Ugh. Without taking sides in this debate, do Terri's parents have ANY legal rights over her custody. The courts have ruled against them time and time again.

I really don't think so. I doubt they could get the religion card to work now after it already failed in the feeding tube debacle.

 

I'm still waiting for someone in the OMG LIBERAL MEDIA to point out that as governor of Texas, Bush signed a law allowing life support to be pulled if the patient couldn't pay for it regardless of the family's wishes.

 

I guess you could say he was against the Culture of Life before was for it.

 

Good thing we didn't elect the flip-flopper, eh?

You are forgetting that Terri Schivao is the only brain dead vegetable that our government actually gives a shit about. That being said, I still don't understand how this specfic case snowballed into headline news. I'm sure there have been hundreds of similiar situations over the years.

The abolitionist movement was a Republican intiative.

As was the reform of the meat-packing industry, tougher laws on trusts and monopolies and conservation. Oh yeah, Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican. But here is where you have to know your history...

 

The Republican and Democrat parties don't mean the same thing that they meant 100 years ago and prior to. African-Americans were a group that traditionally voted Republican. Why? Because the Republicans were carrying on about the national govt. taking precedence over the states, monitoring big business, working with unions to help improve the conditions of the workers, helping to integrate African-Americans into the olitical process, etc. Teddy was the first President to entertain an African-American in the White House (W.E.B. DuBois). Then Teddy decided not to tun for re-election in 1908. He gave a vote of confidence to Taft but Taft reneged on many of the progressive programs and initiatives created during Teddy's Presidency. Teddy then creates the Bull Mooose Party in protest. The Republican vote was split in the election of 1912 and we see the seeds of the current Republican party of staunch conservatism.

 

Then we see the Great Depression and FDR is elected President and puts Americans to work... including African-Americans. Thus, Africans who used to vote for the party of Lincoln now vote for the party of FDR. Since African-Americans were now part of the base for the Dems, civil rights becomes an issue championed by the left. You have big govt. racist southerners (Dixiecrats) oppose the shift and jump to the Republican party (Strom Thurmond being the most prominent). This is a really brief and quick bullet point review but you get the gist. All of these movements, regardless of the title of the political party (which changes meaning over time) are liberal platforms.

 

 

I frankly, would look at the War in Iraq as a progressive step. It was a proactive move towards freedom in the world and preventing possible terrorist strikes. And that is how I have always looked at it above and beyond WMDs or lack there of.

No, it is a war of imperialism but that is for another thread.

 

Take a look at the "prgressive" agenda now. Raising taxes across the board, which in effect hurts the vast, vast majority of Americans in order to redistribute that money to the poor, which makes them dependent upon it and does nothign to help them long term. It is a band-aid that hurts far more people than it helps. Where is the forward progression?

Bullshit. It is better to raise taxes to sustain social programs that HELP the un-rich than to pat them on the back and say fend for yourself after hundreds of years of class oppression. You're a social liberal? Where?

 

And more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 64.

This was more of a regional issue (refer to Dixiecrats from above). Democrats and Republicans from the South were united in their opposition. Northerners and select Westerners were supportive regardless of political affiliation.

 

Ideas like Social Security reform are progressive steps to stave off the eventual death of the system.

Wrong. You completely ignored the fact that the true problem is the politicans dipping their hands in the surplus when it should be protected.

 

Liberals have done nothing but try to prtect the status quo, which according to them is something that only convervatives do.

No, the status quo that needs to be preserved is the preservation of past progressive victories in the courts and the legislature... like Social Security... like the stricter gun laws that the right have tried to reduce to repay their debt to the NRA... or the preservation of stricter environmental protection and higher standards for polluting businesses that the Bush Admin has deemed unimportant.

 

The Social Security system is, according to just about every expert I seen or read about 40 years from falling apart. The President has proposed an idea that would potentially help to stop that.

1. Who are your sources?

2. Would it be in danger if the President couldn't fund his budget off of the surplus?

3. The President's plan is to absolve the rich of a system they clearly have no use for.

 

I don't remember the names of the groups. I pay little attention to anybody who refers to himself as an "activist". That term generally translates to meaning "full of shit and willing to lie their asses off to get what they want" and that goes for both sides.

