If you support Bush, you oppose freedom

[CCTAU 3,340]

There are people who support Bush because he wants to force my kid to recite your kid's religious prayers in a public school. True or false?

If your kid were forced to recite my religious prayer in school every day, then he might not grow up like you. And then there would be hope for your kid. And mine.

All respect for a higher being and/or authority has gone out of schools. It started with my religious prayer not being allowed in school.

155738[/snapback]

Bing, bing, bing. We have a winner! "If you support Bush, you oppose freedom." Thanks, CCT, you were the one I knew I could count on.

155755[/snapback]

Thank you for the sound effects of that BB brain bouncing around in that boxcar brain of yours.

[TexasTiger 12,998]

There are people who support Bush because he wants to force my kid to recite your kid's religious prayers in a public school. True or false?

If your kid were forced to recite my religious prayer in school every day, then he might not grow up like you. And then there would be hope for your kid. And mine.

All respect for a higher being and/or authority has gone out of schools. It started with my religious prayer not being allowed in school.

155738[/snapback]

Bing, bing, bing. We have a winner! "If you support Bush, you oppose freedom." Thanks, CCT, you were the one I knew I could count on.

155755[/snapback]

Thank you for the sound effects of that BB brain bouncing around in that boxcar brain of yours.

155874[/snapback]

An insult, but no denial.

[Tiger Al 0]

There are people who support Bush because he wants to force my kid to recite your kid's religious prayers in a public school. True or false?

If your kid were forced to recite my religious prayer in school every day, then he might not grow up like you. And then there would be hope for your kid. And mine.

All respect for a higher being and/or authority has gone out of schools. It started with my religious prayer not being allowed in school.

155738[/snapback]

Bing, bing, bing. We have a winner! "If you support Bush, you oppose freedom." Thanks, CCT, you were the one I knew I could count on.

155755[/snapback]

Thank you for the sound effects of that BB brain bouncing around in that boxcar brain of yours.

155874[/snapback]

An insult, but no denial.

155879[/snapback]

No insult, either. It was just the buzz of an insignificant little fly. Nothing more, nothing less.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So, Bush DID NOT support anti-sodomy laws in Texas, he DID NOT want any government involvement in the Schiavo affair, he DOES NOT want the government to legally define marriage, and he DOES NOT want prayer in public schools???

Better go do some more homework.

You didn't answer my questions, just made more unsubstantiated claims and added some inane comment about doing more homework. Typical.

155853[/snapback]

I made no claims, unsubstantiated or otherwise. Those three things at the end of the sentence are question marks. I know you know what they mean. Anyway, I'll answer yours then you'll answer mine. Fair enough?

How many convoluted questions are you going to ask here?

I think I made my questions as straightforward as they can be.

What laws were repealed when Bush was Gov of Texas, and how the heck does it affect me here in GA , where sodomy is LEGAL ?

I'll assume you meant "What sodomy laws were repealed..." The Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed until 2003. Unless you are gay or have an interest in civil rights, whether they're yours or someone elses, it probably didn't affect you at all.

I think I've answered all of your questions. Ball's in your court.

155866[/snapback]

Nice dodge. You made several unsubstantiated claims, and you know it. Case in point > " There are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. True or false? "

..because he wants to sit in Washington and telll some man in Florida what his wife really wanted ifshe found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 yrs.

There has not to date been any such case which fits that description as you describe it. Sorry. You begin w/ a meaningless presumption that 'There are poeple who support Bush because.... '. So what! Some folks thought Kerry would 'give' everyone free health care. Never mind that fact that no such thing would ever happen, regardless of who becomes President. If some folks support a candidate because of false/ inflated / irrational view of what said candidate can actually achieve, whose fault is that ? Second, the motivation you claim for Bush and his desire to sit in D.C. to tell some man what his wife really wanted...( whew! - does this crap ever end ? ) if she found herself in a persistent vegative state for 15 years?" Answer - FALSE.

If you can't present a question any more straight forward than that, stick to being a lawyer.

[Tiger Al 0]

Nice dodge. You made several unsubstantiated claims, and you know it.  Case in point >  " There are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. True or false?  "

..because he wants to sit in Washington and telll some man in Florida what his wife really wanted ifshe found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 yrs.

There has not to date been any such case which fits that description as you describe it. Sorry. You begin w/ a meaningless presumption that 'There are poeple who support Bush because.... '. So what! Some folks thought Kerry would 'give' everyone free health care. Never mind that fact that no such thing would ever happen, regardless  of who becomes President. If some folks support a candidate because of false/ inflated / irrational view of what said candidate can actually achieve, whose fault is that ?  Second, the motivation you claim for Bush and his desire to sit in D.C. to tell some man what his wife really wanted...( whew! - does this crap ever end ? ) if she found herself in a persistent vegative state for 15 years?" Answer - FALSE.

