Now I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but...

[ogt_92_40701]

Welly well well well. It appears the Schiavo report has finally been filed by the Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner. Despite what the Schindlers and half of bloody congress said, it turns out the physicians were correct all along. Imagine that! Physicians knew more about the woman's medical condition than politicians hiding behind cheap theatrics

Comments

Re: with age comes wisdom

[ogt_92_40701]

I never really contested decisions being made on moral grounds. I'm all for that, and if things actually were done (like not starting wars for the benefit of upper eschelons of corporate industry IE Halliburton) that way then the nation and world as a whole would be a far better place. What enraged me about the Schiavo case and to a lesser extent the fillibustering issue is that politicians tried to mobilize the church to promote their agenda. A prime example being the people of faith crusade thing with Frist and all of the evangelists, I forget what they labeled it but it was pretty much cheap theatrics.

Also, I just have a problem with the conservatives being inconsistent. For instance, they have gotten fetal homicide legislation through in many states but have neglected to do anything about abortion in many instances. If a fetus is a human in one instance, how is it not in the other? That's the heart of the issue I have in the sanctity of marraige deal too. If marraige still holds the sacred bond and implications that it once did, then why were the parents even considered in the decision making process?

Additionally the conservatives are attempting to maintain the Patriot Act in its entirety. If conservatives treat the constitution as a sacred text, to be followed at all costs, then how do they reconcile the violations of the 4th amendment contained within the Patriot act with their support of said act? I'm just looking for consistency. I have no problem with people of faith involving themselves in government. I would just like some logic applied to things. One more thing..how did the Schiavo case fall into the realm of federal business?

Re: with age comes wisdom

[centremelt]

1. No war was started for Halliburton. Anyone who would tell you that is a moron and shame on you for accepting such poor rationale for going to war. Perhaps you should check my friend's page on here and read the entry written by one of my best friends, Bcaic. Ultimately though, no one is going to go to war for a company and I'm completely shocked that you continue to hold such an idea. Well, it's you're right, but I'm still appalled.

2. All politicians try to mobilize their BASE--it just so happens that the conservative base is rooted in most of the nation's denominations. But, all politicians at all times have tried to draw in the religious vote--Clinton, Kerry, etc., have all had their photo-ops in churches to appeal to the religious crowd. It's about keeping and maintaining support to further your cause--and what you feel is the cause of the majority of the people. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

3. All people are inconsistent in some respect, but generally conservatives are the least inconsistent people in the world. In terms of the states rights approach that conservatives generally take to governmental control, the reason why a fetus is a person in one place and not in another is because every state--that is, the people of that state--are given the right to decide their own laws. That's not inconsistent, that's following the letter of the law. As for the sanctity of marriage and why Terri's parents could be involved, it comes down to this: anyone can bring a law suit. I could have even sued her husband to keep her alive if I had wanted to--that's not a conservative thing, that's just the way the law works for everyone.

4. The 4th Amendment, which pertains to unreasonable search and seizure--I think this is what you're referring to at any rate--isn't violated by the Patriot Act. And this is why: searches and seizures are only to be conducted on those who are suspected of harboring malicious intent against the Government and the citizens of the United States. That is not unreasonable in any form of the word. Now, can there be abuses to it? Certainly. No law that is on the books has gone without some abuse, but does that mean we shouldn't have it in place to help those who truly need help/protection (see the welfare state)? Of course not. We all have our crusades, but I think the safety of the nation is best protected by having it. That's just my two cents, though...

5. The Schiavo case fell under federal jurisdiction when her parents appealed the state court verdict. If you remember, it began in the state court--the parents brought the suit against him. And, as a matter of civil procedure (something you couldn't be expected to know without some law school under your belt), he had a right to have the case removed before trial in the state court (which he did not do), and the parents had the right to appeal to the federal court (which they did do), after the lower state court issued its ruling. That has nothing to do with a republican/democrat thing--it's procedural rules that govern the legal process. So, in short, you can elimate that from your rant because it has nothing to do with politics, it's a purely judicial matter. :)