Which is funny since you are the one who claimed that pro-choice groups were screaming their agenda and politicizing it where as far as I have seen, they have stayed mum.

 

That was my point.

I couldn't tell.

 

How many people get more than they pay in? What percentage?

I'll have to look at the stats when I get to school on Tuesday.

 

It is an unfair system

To the rich who have no need for it. To the millions of retirees who need it to survive, it works just fine.

 

I also find it funny when a neocon claims something is unfair. Since when did a neocon ever give a shit about a fair playing field?

 

Unemployment payments are not fincanced by social security. These evil businesses that you speak off are the ones who pay that tax.

Actually, they only pay a portion and recieve tax breaks as well. Companies don't layoff thousands of people when they actually have to assume the responsibility of still paying them.

 

But, one does not have a chocie as to how much the government steals from them, thus reducing their ability to have private accounts.

Really, man, I didn't know the liberal govt. was stealing from the poor. I guess the big issue you oppose is taxes. Kinda like the guy who bitches about the shitty condition of the roads he drives on but wishes he didn;t pay taxes to sustain those same roads.

 

George Bush has spent money like a drunken sailor during his administration. 

On all of the wrong things.

 

He panders to the right on social issues and the left on fiscal issues, when I think the opposite will probably help the country more.

Bullshit. Bush panders to the left for nothing. He may spend like a liberal but he forgot how to properly pay for his debts... Oh yeah, the Social Security surplus.

 

Most Americans pay into the social security system becasause they have no choice in the matter. If they didn't they would go to prison.

Once again, you ignored the point of that quote box... Why can't politicians keep their hands off of the Social Security surplus?

 

As for you reply, Soical Security doesn't operate on a pay or go to prison basis. For instance, at my school district, we pay into Social Security. If I was so opposed to paying for the program, I could apply at my wife's district that does NOT pay into the system. We have choices. We can choose where we work. You choose to ignore this.

 

am a smoker as well and cannot smoke in any restaurant in the state of MA or any public building for that matter or any private building that is big enough that the government deems it public (a privately owned office building is not allowed to permit smoking). Lexington (of American Revolution fame) was amongst the first to institute such a ban. They were going to put it up for a vote,but the Board of Health, fearing a loss just banned it. No vote, no democracy, no freedom. So, in Lexington, after the ban was in place a company noticed that many of their smoking employees were outside getting rained on or freezing so they built them a small plexi-glass structure (like some bus stops look). The town swept in and deemed that structure, built specifically for smokers a public building and as such banned smoking in it. This is a left wing agenda and they don't give a shit about demoncracy, freedom, or rights, they just want what they want and that's that.

 

The effects of second hand smoke that one would inhale while out to eat, especially if they are in an area where smoking is not permitted is tiny. Now, if I were to sit in a small enclosed room and blow smokein your face that would be different. But a restaurant the size of Outback Steakhouse people would have no trouble. And, if one does not wish to inhale second hand smoke tha they are free to exercise their right to not go to that restaurant. If enough people really cared about the issue then restaurants with smoking sections would have gone out of business years ago. This is not about public health, this is about (mostly) liberals frowning upon smoking and trying to control other people's lives.

Please, show me the study not paid for by Big tobacco or Republican think-tanks that says the damage of second-hand smoke is minimal in enclosed spaces. You have the right to smoke in your car, your house, the sidewalk, the parking lot, etc.

and it isn't as simple as not having a choice. If you are upset about the ban on smoking, you have a choice to contact your representative or whoever and complain to them. If the people who passed these initiatives were elected officials then you have the choice of voting against them come re-election. It's called representative govt. It isn't some left-wing conspiracy against smokers. Do you want to debate th issue of health care next?

 

I'm talking about a state's right to choose whether or not to execute criminals.

Apples and oranges.

 

I agree that the system is sexist but the plain and simple fact is that minorities (African Americans in particular) commit far more murders than do white people so it would follow that they would be executed more often

Not quite. Let me get the stats on this too. This is an issue I have strong thoughts on and have the stats and resources so I want to be accurate.

