Controlled by Wingnuts or Just Stupid?

[Matty]

Considering how unpopular the Congressional interference into our judicial system is regarding the Terry Schiavo case is turning out to be (poll (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf)), I can only see two possible explanations: Either the Republican Party has been hijacked by the most extreme religious fanatics, or they stupidly thought they could score political points with this.

The leaked memo certainly points to the second option, but maybe it's both.

[[censored]]

Other: You're an idiot

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Other: You're an idiot

[/ QUOTE ]I always suspected the world revolved around me ..

[jaxmike]

wow. what a loaded question. maybe its because the republican party likes to keep innocent people alive, while the democratic (pro choice) groups want to kill innocent people.

[Matty]

Are you referring to the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians dead (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html)), (beat that casualty rate Saddam), or the 2,000 dead U.S. soldiers?

What about the guy who is having his life support cut off in Texas right now because Bush passed a bill as Governor saying hospitals could pull the cord against the wishes of the family if the family didn't have enough money?

And what's with this emphasis on quantity of life over quality? "[censored] sex education and contraceptives. [censored] abortion. [censored] a social security net. Let em breed like crazy and starve in the streets (unless they picked the right stocks). This world needs more babies whose parents don't want them. More babies left in dumpsters! More coat-hangar abortions!"

You all think making abortion illegal will stop it?

[lehighguy]

Pro-life types will now vote republican. Since there is no pro-death groups, it won't hurt him. Some people might not like it, but it will be a tertiary issue for them, as opposed to a primary issue for conservatives that really care.

Despite its "stances", Republicans haven't overturned Roe v Wade or passed the constitutional amendment on gay marraige. They have to throw the religous right the preverbial bone, so why not do it on a small issue that no one else cares that much about.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you referring to the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians dead (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html)), (beat that casualty rate Saddam), or the 2,000 dead U.S. soldiers?

What about the guy who is having his life support cut off in Texas right now because Bush passed a bill as Governor saying hospitals could pull the cord against the wishes of the family if the family didn't have enough money?

And what's with this emphasis on quantity of life over quality? "[censored] sex education and contraceptives. [censored] abortion. [censored] a social security net. Let em breed like crazy and starve in the streets (unless they picked the right stocks). This world needs more babies whose parents don't want them. More babies left in dumpsters! More coat-hangar abortions!"

You all think making abortion illegal will stop it?

[/ QUOTE ]

What an amazingly weak post.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Pro-life types will now vote republican. Since there is no pro-death groups, it won't hurt him. Some people might not like it, but it will be a tertiary issue for them, as opposed to a primary issue for conservatives that really care.

Despite its "stances", Republicans haven't overturned Roe v Wade or passed the constitutional amendment on gay marraige. They have to throw the religous right the preverbial bone, so why not do it on a small issue that no one else cares that much about.

[/ QUOTE ]Makes sense- this is mostly my line of thinking as well. However I do believe there are some Republicans out there turned off by what their leaders are wasting the government's time with, some who are troubled by the overridden jurisdiction, some turned off by the hypocrisy, some who want to keep the government out of people's personal lives, and some who are concerned that Terry Schiavo is being tortured against her wishes.

But maybe I'm being optimistic.

[Dead]

Some Democrats(myself included) are concerned about the fact that there is no will in this case.

I hate to quote President Bush, but we should err on the side of life in this one.

If Terry had made her wishes clear in writing, then it would be a different story. I have no problem with people having a right to die, but the woman is brain-damaged and there is a dispute about what she would have wanted.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
What an amazingly weak post.

[/ QUOTE ]Excellent rebuttal. I bow to your debating prowess.

[Dead]

Dr Phil is a Republican.

Aren't you ashamed now? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Some Democrats(myself included) are concerned about the fact that there is no will in this case.

I hate to quote President Bush, but we should err on the side of life in this one.

If Terry had made her wishes clear in writing, then it would be a different story. I have no problem with people having a right to die, but the woman is brain-damaged and there is a dispute about what she would have wanted.

[/ QUOTE ]Something like 95% of America has said they would want their own tube pulled in this situation. Also her husband believes that is what she would want.

Combined with the chance that we're torturing her, I think erring on the side of caution would be to pull the tube.[ QUOTE ]
Dr Phil is a Republican.

Aren't you ashamed now? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]He's my avatar because I thought Hitler would be pushing it.

