female relatives calling him an idiot and a variety of other colorful names."

Then again, I'd find something to bitch about anyway, because I'll bitch all the time regardless of whether or not there is something legit to be bitching about.
[/QUOTE]

Corrected

and please, like I need to be told how to hit a bitch
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Corrected

and please, like I need to be told how to hit a bitch[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the improvement. Glad to hear your pimp hand is way strong.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Thank you for the improvement. Glad to hear your pimp hand is way strong.[/QUOTE]

like with all things, it just takes a little practice. The back of my hand has callouses.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, for someone who's middle of the road, you seem to hate liberals. To me, you can't be middle of the road and only attack one side.[/QUOTE]
The liberals are much further to the left here than the conservatives are to the right, so I've aligned myself closer to the right on CAG, leading to arguments with the left. If some neocon christian conservative was making threads, I'd be attacking that as well.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Though I wonder why conservative get upset when liberals group them together, but just love throwing around the term "you liberals" whenever talking to a person believed to be liberal, as if they're all the same.[/QUOTE]

That is hilarious. Respect my nuanced views - you freaking tie-died tree-hugging hippies!

I only lump fundamentalists together because they vote in a block, have the same illogical, bigoted, and ultimately dangerous interpretations of their sacred texts, and blink in unison.
 
[quote name='Rich']The liberals are much further to the left here than the conservatives are to the right, so I've aligned myself closer to the right on CAG, leading to arguments with the left. If some neocon christian conservative was making threads, I'd be attacking that as well.[/QUOTE]

So, who are there's more moderate conservatives you speak of? Is it PAD?

Though I can see you being a moderate (well, not from what I know, but I don't know enough about your opinions to judge that) if you were in alabama, or texas or something, but, from what I've seen, I can't see why you'd think you're a moderate when you live in new york (either state or city). I admit my personal experience in new york is minimal, as the only place in new york I've ever spent time in is buffalo, which seems more liberal than boston (I've also been to syracuse, utica, albany, rochester and a few towns in the middle of nowhere, but never more than a few hours), but I just can't see you as being a moderate anywhere in the northeast.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So, who are there's more moderate conservatives you speak of? Is it PAD?

Though I can see you being a moderate (well, not from what I know, but I don't know enough about your opinions to judge that) if you were in alabama, or texas or something, but, from what I've seen, I can't see why you'd think you're a moderate when you live in new york (either state or city). I admit my personal experience in new york is minimal, as the only place in new york I've ever spent time in is buffalo, which seems more liberal than boston (I've also been to syracuse, utica, albany, rochester and a few towns in the middle of nowhere, but never more than a few hours), but I just can't see you as being a moderate anywhere in the northeast.[/QUOTE]

What does where I live have to do with my political views?
I live in NYC, Staten Island to be exact, which is about the only conservative haven in the city. Boston was the most liberal place I've ever been to, but I love the place anyway.
 
[quote name='Rich']What does where I live have to do with my political views?
I live in NYC, Staten Island to be exact, which is about the only conservative haven in the city. Boston was the most liberal place I've ever been to, but I love the place anyway.[/QUOTE]

You said you're moderate, the political climate of where you live would normally effect not only your opinions, but where you place yourself on the political spectrum.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You said you're moderate, the political climate of where you live would normally effect not only your opinions, but where you place yourself on the political spectrum.[/QUOTE]

Not exactly, I'm currently looking for a new job and I not really going to care what the main political thought of a town is so much what my living conditions are, what will it do with my budget, etc. I would place politcal climate last on the list for choosing a career or even college, if I'd even place it on the list at all.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Not exactly, I'm currently looking for a new job and I not really going to care what the main political thought of a town is so much what my living conditions are, what will it do with my budget, etc. I would place politcal climate last on the list for choosing a career or even college, if I'd even place it on the list at all.[/QUOTE]

That's not what I said. I said the political climate of your area (at least where you grew up in) affects your opinions, and that the political climate around you affects where you place your opinions on the political spectrum (ie. an anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti gun control person could still pass as a democrat, or moderate/ centre left, in some areas, but not boston). I never said it effected where you decided to live or anything like that.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']That's not what I said. I said the political climate of your area (at least where you grew up in) affects your opinions, and that the political climate around you affects where you place your opinions on the political spectrum (ie. an anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti gun control person could still pass as a democrat, or moderate/ centre left, in some areas, but not boston). I never said it effected where you decided to live or anything like that.[/QUOTE]

Sorry guess I'm misinterpreting, I took it to mean that where you live reflects someone's politcal opinions, which it doesn't IMO. I can live any place and it won't really affect my political positions or opinions. Then again, I don't have any firm political position really, I jugde by what I see a politican do, not his or her party. Therefore, I don't really consider where I live to have much of an effect on my political opinions exactly.