 

I didn't know how old your daughter was and figured the parental lock was to keep her from watching it. Many groups have tried to run them off the air and the Right is perhaps more guilty of this type of bullshit.

What I deem appropriate for my family is no one's business as it is no one's business how a Xian family determines what is approproate for their children.

 

What choice do I have as far as the level at which I am taxed?

You choose your occupation. You choose what field you enter in. Your career choice will probably determine what tax bracket you are in. I chose to teach full well knowing that I would be in a lower tax bracket.

 

Yes, although I have yet to see a "Radical theological agenda" being pushed.

Oh, I forgot that this appeal to save Shiavo's life was to appease the Xian right or that justification for the war was religious-based according to your President.

 

Ok, then point to the section of the Constitution that says that Abortion should be or should not be legal? The Supreme Court couldn't do that so they made a bunch of shit up and came up with the "penumbra (sp?) of rights". Read the document and then read the case. They have nearly no similarities.

I know the Constitution. I'll have to read the actual opinions of the judges who heard the case. for someone who is pro-choice, you sure are a staunch defender of the pro-life group. Or are you just playing devil's advocate.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this but yes Dan Rather is just as left as Rush is right. Rush is atleast honest about his bias.

Liberal Dan Rather

 

Who? Al Franken?

No, David Brock... but he isn't the only one.

 

I never claimed that CNN or any of the other stations didn't broadast news. They all do, but they all put their spin on it. It is what it is.

And all are controlled by big business.

 

Are you really trying to tell me that not a single person in opposition to the plan has been on? I have seen several on Fox News.

Who? I would think those would be the ones flooding liberal networks like CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN etc. Do you even watch those channels... or just Fox News?

 

Well.... They are Americans.

And they are not fighting for my freedom. It is an inaccurate statement. We already have freedom here in America.

 

Bush gets attacked all the time and so do his cabinet members.

Attacked or criticized? There is a huge difference.

 

Ashcroft was absolutely vilified by the media as a whole.

As he should considering his civil rights record in his own state and the inability to beat a dead man in an election.

 

What travesty? Vouchers sound like a pretty good idea to me. I don't know what NCLB is.

NCLB is No Child Left Behind... or No Child Left Untested... or Every Child Left Behind.. or Nickel-B.

 

Vouchers are a horrible idea. A way to funnel public govt. money into PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS Institutions.

 

 

QUOTE 

The deregulation of big business? Fuck no, the media IS big business. 

 

 

 

They are hypocrites.

??? They are hypocritical for not criticizing the deregulation of big business when they are big business?

 

Ted Turner is as corporate as corporate can get.

And once again is not affiliated with CNN anymore. Who is this liberal guy who controls the network now that you spoke of?

 

NOW, NAACP, Rainbow PUSH, Sharpton's goup, etc...

Ok, maybe I should have been more clear... I am not talking about pundits or opinions. I am talking about who the networks turn to get their "researched" stats.

 

It's not really about openly pushing the liberal platform as it about skewing the news and the verbiage towards that platform. It is very hard to be objective, especially if oyu have deeply seeded political beliefs and many people have a massive abiltity to delude themselves.

Damn, you just desribed the entire neocon population.

 

 

I'd be willing to be that O]Reily beleives that he is an independant, that Rather believes that he calls it right down teh middle, and so on.

O'Reilly has already been proven to be a registered Republican. If he says he is an Independent.. he is telling a bold-faced lie.

 

Refer to Rather above.

 

I don't recall citing any study, slick.

Where the hell do you think the term "liberal media" entered into the public consciousness? Outspoken complaints by Republican think tanks based on a study done in the 1970s. It is the whole basis for this debate.

 

Fox has plenty of liberal quacks on their station.

I'm sure those people don't want to be referred to as liberal quacks and are offended you are calling them a term they don't wish to be called.

 

A bunch of stuff about Fox News and it being all Fair and Balanced and stuff

Colmes is not a liberal.

 

I think John Stewart said it best when shows like Crossfire (this includes any half-assed debate forum like hannity & Colmes, etc.) do nothing but encourage shouting and offer absolutely zero solutions.

 

I think it is horseshit as well. But it is what it is. They all have their bias and one is free to chose what they want to or don't want to watch. I have trouble with people who wish to abolish Fox Nes because it doesn't present the news the way they want and have nothing to say about the rest who do.

I have a problem with people calling Fox news news at all... it certainly isn't journalism.

 

Fox News proved that that is where the audience is. Liberals watch ABC, CBS, and NBC for their news. Convservatives go to cable.

This is way too generalized.

 

CNN seems to be the only one who keeps running namby pamby liberal after liberal out there.

I'm sure those people don't want to be referred to as namby pamby liberals and are offended you are calling them a term they don't wish to be called.

 

I was never really split on it and frankly I'm very sick of hearing about it.

When I was split, I didn't know 1/4 of the story.

 

I think we can both probably agree that the Bill Russell-led Celtics were the greatest basketball team ever. Right?

The abolitionist movement was a Republican intiative.

As was the reform of the meat-packing industry, tougher laws on trusts and monopolies and conservation. Oh yeah, Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican. But here is where you have to know your history...

 

The Republican and Democrat parties don't mean the same thing that they meant 100 years ago and prior to. African-Americans were a group that traditionally voted Republican. Why? Because the Republicans were carrying on about the national govt. taking precedence over the states, monitoring big business, working with unions to help improve the conditions of the workers, helping to integrate African-Americans into the olitical process, etc. Teddy was the first President to entertain an African-American in the White House (W.E.B. DuBois). Then Teddy decided not to tun for re-election in 1908. He gave a vote of confidence to Taft but Taft reneged on many of the progressive programs and initiatives created during Teddy's Presidency. Teddy then creates the Bull Mooose Party in protest. The Republican vote was split in the election of 1912 and we see the seeds of the current Republican party of staunch conservatism.

 

Then we see the Great Depression and FDR is elected President and puts Americans to work... including African-Americans. Thus, Africans who used to vote for the party of Lincoln now vote for the party of FDR. Since African-Americans were now part of the base for the Dems, civil rights becomes an issue championed by the left. You have big govt. racist southerners (Dixiecrats) oppose the shift and jump to the Republican party (Strom Thurmond being the most prominent). This is a really brief and quick bullet point review but you get the gist. All of these movements, regardless of the title of the political party (which changes meaning over time) are liberal platforms.

 

 

I frankly, would look at the War in Iraq as a progressive step. It was a proactive move towards freedom in the world and preventing possible terrorist strikes. And that is how I have always looked at it above and beyond WMDs or lack there of.

No, it is a war of imperialism but that is for another thread.

 

Take a look at the "prgressive" agenda now. Raising taxes across the board, which in effect hurts the vast, vast majority of Americans in order to redistribute that money to the poor, which makes them dependent upon it and does nothign to help them long term. It is a band-aid that hurts far more people than it helps. Where is the forward progression?

Bullshit. It is better to raise taxes to sustain social programs that HELP the un-rich than to pat them on the back and say fend for yourself after hundreds of years of class oppression. You're a social liberal? Where?

 

And more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 64.

This was more of a regional issue (refer to Dixiecrats from above). Democrats and Republicans from the South were united in their opposition. Northerners and select Westerners were supportive regardless of political affiliation.

 

Ideas like Social Security reform are progressive steps to stave off the eventual death of the system.

Wrong. You completely ignored the fact that the true problem is the politicans dipping their hands in the surplus when it should be protected.

 

Liberals have done nothing but try to prtect the status quo, which according to them is something that only convervatives do.

No, the status quo that needs to be preserved is the preservation of past progressive victories in the courts and the legislature... like Social Security... like the stricter gun laws that the right have tried to reduce to repay their debt to the NRA... or the preservation of stricter environmental protection and higher standards for polluting businesses that the Bush Admin has deemed unimportant.

 

The Social Security system is, according to just about every expert I seen or read about 40 years from falling apart. The President has proposed an idea that would potentially help to stop that.

1. Who are your sources?

2. Would it be in danger if the President couldn't fund his budget off of the surplus?

3. The President's plan is to absolve the rich of a system they clearly have no use for.

 

I don't remember the names of the groups. I pay little attention to anybody who refers to himself as an "activist". That term generally translates to meaning "full of shit and willing to lie their asses off to get what they want" and that goes for both sides.

Which is funny since you are the one who claimed that pro-choice groups were screaming their agenda and politicizing it where as far as I have seen, they have stayed mum.

 

That was my point.

I couldn't tell.

 

How many people get more than they pay in? What percentage?

I'll have to look at the stats when I get to school on Tuesday.

 

It is an unfair system

To the rich who have no need for it. To the millions of retirees who need it to survive, it works just fine.

 

I also find it funny when a neocon claims something is unfair. Since when did a neocon ever give a shit about a fair playing field?

 

Unemployment payments are not fincanced by social security. These evil businesses that you speak off are the ones who pay that tax.

Actually, they only pay a portion and recieve tax breaks as well. Companies don't layoff thousands of people when they actually have to assume the responsibility of still paying them.

 

But, one does not have a chocie as to how much the government steals from them, thus reducing their ability to have private accounts.

Really, man, I didn't know the liberal govt. was stealing from the poor. I guess the big issue you oppose is taxes. Kinda like the guy who bitches about the shitty condition of the roads he drives on but wishes he didn;t pay taxes to sustain those same roads.

 

George Bush has spent money like a drunken sailor during his administration.?

On all of the wrong things.

 

He panders to the right on social issues and the left on fiscal issues, when I think the opposite will probably help the country more.

Bullshit. Bush panders to the left for nothing. He may spend like a liberal but he forgot how to properly pay for his debts... Oh yeah, the Social Security surplus.

 

Most Americans pay into the social security system becasause they have no choice in the matter. If they didn't they would go to prison.

Once again, you ignored the point of that quote box... Why can't politicians keep their hands off of the Social Security surplus?

 

As for you reply, Soical Security doesn't operate on a pay or go to prison basis. For instance, at my school district, we pay into Social Security. If I was so opposed to paying for the program, I could apply at my wife's district that does NOT pay into the system. We have choices. We can choose where we work. You choose to ignore this.

 

am a smoker as well and cannot smoke in any restaurant in the state of MA or any public building for that matter or any private building that is big enough that the government deems it public (a privately owned office building is not allowed to permit smoking). Lexington (of American Revolution fame) was amongst the first to institute such a ban. They were going to put it up for a vote,but the Board of Health, fearing a loss just banned it. No vote, no democracy, no freedom. So, in Lexington, after the ban was in place a company noticed that many of their smoking employees were outside getting rained on or freezing so they built them a small plexi-glass structure (like some bus stops look). The town swept in and deemed that structure, built specifically for smokers a public building and as such banned smoking in it. This is a left wing agenda and they don't give a shit about demoncracy, freedom, or rights, they just want what they want and that's that.

 

The effects of second hand smoke that one would inhale while out to eat, especially if they are in an area where smoking is not permitted is tiny. Now, if I were to sit in a small enclosed room and blow smokein your face that would be different. But a restaurant the size of Outback Steakhouse people would have no trouble. And, if one does not wish to inhale second hand smoke tha they are free to exercise their right to not go to that restaurant. If enough people really cared about the issue then restaurants with smoking sections would have gone out of business years ago. This is not about public health, this is about (mostly) liberals frowning upon smoking and trying to control other people's lives.

Please, show me the study not paid for by Big tobacco or Republican think-tanks that says the damage of second-hand smoke is minimal in enclosed spaces. You have the right to smoke in your car, your house, the sidewalk, the parking lot, etc.

and it isn't as simple as not having a choice. If you are upset about the ban on smoking, you have a choice to contact your representative or whoever and complain to them. If the people who passed these initiatives were elected officials then you have the choice of voting against them come re-election. It's called representative govt. It isn't some left-wing conspiracy against smokers. Do you want to debate th issue of health care next?

 

I'm talking about a state's right to choose whether or not to execute criminals.

Apples and oranges.