[Dead]

there's no chance we're torturing her. she has no cerebral cortex. she can't feel a thing.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
there's no chance we're torturing her. she has no cerebral cortex. she can't feel a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]Perhaps not physically, but what if the family is right and the doctors are wrong? What do you think it would do to a person to be in a sensory-deprivation chamber for 15 years?

[zaxx19]

Are you referring to the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians dead (link), (beat that casualty rate Saddam

1.3 million dead in the Iran Iraq conflict a confliuct irrationally begun and perpetuated by Saddam...

Go ahead and adjust that for population growth in Iraq........carry the 2....and its like 2.1 million nowdays people.

PWNED.....and its just that simple.

[Matty]

Oh, another hypocrisy about wanting to save "all innocent lives" ... what about a [censored] up interpretation of the second amendment that helps cause our murder rate to be higher than that of any other comparable country? Are those people not innocent enough? Or have laws restricting guns proven too successful? You all prefer the failed policies of the past that only third-world countries will put up with any more?[ QUOTE ]
1.3 million dead in the Iran Iraq conflict a confliuct irrationally begun and perpetuated by Saddam...

Go ahead and adjust that for population growth in Iraq........carry the 2....and its like 2.1 million nowdays people.

PWNED.....and its just that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]Holy [censored] [censored]. I can not believe someone was dumb enough to walk into that one. I'm gonna have to bookmark this page now. Never heard of Iran-Contra?

I'll break it down real simple for you: We supported Saddam’s invasion of Iran, providing him arms and a half-billion dollar annual subsidy. Simultaneously, the Reagan administration was secretly and illegally selling arms to Iran and directing the funds, also secretly and illegally, to the contras in Nicaragua.

This photo was taken the same day that a United Nations team confirmed that Saddam gassed Iranian troops:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Donald_saddam.jpg

Why who could those two people be?

You said something about pwned?

Edit: Still think Arabs hate us because they're jealous of our freedom? Still think that's what caused 9/11? Ever bother to find out exactly why the terrorists said themselves 9/11 happened? There's a lot more nasty American involvement that lead to thousands of dead Arabs. Wikipedia is your friend. We gunna learn you good.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to quote President Bush, but we should err on the side of life in this one.

If Terry had made her wishes clear in writing, then it would be a different story. I have no problem with people having a right to die, but the woman is brain-damaged and there is a dispute about what she would have wanted.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Who's going to pay for the tube 5 years from now when the money's all run out and the issue ceases to be "sexy" for conservatives? You?

2. Courts have ruled several times that this is what Terri Schiavo would have wanted. [censored], her Bullemia practicially dictates that she wouldn't have wanted to be seen like this. Are you telling me that because we're only 95% sure that she would want to have the tube pulled, we should keep her alive even though she's got 0 chance of recovery?

[Matty]

Now just for fun, let's name all of the Iran-Contra Administration officials that were transplanted into Junior's White House:

Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Lewis Libby
Frank Carlucci
Richard Perle
Richard Armitage
Colin Powell
Peter Rodman
John Bolton
Douglas Feith
Eliot Abrams
John Negroponte

I think they're getting rusty though. It took them 166 Billion this time to do a fraction of the damage they did in Iran-Contra at a very small fraction of the price.

[MMMMMM]

Grey, don't you have anything better to do than post loaded question polls?

If you want to discuss something, fine, bring it up for discussion in a reasonable manner. But you are basically just spamming the board and being obnoxious in doing it like this.

A disgrace.

Grow up, this board is here for genuine discussion, not for merely shouting or spamming one's opinions (although there are certainly worse offenders than you in that regard).

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You all think making abortion illegal will stop it

[/ QUOTE ]
You all think making [insert random criminal activity here] illegal will stop it? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
You all think making [insert random criminal activity here] illegal will stop it? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]That's a mighty big paintbrush you've got there. The obvious answer is no, and it appears you completely missed my point. It's worth it to you to have babies left in dumpsters just so you can make a moral point?

Government doesn't need a good reason to make something legal. They need a good reason to make something illegal- which involves the weighing of pros and cons. Obviously something like making murder illegal has no significant cons. But when you look at our prisons and see they're overcrowded because 60% of inmates are there for drug charges, and look at how much money we're wasting trying to control drug use, then notice that we're locking up more people per capita than any other country- even more than Russia did under Communism- it really makes you wish lawmakers had the balls to accept the label of "soft on drugs". Imagine the money we could make off of taxes on marijuana (like tobacco or alcohol). "Just say no" is a horribly failed policy, and we're (America) funding both sides of the drug war. It's stupidity to the highest degree.