If you can't present a question any more straight forward than that, stick to being a lawyer.

155896[/snapback]

Your answered is "False." The correct answer is "True."

The hearing followed an unprecedented act by Congress and President Bush to intervene in the Schiavo case.

The House, following a move by the Senate, passed a bill early Monday to let Schiavo's parents ask the judge to prolong their daughter's life by reinserting her feeding tube. President Bush signed the measure less than an hour later, just after 1 a.m. Monday.

"I opposed what Congress did," Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., told FOX News on Monday. "The courts determined that it was Terri’s will that she not continue in the persistent vegetative state that she’s in ... We disrespected Terri’s wishes."

Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, said he was outraged that lawmakers and the president were intervening in the contentious right-to-die battle. He has fought for years with his wife's parents over whether she should be permitted to die or kept alive through the feeding tube.

"This is a sad day for Terri. But I'll tell you what: It's also is a sad day for everyone in this country because the United States government is going to come in and trample all over your personal, family matters," he told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday.

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," President Bush said in a statement after signing the bill, which he did at 1:11 a.m. EST Monday.

FoxNews...for your benefit

Bush-1 Freedom-0

[WarTim 3,457]

tree huggin'-bed wettin' libs - 10.

[Tiger Al 0]

tree huggin'-bed wettin' libs  - 10.

155912[/snapback]

I'm not going to put "tree-hugger" in my title line!!! Other than to climb one, I've never put my arms around a tree. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

[AURaptor 1,126]

There are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. True or false?  "

The answer is FALSE. The scenario you put forth in the above question does not match the true facts of the Schiavo case. Sorry. It's very much a debatable issue that Terry was in a persistent vegetative state . There was no written record of what she wanted have done to her, only a comment remembered by her husband 7 yrs AFTER she was left in this condidtion. In such cases of indecission, scrutiny to side w/ life rather than torturing one to death via starvation is preferred by this Administration. I find no fault in that position.

[TexasTiger 12,998]

It's very much a debatable issue that Terry was in a persistent vegetative state .

Not among the doctors that actually examined her.

[AURaptor 1,126]

It's very much a debatable issue that Terry was in a persistent vegetative state .

Not among the doctors that actually examined her.

155924[/snapback]

Yes, there was.

[TexasTiger 12,998]

It's very much a debatable issue that Terry was in a persistent vegetative state .

Not among the doctors that actually examined her.

155924[/snapback]

Yes, there was.

155925[/snapback]

Oh yeah, says who?!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Says the doctors who said that T.S. was NOT in a persistent vegetative state.

Who?

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.

This can't go on indefinatly. She's dead. The point there that there was some debate as to state of her condition. Logically both sides can't be right, but to say there wasn't any is nothing but stubborn denial.

[Tiger Al 0]

There are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. True or false?  "

The answer is FALSE. The scenario you put forth in the above question does not match the true facts of the Schiavo case. Sorry. It's very much a debatable issue that Terry was in a persistent vegetative state . There was no written record of what she wanted have done to her, only a comment remembered by her husband 7 yrs AFTER she was left in this condidtion. In such cases of indecission, scrutiny to side w/ life rather than torturing one to death via starvation is preferred by this Administration. I find no fault in that position.

155923[/snapback]

I don't care to go round and round with you about the particulars of this case AFA who said what, when and to whom. That was already done on other threads before. This case was in and out of the courts for 15 years and she was examined by multiple doctors (22) in this same time period. Time after time, doctor after doctor and judge after judge always came to the same conclusions. Terri was in a persistent vegetative state that she would never recover from and that there was sufficient reason to believe that staying that way was against her former wishes. Bush and his brother and their supporters decided that they knew better than all of those who'd been involved and set out to legislate what the outcome should be. It was a purely political move that, ironically, didn't produce the groundswell among "the base" that they had calculated would occur.

[AURaptor 1,126]

It was a purely political move that, .....

..... shows both to be consistant to who they are, who remain steadfast on their position to defend life. Does that make it right? That's for the voters to decide. I don't see it as a deal breaker either way. Much like the Elian Gonzales snatch and grab by the Clinton admin...It isn't all that black and white of an issue, and despite the noise coming from the extremes on both sides, most will just move on and forget about it all.

[Tiger Al 0]

It was a purely political move that, .....

..... shows both to be consistant to who they are, who remain steadfast on their position to defend life. Does that make it right? That's for the voters to decide. I don't see it as a deal breaker either way. Much like the Elian Gonzales snatch and grab by the Clinton admin...It isn't all that black and white of an issue, and despite the noise coming from the extremes on both sides, most will just move on and forget about it all.

155937[/snapback]

And after everything that you just said, the fact still remains that there are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years.