 

I agree that the system is sexist but the plain and simple fact is that minorities (African Americans in particular) commit far more murders than do white people so it would follow that they would be executed more often

Not quite. Let me get the stats on this too. This is an issue I have strong thoughts on and have the stats and resources so I want to be accurate.

 

I didn't know how old your daughter was and figured the parental lock was to keep her from watching it. Many groups have tried to run them off the air and the Right is perhaps more guilty of this type of bullshit.

What I deem appropriate for my family is no one's business as it is no one's business how a Xian family determines what is approproate for their children.

 

What choice do I have as far as the level at which I am taxed?

You choose your occupation. You choose what field you enter in. Your career choice will probably determine what tax bracket you are in. I chose to teach full well knowing that I would be in a lower tax bracket.

 

Yes, although I have yet to see a "Radical theological agenda" being pushed.

Oh, I forgot that this appeal to save Shiavo's life was to appease the Xian right or that justification for the war was religious-based according to your President.

 

Ok, then point to the section of the Constitution that says that Abortion should be or should not be legal? The Supreme Court couldn't do that so they made a bunch of shit up and came up with the "penumbra (sp?) of rights". Read the document and then read the case. They have nearly no similarities.

I know the Constitution. I'll have to read the actual opinions of the judges who heard the case. for someone who is pro-choice, you sure are a staunch defender of the pro-life group. Or are you just playing devil's advocate.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this but yes Dan Rather is just as left as Rush is right. Rush is atleast honest about his bias.

Liberal Dan Rather

 

Who? Al Franken?

No, David Brock... but he isn't the only one.

 

I never claimed that CNN or any of the other stations didn't broadast news. They all do, but they all put their spin on it. It is what it is.

And all are controlled by big business.

 

Are you really trying to tell me that not a single person in opposition to the plan has been on? I have seen several on Fox News.

Who? I would think those would be the ones flooding liberal networks like CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN etc. Do you even watch those channels... or just Fox News?

 

Well.... They are Americans.

And they are not fighting for my freedom. It is an inaccurate statement. We already have freedom here in America.

 

Bush gets attacked all the time and so do his cabinet members.

Attacked or criticized? There is a huge difference.

 

Ashcroft was absolutely vilified by the media as a whole.

As he should considering his civil rights record in his own state and the inability to beat a dead man in an election.

 

What travesty? Vouchers sound like a pretty good idea to me. I don't know what NCLB is.

NCLB is No Child Left Behind... or No Child Left Untested... or Every Child Left Behind.. or Nickel-B.

 

Vouchers are a horrible idea. A way to funnel public govt. money into PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS Institutions.

 

 

QUOTE?

The deregulation of big business? Fuck no, the media IS big business.?

 

 

 

They are hypocrites.

??? They are hypocritical for not criticizing the deregulation of big business when they are big business?

 

Ted Turner is as corporate as corporate can get.

And once again is not affiliated with CNN anymore. Who is this liberal guy who controls the network now that you spoke of?

 

NOW, NAACP, Rainbow PUSH, Sharpton's goup, etc...

Ok, maybe I should have been more clear... I am not talking about pundits or opinions. I am talking about who the networks turn to get their "researched" stats.

 

It's not really about openly pushing the liberal platform as it about skewing the news and the verbiage towards that platform. It is very hard to be objective, especially if oyu have deeply seeded political beliefs and many people have a massive abiltity to delude themselves.

Damn, you just desribed the entire neocon population.

 

 

I'd be willing to be that O]Reily beleives that he is an independant, that Rather believes that he calls it right down teh middle, and so on.

O'Reilly has already been proven to be a registered Republican. If he says he is an Independent.. he is telling a bold-faced lie.

 

Refer to Rather above.

 

I don't recall citing any study, slick.

Where the hell do you think the term "liberal media" entered into the public consciousness? Outspoken complaints by Republican think tanks based on a study done in the 1970s. It is the whole basis for this debate.

 

Fox has plenty of liberal quacks on their station.

I'm sure those people don't want to be referred to as liberal quacks and are offended you are calling them a term they don't wish to be called.

 

A bunch of stuff about Fox News and it being all Fair and Balanced and stuff

Colmes is not a liberal.

