Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 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. 281747[/snapback] I think that one party interprets that ammendment to bear arms and the other party believes takes that right to the extreme. I'm a lifelong member of the NRA and hunt all the time. I don't believe that people should own .50 calibre sniper rifles or heavy machine guns espeically since it's been written in Al Qaeda training manuals that because of our lax laws they should abuse our system by buying guns to use against us at a later date. As Bush said "9-11 changed everytihng" and you're either "with the terrorists or against them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 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. 281759[/snapback] To me it seems like this is just a family who is hurting and wants to blame someone. If there was any real evidence he would've been charged at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 So you truly believe the Dims have never exploited a hot-button issue for political gain? Ignorance, thy name is LME. 281762[/snapback] Not saying they never had. I'm just stickeing to the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I think that one party interprets that ammendment to bear arms and the other party believes takes that right to the extreme. I'm a lifelong member of the NRA and hunt all the time. I don't believe that people should own .50 calibre sniper rifles or heavy machine guns espeically since it's been written in Al Qaeda training manuals that because of our lax laws they should abuse our system by buying guns to use against us at a later date. As Bush said "9-11 changed everytihng" and you're either "with the terrorists or against them". 281766[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 There is still a lot of money left and he wants it for himself, and his new squeeze, until he is tired of her. Then who knows, maybe she'll be in the same situation. 281708[/snapback] Granted, I havn't followed this thing in anywhere near as much depth as it appears people here have. That said, it's my understanding that he started going out with this new woman in ''98 (according to a timeline on CNN.com). His wife had been "dead" for what, 7 years? You're faulting the guy for finding someone else after 7 years? That's not very realistic. Again, I'm basing this on the CNN.com timeline I read last week. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I can't wait until I'm not ashamed to be a Republican anymore. In other words I can't wait until Sen. McCain runs for President. 281611[/snapback] Great, ... just what we need, ... a pro-choice Republican presidential candidate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 To me it seems like this is just a family who is hurting and wants to blame someone. If there was any real evidence he would've been charged at some point. 281768[/snapback] ...or it could be a husband hiding what truly happened to her for fear of going to jail. There is no way for either of us to say which is correct, which is why you need an investigation. You can't get evidence if the husband refuses the collection of said evidence. All I am saying is investigate the claims. It is irresponsible to not have an investigation. You cannot gather evidence if you do not investigate. The reason why there is no evidence is because nothing was done to collect the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Granted, I havn't followed this thing in anywhere near as much depth as it appears people here have. That said, it's my understanding that he started going out with this new woman in ''98 (according to a timeline on CNN.com). His wife had been "dead" for what, 7 years? You're faulting the guy for finding someone else after 7 years? That's not very realistic. Again, I'm basing this on the CNN.com timeline I read last week. CW 281774[/snapback] Nope, this started in 1991. Wrong timeline, incorrect facts on their part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 You find it vile and disgusting that someone would want to protect an innocent life? I'd be willing to bet that if there was someone on death row that you thought was "innocent" that you'd be howling for congress to intervene. 281725[/snapback] A---> Congress has stepped over the line, they are abusing their powers. I find that vile because I've read the Constitution. B---> You'd lose that bet in a heartbeat, it's not the legislative branch's role to intervene, it goes from judicial to executive. So no, I wouldn't ask Congress to intervene, that'd not only be stoopid, but it'd be unconstitutional for them act upon my request as well. C---> How hypocritical that the person who couldn't care less about innocent people (reference Iraq posts ad nauseum) is now the champion and defender of the same. Hmm... I wonder why that is... Maybe because the GOP says it's OK now? How boringly predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Nope, this started in 1991. Wrong timeline, incorrect facts on their part. 281787[/snapback] ???? Per Fezmid, CNN says that in 1998 he started dating a woman after his wife had been in a vegatiative state for 7 years. Wouldn't that make it 1991? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 ???? Per Fezmid, CNN says that in 1998 he started dating a woman after his wife had been in a vegatiative state for 7 years. Wouldn't that make it 1991? 281795[/snapback] Sorry, misread what he said. I haven't had my second cup yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Sorry, misread what he said. I haven't had my second cup yet. 281797[/snapback] Oh, I know that feelin'!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Sorry, misread what he said. I haven't had my second cup yet. 281797[/snapback] Appology accepted. I don't see a problem with the guy dating after his wife had been "dead" for 7 years. My wife and I were talking about it last night, and she had a friend in highschool whose mother died of cancer. While she was still alive (but bedridden), her husband was going to a support group for people who had spouses dying of cancer. After his wife died, he was remarried less than a year later. Apparantly, that's fairly common. I don't understand why he's being villified for having a relationship with another woman while his wife is, for all intents and purposes, dead. This isn't like Christopher Reeve (aka Superman) who was still alive, still able to communicate, still was himself only paralyzed. This woman can't do anything. Villify him for other things if you want, but the girlfriend thing is ridiculous IMHO. