KRC

No, one party wants to severely restrict or eliminate our constitutional rights. It is the same complaint people use with Republicans. The Democrats are no different. They just use different issues to restrict our civil liberties. Saying one party is better than another is basically ignoring reality.

There are a lot of cases the Supreme Court does not hear. It has nothing to do with whether courts overstep their bounds. Hell, they would have to hear most of the cases from the 9th Circuit if that were the criteria.

So, if you were to fight for the removal of the feeding tube for your wife and you finally get your wish, you stay away when the deed is done? You are really reaching in your defense of him now. As far as the investigation, if there is a possibility that he was the cause, shouldn't there be an investigation into what actually happened? There is a potential that a crime was committed. It needs to be investigated.

Only this instance. Other times, they are just as bad as Republicans in removing our Constitutional rights. Just look at the Second Amendment for a specific example of this.

Death row is usually a petition to the Governor to stay the execution, not Congress. Of course when Jeb intervened it was for political reasons, but when a Governor intervenes in a death penalty case, it is OK. Way to stay consistent. IMO, Congress has no right to force this legislation through. I am no lawyer, but isn't there a part of the consititution that specifically states that Congress cannot enact legislation for a specific person? It was in reference to a British attempt to label John Adams as a criminal, IIRC, but don't quote me on that. While this legislation is not specifically written with Terri's name in it, it is obviously for her with the speed at which the Reps and Dims pushed it through the Senate and House and with which the President signed it.

He has stated over and over that he wants the body immediately cremated when she passes. There is an allegation of abuse, and it is only prudent to investigate the matter fully. There was never an investigation into the alleged abuse the night she collapsed. Don't you think there should be an investigation? Hell, the guy wasn't even there when they removed the tube. He was too "busy" with other things. You would think that he would want to be there when they removed it. Hospitals go out of their way to schedule these things so that the family can be present. I guess it was too much of a bother. As far as Terri's "wish" to die, her husband seems to be changing his tune of late. In an interview on CNN (Larry King Show on Friday), he stated the following, "But this is not about [the parents], it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..."

That is the point of doing the autopsy. To see if he had anything to do with it, which is the rumor. It is part of a complete investigation, which the husband wants to purposely avoid. What is he hiding?

So, as soon as he received a boatload of money, he suddenly changed his mind and went against everything he fought so hard for? How about allowing an autopsy, since there is still some dispute over how she got into this condition?

So, why don't you provide something to support the other side of the argument? Is that because you can't? It is amazing how the lefties on the board cry foul, but yet are incapable of supporting their side of the debate. All I hear is soundbite driven drivel. If you want better debate, bring it on. If you cannot provide better debate, then whose fault is that?

It is amazing. He fought for a settlement to pay for her care as long as she lives. As soon as he got the settlement, he immediately wanted her dead and wanted the body destroyed ASAP so that an autopsy could not be performed. He refused the medical treatement he fought so hard for in court, once he got the money. If her wishes were that she did not want to be kept alive, why did he fight for money to keep her alive, only to immediately want her dead once he received the money. Add to that, the fact that if she actually stated that she did not want to be kept alive, why did he not say anything for SEVEN years? This has obviously dragged on longer than it should have and it is disgusting how the politicians are grandstanding over this.

Providing a lot to the debate, as usual. Bush=bad Republicans=bad blah...blah...blah...

Independent Bunny Party. It was a political party formed by BiB on the PPP board, to help on the slow news days. He was the Presidential candidate and I was the VP candidate. Most of the regulars on PPP were "inducted" into the party. Ed (IBTG81) was the Director of Special Education. We had a guy who was pro-Palestinian (some say he was an anti-semite) as the ambassador to Israel. It was a lot of fun and provided good quality entertainment as we drafted people for the party and started working on the platform.

It was awsome. Ahhh...those were the days. IBP and an Ed thread.

The reason why the thread was a classic was that Ed's lahjik (a term that arose out of that thread) did not make sense and he continued to try to make sense of it inspite of the unmerciful beating he was taking.

Ammonia in the squirt guns, not acid...and don't forget the tazers.

Yup. Brutally attacked her. The carnage was horrible. I still have nightmares.

The NG thread was discussed in another post, but the Telephone Pole thread can be summarized: Ed (IBTG81) said that dogs do not attack unless provoked because he has never been attacked by a dog while living in NJ. To prove his point, he had Suzy (I think that was her name) brutally attacked by a provoked telephone pole. I think that this thread single-handedly created more alias' than any other TSW thread.

The Telephone Pole thread was a PPP classic. Couple that with the IBP stuff and you have some quality entertainment.

He also relied on polls to support his argument. Why would anyone believe exit polls in the first place?

Poster who was adament that Kerry was going to win. He has not been seen since the election.

Free speech is free speech, regardless of its credibility. Just because the recipient does not like to be called unpatriotic and the accuser has no basis for calling them unpatriotic, does not mean that one is allowed to speak (dissenter) while the other is forced to be silenced (the one questioning patriotism). Nope. You can dissent whenever you want. Just don’t B word about people criticizing you for dissenting. Again, why is one allowed to speak their mind but the other is not? I think you are wrong in your characterizations of the majority of the right, but since neither of us has accurate data on the truth there is no way for either one of us to say that we are correct in our assumptions.

...and for those who do not quite have the mental capacity to not turn on the station in the first place... Stuff for Idiots

But actually she does have motivation to fabricate her story, which is why it is tough to believe that anyone would blindly accept her position just like nobody would blindly believe the position of the military. As always, the truth is somewhere in between the two stories. Got it?

It is the "other things" that is causing the problem. Invoking the Nazi monikor only reminds people of the horrible gassings and the attempted extermination of a group of people. To start labelling people as Nazi's because you do not like what they are saying is repulsive and immediately shows a lack of intellect on the part of the accuser. You might want it to only mean items related to individual rights, but you and I both know it is meant to sway public opinion based solely on the horrific crimes committed by the Nazi's. On your other point, if you (not you specifically, but the general term "you) want to use your right of free speech to blast something (the president, the government, or whatever), you can't turn around and then complain when others use their same right of free speech to blast you.

That makes her far more trustworthy in the eyes of the "Bush Bad" crowd. She already had a bias against Americans and the U.S. military, so there is no way she could possibly skew the story for the benefit of her agenda. I believe her completely. Really. The DNC marching orders say that I should believe her.