So just because we'd prefer our citizens to not use marijuana, that does not mean it makes any sense whatsoever to make it illegal.

Similarly, pro-lifers seem completely oblivious to the cons of making abortion illegal. Not that it will ever happen.

[Matty]

There's plenty for you to debate me on in this thread. Hop to it.

[zaxx19]

So the Republicans and not Saddam Hussein was responsible for the the Iran Iraq bc we gave him and the Iranians arms.....

Ok so basically the you aggree the Germans and the French were responsible for the chemical attacks on the Kurds....not Saddam correct??

How about Swiss and British firms that sold Germany munitions in the 30's ....I suppose they were responsible for ww2??

Your logic is typical left wing crackpottery....

In retrospect I actually believe perpetuating the Iran Iraq war was a very crafty and smart thing for the US govt to do exhausting two would be regional powers in a war where they kill eachother was very desirable.

[Matty]

Gosh, look at that. He's doing the same thing Jerry Falwell did during Iran-Contra. Full circle.[ QUOTE ]
In retrospect I actually believe perpetuating the Iran Iraq war was a very crafty and smart thing for the US govt to do exhausting two would be regional powers in a war where they kill eachother was very desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]So now killing millions of people is innocent people is crafty and smart- even though it contributed to 9/11 happening? Get your story straight.

What a strategic genius- make an entire region of the world hate our country, so that we can gain .. a few dollars (and we get to watch them kill each other).

Someone call the CIA! We can destroy the world! It's so crafty and smart ..

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Ever bother to find out exactly why the terrorists said themselves 9/11 happened?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because america supports Israel. Did you have a different idea?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Because america supports Israel. Did you have a different idea?

[/ QUOTE ]To a large degree, yes. Every day Arabs lose a little more land to Israel.

There were also some demands Osama Bin Laden made, like removing American troops from Saudi Arabia (which Bush granted).

Edit: Life calls, see you all in a couple days.

[MMMMMM]

Grey, your title post amounts to name-calling under the guise of posing a question.

The number of immature posters on this forum has skyrocketed in the last year or so. You guys really need to grow up.

By the way, if you joined this board in the last year and post heavily on the Politics Forum, there is a fairly good chance the above is addressed to you too.

[zaxx19]

Because america supports Israel. Did you have a different idea?


Wow, if you believe that ......we have very little to talk about to be honest.

Everyday the "Arabs" lose land to the Israelis?

I thought that the Palestinians were are separate people and thats why they need a homeland....and thats why they are still refugees in Jordan, Lebanon etc. etc.

Also Israel gave away like 62% of its land to Egypt in order to achieve peace so its kind of hard to debate that Israel is an expansionist threat to the region and intent on stealing as much "Arab" land as possible.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought that the Palestinians were are separate people and thats why they need a homeland....and thats why they are still refugees in Jordan, Lebanon etc. etc.

Also Israel gave away like 62% of its land to Egypt in order to achieve peace so its kind of hard to debate that Israel is an expansionist threat to the region and intent on stealing as much "Arab" land as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]"Modern Middle East History"
Written by: Some kid on the internet who just heard about Iran-Contra yesterday

When you're worth talking to, let me know son.

Until then, your wacko talking-point chants will be summarily ignored.

P.S. I really meant it about wikipedia being your friend. Now hop along: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

[zaxx19]

In 1979 Israel and Egypt signed a Peace Treaty, in which Israel agreed to transfer all control over Sinai to Egypt. Subsequently, Israel pulled out of Sinai in several stages, ending in 1982. The Israeli pull-out involved the destruction of several Israeli settlements including the town of Yamit in north-eastern Sinai.


I bet you can guess where I copy pasted this from....it begins with W.

Am I a wacko bc I dont believe that Israel caused 9-11 or bc I think that a weak Iran and Iraq were desirable to American foreign policy in the 1980's?

I mean to be serious neither of these two points really are debatable.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean to be serious neither of these two points really are debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]You called indirect genocide which caused a sizable portion of the world to want to strap on a suicide vest and kill us "crafty and smart", and you seriously see no area for debate?

Now I remember why I quit posting in this forum.

Israel is just way too heavy a topic to get into with you. I made that mistake once on another board and ended up typing nearly 20 pages. For a degree I would do it again, but this is a waste of time.

[zaxx19]

Was the paper on "Indirect Genocide" or was it on ridiculous Oxymorons?