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 A---> Congress has stepped over the line, they are abusing their powers. Read the Constitution. B---> You'd lose that bet in a heartbeat, it's not the legislative branch's role to intervene, it goes from judicial to executive. So no, I wouldn't ask Congress to intervene, that'd not only be stoopid, but it'd be unconstitutional for them act upon my request as well. C---> How hypocritical that the person who couldn't care less about innocent people (reference Iraq posts ad nauseum) is now the champion and defender of the same. Hmm... I wonder why that is... Maybe because the GOP says it's OK now? How boringly predictable. 281793[/snapback] A-- they may very well be, but it sure isn't the first time. B-- But still, I think if Bush himself was intervening, you'd be crying foul. You're just as partisan as anyone else around here. Nice attempt, though. c-- "Innocent people in Iraq" Heh. Yeah, last I checked, Terri Schiavo never harbored individuals that were killing Amrican soldiers. If she had, I'd say sure, go ahead and yank the tube. But the fact is, she's not guilty of ANYTHING other than being the victim to a husband lusting for a million bucks. SOMEONE has to protect her. I'm surprised it's not all you compassionate, caring liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Appology accepted. I don't see a problem with the guy dating after his wife had been "dead" for 7 years. My wife and I were talking about it last night, and she had a friend in highschool whose mother died of cancer. While she was still alive (but bedridden), her husband was going to a support group for people who had spouses dying of cancer. After his wife died, he was remarried less than a year later. Apparantly, that's fairly common. I don't understand why he's being villified for having a relationship with another woman while his wife is, for all intents and purposes, dead. This isn't like Christopher Reeve (aka Superman) who was still alive, still able to communicate, still was himself only paralyzed. This woman can't do anything. Villify him for other things if you want, but the girlfriend thing is ridiculous IMHO. CW 281803[/snapback] I don't believe I have villified him for that. The thing is since he is the "giardian" for her, why doesn't he do what the parents have asked, turn the award over to for her care and rehab, and let them divorce. They have always said it is an option, but he won't because he wants the life insurance and the money. That is why I vilify him. If he doesn't care about the money and want to move on, then divorce her, since obviously she can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Appology accepted. I don't see a problem with the guy dating after his wife had been "dead" for 7 years. My wife and I were talking about it last night, and she had a friend in highschool whose mother died of cancer. While she was still alive (but bedridden), her husband was going to a support group for people who had spouses dying of cancer. After his wife died, he was remarried less than a year later. Apparantly, that's fairly common. I don't understand why he's being villified for having a relationship with another woman while his wife is, for all intents and purposes, dead. This isn't like Christopher Reeve (aka Superman) who was still alive, still able to communicate, still was himself only paralyzed. This woman can't do anything. Villify him for other things if you want, but the girlfriend thing is ridiculous IMHO. CW 281803[/snapback] michael shciavo started living with this other women 10 years ago, which would put start of relationship at least at 1994 , and likely earlier as I would imagine they didnt just instantly decide to live together..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 michael shciavo started living with this other women 10 years ago, which would put start of relationship at least at 1994 , and likely earlier as I would imagine they didnt just instantly decide to live together..... 281813[/snapback] Again, 3 years after the incident. What's the problem? I don't believe I have villified him for that. The thing is since he is the "giardian" for her Still need that second cup VA? They have always said it is an option, but he won't because he wants the life insurance and the money. That is why I vilify him. If he doesn't care about the money and want to move on, then divorce her, since obviously she can't. I don't know, if I had to put up with everything he's gone through, I'd at least want the life insurance that I had already paid for. Also, if it really was her wish to not be in this state (and who knows if that's true), wouldn't it be wrong for him to just walk away? As Rockpile said in a previous thread, this is why everyone should have a living will; makes all of this moot. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 A-- they may very well be, but it sure isn't the first time. B-- But still, I think if Bush himself was intervening, you'd be crying foul. You're just as partisan as anyone else around here. Nice attempt, though. c-- "Innocent people in Iraq" Heh. Yeah, last I checked, Terri Schiavo never harbored individuals that were killing Amrican soldiers. If she had, I'd say sure, go ahead and yank the tube. But the fact is, she's not guilty of ANYTHING other than being the victim to a husband lusting for a million bucks. SOMEONE has to protect her. I'm surprised it's not all you compassionate, caring liberals. 281809[/snapback] A--> That makes it acceptable in what way? B--> Bush flew back to DC to sign the legislation. It should be vetoed, not signed, especially by him, who as gov in '99 signed legislation allowing the tube to be pulled if this was happening in Texas. So is it the flip or the flop we're discussing here? And believe you me, if a Dem-controlled Congress (I'm not a Dem) were to do this, I'd be just as critical. For me, it's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of constitutionality. C--> Not all Iraqis are harboring individuals that kill Americans, some of them were just innocent people killed in a shooting war. It happens in war, but it doesn't make it any less tragic, and they certainly don't have less of a claim to life than Schiavo does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted March 21, 2005 Author Share Posted March 21, 2005 "Paging Dr. kevorkian, Dr. Kevorkian...." 281485[/snapback] Right? Haven't heard from him in awhile....may be time for him to make headlines again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Right? Haven't heard from him in awhile....may be time for him to make headlines again. 281823[/snapback] Probably because he's in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts