News What's wrong with the Republican party? - Rev's Take

[2CentsWorth]

The topic is "what's wrong with the Republican Party." We're discussing that topic, including whether or not the OP is true. Deal with it.

Rev Prez

With regard to the numbers, loseyourname made a very valid post, which you seem to disregard with a differing opinion of the definition of "popular." As for your position, it is the kind of position the Dems are probably hoping for with glee.

 

[Rev Prez]

Your post #14 was an inappropriate personal question directed to one person and as such was not relevant to the topic.

In that case, I rephrase. Why are those who hold that the Republican Party is going off the rails so offended by an effort to save an innocent life?

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

With regard to the numbers, loseyourname made a very valid post, which you seem to disregard with a differing opinion of the definition of "popular."

If by disregard you mean I don't accept, then yes. If by disregard you mean to dismiss, lyn and I've gone a few rounds on this subject already--I think that qualifies as giving the arguments and counter-arguments their fair share of sunshine.

As for your position, it is the kind of position the Dems are probably hoping for with glee.

I seem to recall similar sentiments expressed about the second through third Bush tax cuts and Bush's refusal to humiliate the US before Western Europe in hopes France and Germany would send troops to Iraq. They didn't amount to much in 04, so I will disregard these, too.

Rev Prez

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, I attempted to clean up the thread and split it. If I mangled it too much or missed a post that should have been in the other thread, I apologize. Rev - I'll be back to comment on your points.

 

[russ_watters]

A number of points to respond to (and yes, I'll be covering some old ground because I didn't reply fully):

Why are you offended by policymakers intervening to save an innocent life?

While that was the stated justification, what "offends" me (not really the right word) is that their action was based on factually wrong premises (to be discussed in detail...) and that it was unConstitutional (also to be discussed in detail...) Not the least of which is the implication that there was a life to save: for all practical purposes, she was already dead (remember, that's legally the only way you can remove life support).

Since the law wasn't struck down, that's a remarkable claim to make.

Let's not get into semantics - no, it wasn't technically struck down. It was stated by the courts that it was unconstitutional, but striking it down would kinda be irrelevant. The similar law passed by Jeb & Co. in Fla, however, was struck down.

The main point there is that this law was unConstitutional. It and the similar law were a violation of separation of powers. The courts have been unanamous about this. It is simply not open for question.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/lazarus.schiavo/index.html

And it is my point that those who hold your view are wrong and I'm asking why...

And how wrong is it medically? Really, I'm curious. People seek second opinions all the time, so obviously questioning a diagnosis is not beyond the pale.

Well, you've provided the first clue: was that a second opinion? Was Frist qualified to present a medical opinion (he's a cardiologist, iirc, not a neurologist)? Did he do a full exam? Is his opinion shared by any actual experts in the field who have examined her?

The answer to all of those questions is an unequivocal no.

Next, other politicians used words like "handicapped" and "disabled" to describe her condition. Those words have specific meanings and do not apply here: she was not handicapped or disabled. She was in a persistent vegitative state. Politicians who characterized her condition in those terms were being factually inaccurate.

DeLay stated that she was "awake" - while it is true that she had periods of "wakefulness", she was not awake. There is a difference: being awake includes being conscious. She was not conscious.

DeLay accused one of the judges of "trying to kill Terri". Since the feeding tube was keeping her alive, all that happened was that she was allowed to die naturally instead of being actively kept alive via artificial means.

Jesse Jackson: "She was starved and dehydrated to death." Same as above.

Bush: " In cases where there are serious doubts or questions, the presumption should be in favor of life." There were no such doubts - serious or otherwise.

A good faq: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/25/schiavo.qa/index.html
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo#Politicians
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/23/otsc.cohen/index.html

 

[Rev Prez]

While that was the stated justification, what "offends" me (not really the right word) is that their action was based on factually wrong premises (to be discussed in detail...) and that it was unConstitutional (also to be discussed in detail...)

Neither claim which you back up with anything other than personal supposition.

Lets not get into semantics - no, it wasn't technically struck down. It was stated by the courts that it was unconstitutional...

Um, no it wasn't. Seriously, you can't move forward on this topic unless you have the facts. Otherwise, we have the farce of Democrats patting each other's back that is the other thread.

The main point there is that this law was unConstitutional.

So you think, but apparently you can't explain why.

It and the similar law were a violation of separation of powers. The courts have been unanamous about this. It is simply not open for question.

Since when do you decide what can and cannot be questioned? I'm asking you again, cite the decision where the law was struck down. If you can't, then admit it and move on.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/lazarus.schiavo/index.html Well, you've provided the first clue: was that a second opinion?

1. I provided no clue.
2. The point was to demonstrate that diagnoses are questioned all the time. The medical weight of Frist's doubt is not relevant. Your implied claim that the Courts' finding doesn't merit review is the issue at hand. That said, I'm going to dismiss this little tangent as well. Hopefully you'll address the issue in the future.

Next, other politicians used words like "handicapped" and "disabled" to describe her condition.

More supposition. You're repeating yourself. You've already (unconvincingly) made the point she's not alive. Dismissed.

DeLay accused one of the judges of "trying to kill Terri". Since the feeding tube was keeping her alive, all that happened was that she was allowed to die naturally instead of being actively kept alive via artificial means.

Since you've failed to prove that she was dead to begin with...well, you get the picture. Dismissed.

Now I understand if you want to go back to the echo chamber that is the other thread. I'm done with you.

Rev Prez

 

[russ_watters]

Um, no it wasn't. Seriously, you can't move forward on this topic unless you have the facts. Otherwise, we have the farce of Democrats patting each other's back that is the other thread.

So you think, but apparently you can't explain why.

You read the quotes, right? They are quite straightforward. The court said its unconstitutional and its up to them to decide. It doesn't get any more straightforward than that.

Since when do you decide what can and cannot be questioned? I'm asking you again, cite the decision where the law was struck down. If you can't, then admit it and move on.

We have moved on. Semantics on "struck down" or not, the law was declared (even if unoficially) to be unConstitutional. I say that can't be questioned, because those are the exact words of the court. It doesn't get any more straightforward than that.

2. The point was to demonstrate that diagnoses are questioned all the time. The medical weight of Frist's doubt is not relevant.

Sure, diagnoses are questioned all the time, but you wouldn't have your mechanic perform heart surgery and you wouldn't have your heart surgeon fix you car. Yes, the medical weight of Frist's doubt (nonexistant) is relevant. Heck, that's why the courts got their own experts. If Frist's doubt had any merrit/weight, the courts would have considered it.

More supposition. You're repeating yourself. You've already (unconvincingly) made the point she's not alive. Dismissed.

? Its not my claim. Its the expert opinion of the doctors. Again, it doesn't get any more clear-cut than that. You're arguing against reality.

Since you've failed to prove that she was dead to begin with...

You missed the point: the point was that had the feeding tube not been inserted in the first place, she would have died on her own.

Do you have any facts or arguments to support your opinion? Ie, what were her chances of recovery?

I'm done with you.

Wow, that was easy enough, lol. I got to figure out how I did that!

 

[Rev Prez]

You read the quotes, right?

Have you? If you had, you'd post them. You haven't. I'm done with you until you do.

Do you have any facts or arguments to support your opinion?

My opinion is that yours is suspect. As for your evidence, you have none as of yet.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

And since you've taken the low road and have deleted posts with arguments you either can't or won't refute, I'm done with this discussion.

Rev Prez

 

[russ_watters]

Have you? If you had, you'd post them. You haven't. I'm done with you until you do.

Post #7: "[the law] is unconstiutional..."

My opinion is that yours is suspect. As for your evidence, you have none as of yet.

Rev, you need to get onboard with the fact that part of having an argument is making an argument. You need to start making your own arguments and supporting them with your own facts.

And no, I have deleted no posts with arguments in this thread. The only posts I deleted were those that contained personal attacks or off-topic comments (or pleas to get back on topic).

 

[Rev Prez]

Post #7: "[the law] is unconstiutional..."

Re-read the thread. Other than that, I've nothing to say to you.

Rev, you need to get onboard with the fact that part of having an argument is making an argument. You need to start making your own arguments and supporting them with your own facts.

You need to re-read the thread take your own advice.

And no, I have deleted no posts with arguments in this thread.

No, you deleted them in the other thread.

The only posts I deleted were those that contained personal attacks or off-topic comments (or pleas to get back on topic).

Then you won't mind presenting evidence of the personal attacks and OT comments for others to judge.

Rev Prez

 

[russ_watters]

Re-read the thread. Other than that, I've nothing to say to you.

Its not very convincing, how you refuse to acknowledge evidence that you asked for once its presented and refuse to make your own arguments. Its funny how you keep saying you have nothing to say -- allow me to show you how...