 

I think John Stewart said it best when shows like Crossfire (this includes any half-assed debate forum like hannity & Colmes, etc.) do nothing but encourage shouting and offer absolutely zero solutions.

 

I think it is horseshit as well. But it is what it is. They all have their bias and one is free to chose what they want to or don't want to watch. I have trouble with people who wish to abolish Fox Nes because it doesn't present the news the way they want and have nothing to say about the rest who do.

I have a problem with people calling Fox news news at all... it certainly isn't journalism.

 

Fox News proved that that is where the audience is. Liberals watch ABC, CBS, and NBC for their news. Convservatives go to cable.

This is way too generalized.

 

CNN seems to be the only one who keeps running namby pamby liberal after liberal out there.

I'm sure those people don't want to be referred to as namby pamby liberals and are offended you are calling them a term they don't wish to be called.

 

I was never really split on it and frankly I'm very sick of hearing about it.

When I was split, I didn't know 1/4 of the story.

 

I think we can both probably agree that the Bill Russell-led Celtics were the greatest basketball team ever. Right?

I just made a huge post that took me about 45 minutes and the board fucked up on me and deleted it. I'm not going to do it again, at least for a while.

That sort of thing used to happen to me all the time before I switched to Mozilla Firefox. You should try it if you aren't using it already.

I some how got signed out during my post and that's why it got screwed up. This is the only board that randomly signs me out and doesn't always have me signed in when I come back. It's strange. I think I'll ask about it in the feedback folder.

I can't stand that, so I almost always copy my long posts before I hit add reply.

I just made a huge post that took me about 45 minutes and the board fucked up on me and deleted it. I'm not going to do it again, at least for a while.

I look forward to reading it. you are one of the few neocons I actually like talking to and I feel our love of the Celtics can rule the day in the end.

 

I can't stand that, so I almost always copy my long posts before I hit add reply.

Absolutely. Almost all of my long posts in this thread were copied three or four times before posting.

I'll get to it later today or tommorow. And I'll start copying my posts from now on.

ATLANTA (AP) - A federal appeals court early Wednesday agreed to consider a petition for a new hearing on whether to reconnect Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.

 

The ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals came as the severely brain-damaged woman entered her 13th day without nourishment.

 

Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have maintained that Schiavo would want to be kept alive and have asked the courts to intervene. Schiavo's husband, Michael, insists he is carrying out her wishes by having the feeding tube pulled.

Oh. My. God. Can't we just move the fuck on already? Why even bother reviewing this NOW? By the time they make a decision, she is either going to be dead, or her body will be in even worse shape from the lack of nutrition. I doubt this woman has a DNR, so if she were to end up on a ventilator or something, we would see yet another round of this thrilling battle between the Schindlers and the husband. I can't deal with this anymore.

 

Actually, on a lighter note. This morning on Stern they played "Is it Terry Schiavo, a Porn Star, or a Humpback whale?" Basically they would play a quick sound clip from one of those three and you would guess which one it was. They were all to general porn background sounds to throw you off. I hit all three of them.

If you use Mozilla Firefox as your web browser, you don't need to copy/paste your articles. Worst case scenario is you get the "unable to contact" error. That's just a pop-up window though, so your post stays intact.

 

Unless, of course, it went to a different blank screen and your post was just straight gone.

She died this morning around 9:05 am.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/

I wish I could say "finally, it's over" but with the parties involved you just know it won't be.

 

At least Terri isn't trapped in a body that for all intents and purposes died 15 years ago. Hell, she's the lucky one since she doesn't have to hear all this bullshit that's sure to keep going on.

Personally, I would have just pulled a Wayne Brady and snap the bitches neck when no one was looking. Starving her sounds like just another way for the hospital to get prolonged pub during the girl's dying days.

 

Her parents should have let go. For the last 15 years, the girl was just a husk that made funny faces. No one, even if they don't know if the sky is blue anymore, should not have to live like that.

In a predictible if not morbid twist, Terri's parents authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.

 

It was previously revealed that her parents had filed for bankruptcy and several right wing groups were financially supporting them. Guess this was the payback.