[AURaptor 1,126]

And after everything that you just said, the fact still remains that there are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years

Why did you just completely ignore everything that was posted ? Been on this merry-go-round once, not gonna ride it again. Your powers of denial are unmatched in the natural world.

[Tigermike 3,050]

It was a purely political move that, .....

..... shows both to be consistant to who they are, who remain steadfast on their position to defend life. Does that make it right? That's for the voters to decide. I don't see it as a deal breaker either way. Much like the Elian Gonzales snatch and grab by the Clinton admin...It isn't all that black and white of an issue, and despite the noise coming from the extremes on both sides, most will just move on and forget about it all.

155937[/snapback]

And after everything that you just said, the fact still remains that there are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years.

155940[/snapback]

Enough Al. That husband you want to prop up has already had her killed. He has already had her cremated and denied her a full Catholic funeral. He has already denied her parents the privilege of burying her in Florida. He has already spent the settlement money.

[Tiger Al 0]

And after everything that you just said, the fact still remains that there are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years

Why did you just completely ignore everything that was posted ? Been on this merry-go-round once, not gonna ride it again. Your powers of denial are unmatched in the natural world.

155945[/snapback]

Because what was posted has no bearing on the discussion. Again, who said what how many times to who and when they said it are details that have been discussed exhaustively here and elsewhere.

One of the guiding principles that the republican party has always claimed to hold dear is that of smaller government that shouldn't involve itself in private matters because it limits people's freedom. If we were discussing taxes or affirmative action that would be your primary argument. That the government doesn't have the right to tell you who you should hire and you know how better to use your money than they do. When it does this, it puts a limit on your freedom.

That is the discussion at hand, not feeding tubes or videos. The judicial branch had repeatedly fulfilled its duty and when the result wasn't what Bush wanted, his boys came on strong and tried to legislate the desired result. The matter was being handled by the proper means and Bush used extranneous governmental involvement, which put front and center people's lives who would've rather it remained private, to limit the freedom of not only the people involved at the time, but for everyone to follow.

[Piglet 0]

It's very much a debatable issue that Terry was in a persistent vegetative state .

Not among the doctors that actually examined her.

155924[/snapback]

Yes, there was.

155925[/snapback]

Oh yeah, says who?!

155926[/snapback]

Soory, time's up. I can't argue any more unless you pay for another five minutes.

[Tiger Al 0]

Enough Al.  That husband you want to prop up has already had her killed.  He has already had her cremated and denied her a full Catholic funeral.  He has already denied her parents the privilege of burying her in Florida.  He has already spent the settlement money.

155950[/snapback]

You haven't been paying attention, either. I don't give a rat's rear end about him until the personal decisions I feel, and many judges feel, he's legally authorized to make are being assaulted by sleazy politicians from Texas who also don't give a rat's rear end except to charge up their so-called "pro-life" base. In Bush's world, it's wrong for YOU to make that decision but it's perfectly fine for the hospital administrator to make it. After consulting with his CFO, of course. :$$$:

[WarTim 3,457]

A liberal that says he "doesn't care"?

That is like a conservative who says "I don't think"!

[Tigermike 3,050]

Enough Al.  That husband you want to prop up has already had her killed.  He has already had her cremated and denied her a full Catholic funeral.  He has already denied her parents the privilege of burying her in Florida.  He has already spent the settlement money.

155950[/snapback]

You haven't been paying attention, either. I don't give a rat's rear end about him until the personal decisions I feel, and many judges feel, he's legally authorized to make are being assaulted by sleazy politicians from Texas who also don't give a rat's rear end except to charge up their so-called "pro-life" base. In Bush's world, it's wrong for YOU to make that decision but it's perfectly fine for the hospital administrator to make it. After consulting with his CFO, of course. :$$$:

155959[/snapback]

You mean as opposed to sleazy politicians from Massachusetts and New York who don't give a rat's rear end except to charge up their so-called "pro-death" base?

In the libs world, it's wrong for anyone to choose life.

[Tiger Al 0]

In the libs world, it's wrong for anyone to choose life.

No, hence the term "pro-CHOICE."

[Tigermike 3,050]

In the libs world, it's wrong for anyone to choose life.

No, hence the term "pro-CHOICE."

155965[/snapback]

You know as well as anyone Pro choice is not what you guys mean. In the realm of abortion "rights" pro choice to you guys means abortion at any time doesn't it? Nine months pregnant and the baby is starting to push out and it's her choice. No problem, stick the vacuum in and pull the choice out.

[Tigermike 3,050]

In the libs world, it's wrong for anyone to choose life.

No, hence the term "pro-CHOICE."

155965[/snapback]

That's why the pro-life wing of the Democrat part is so large and has so much input would you agree? Choice to the libs and dems is you choose our way or get the hell out!