Of course not everyone will do that, but still I think there's probably a lot of conservatives living in cities like Boston, their side may not win many elections, but I doubt that living in Boston makes them have more liberal opinions on politics and vice versa. But placing it in the context of your upbringing does make much more sense (again I'm a bit of anomaly there too).
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Sorry guess I'm misinterpreting, I took it to mean that where you live reflects someone's politcal opinions, which it doesn't IMO. I can live any place and it won't really affect my political positions or opinions. [/QUOTE]

Perhaps that is true for you, but do you really think that one day the majority of california woke up and decided to go hollywood-style liberal? Or that one day Texas sold all their hybird fuel-saving cars and started buying guns and forming crazy christian cults because they suddenly went conservative?

Places attract people because of their political views.
 
[quote name='camoor']Perhaps that is true for you, but do you really think that one day the majority of california woke up and decided to go hollywood-style liberal? Or that one day Texas sold all their hybird fuel-saving cars and started buying guns and forming crazy christian cults because they suddenly went conservative?

Places attract people because of their political views.[/QUOTE]

No (since when did Texas have that many fuel saving cars anyways?), I think I lot of that is due to tradition and upbringing like I acknowledged, but I don't think the majority of people (I'm sure some have their reasons, actual policitans for one) when they move for a career, college, etc aren't looking at a town because it's a liberal or conservative place to live. I think most people have more important concerns and if they don't I personally think they need to rearrange their priorities. Also keep in mind lots of people never leave the town they were raised in. Maybe you're right, I never meant to pass this off as fact either, just my opinion and observations.
 
[quote name='camoor']Perhaps that is true for you, but do you really think that one day the majority of california woke up and decided to go hollywood-style liberal? Or that one day Texas sold all their hybird fuel-saving cars and started buying guns and forming crazy christian cults because they suddenly went conservative?

Places attract people because of their political views.[/QUOTE]

Well, the environment, community and family they grew up in all play a major role in shaping their opinions and character. The environment one currently finds themselves in also plays a role, but probably lesser (ie. altering the way stories are worded on tv and in the newspaper will change public opinion, and an individuals opinions are often influenced by their friends and significant other).

The political views of an area do attract some people (ie. if you're gay where would you want to live, alabama or massachusetts?), and do sometimes influence the college people attend (ie. someone who is very politically involved and liberal probably would feel much more at home and accepted in a more liberal environment) and, if staying at the school, sometimes remain in the area if they like it. But, for the most part, the political environment (assuming it's not discriminatory) has little effect on where people move. Large urban areas and coastal areas, places where people come into more contact with immigrants and different cultures, tend to be more liberal, partly because (obviously I'm oversimplifying it) those things produce a more liberal culture.

(long rant coming that no one will read)

Though, me personally, the political views probably would have an effect on me, at least at this point in my life. I like living in places with a lot of cultural diversity (the main reason I like toronto, which is the worlds most culturally diverse city), I look down on people who express anti immigrant, anti gay and otherwise bigotted views (I also look down on hunters), and you really can't get along with people you don't respect, I've tried it it just doesn't work. I am very openly political, you usually don't have to talk to me very long to get an idea of what I think even if I'm not directly saying anything. When I do papers in school, I, whenever possible, pick politicaly relevant and sensitive topics (palestine, abortion, safe sex/condom use and homosexuality are the most recent ones I did). I really don't understand how to behave in environments where I cannot express myself like that, and may run into problems (as I did in high school a few times, and talking to friends many colleges are run more like my old high school than the college I now attend). Essentially I understand how to control and censor myself in certain environments, such as work, but I can't seem to transfer that over to other areas, such as social life and school. I enjoy political arguments, often provoke them, but I also like to be able to go back to a group of people who relatively agree with me (I never seem to find anyone who agrees with me on most things, probably the reason I don't get along with most political groups and usually end up leaving after a few meetings, I usually find them idealistic and blind). I get along great with opposite minded people, as long as we both respect each others opinions, but I like the liberal environment. I like going to live music concerts and agreeing with the messages in their songs, I like reading the flyers around cities and the graffitti. I like attending and watching (though not really participating) in protests I agree with (I like watching anti gay rallys, I saw fred phelps speak in boston outside the DNC, but half the fun was making fun of them with other people who were also watching, and watching them get into shouting matches, I would not enjoy it with a position I opposed being cheered for by the crowd). I wouldn't enjoy the majority of my political conversations to be arguments, insults, being considered crazy, as it might be in certains areas. I like walking down the street and seeing a crazy old guy waving a bush sign screaming "liberals are ruining the country, gays are going to hell, nuke iraq!" and being able to turn to the woman next to me and have a reasonable expectation that we both think he's a loser and the funniest thing we've seen all day. And I like being able to bring up birth control, abortion, gay rights etc. and knowing that, agree with me or not, the persons heard it before and isn't going to look at me like I have two heads. And I also like being able to walk down the street in a pentacle (it's symbolic for me, when I wear it it isn't for religious purposes) and have people either ignore me, an occasional blessed be (a greeting used among wiccans), or ask me if I'm wiccan, and not the "get behind thee satan" response I could expect in some areas.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']

(long rant coming that no one will read)

[/QUOTE]

You weren't kidding! You should just start new paragraphs every so often for those of us who are afraid of reading. :lol:
 
bread's done
Back
Top