Posted on 03/24/2005 11:50:52 AM PST by AZ Righty
That's what I told my liberal co-worker, who coincidentally thinks that Congress did something wrong in this whole matter. "How dare they intrude," he asserted.
I said, "It's called 3rd Article right to the Constitution."
Oh my goodness!
I said that?
I need horse whipping!
You didn't tell mom, did you?
How about this one?
You are like a gnat on an elephant.
Like that one?
Hit the abuse button, that's what it's for.
Know anything about hacking?
Perhaps you can make something up and get me banned.
BTW ... I double spaced everything to make it easy for you to read.
You're welcome.
You're being insulting, and it doesn't help you in your attempts to debate.
IF you were serious about discussing anything at all, you'd be more civil and less insulting.
SINCE you are less than civil, it tends to show that you are not interested in debate or discussion at all.
The government gives them a bye.
If I knew somebody personally in this situation, I would move heaven and earth to intercede on the child's behalf. Since I don't know anyone, I can't do much.
Do you believe in Moral Law?
Randall Terry, the government, and the parents.
I think you are wrong. That's all I will say on this vanity post.
I would like to say something profound like "liberals are stupid twits" but I will settle for returning them to indentured servitude.
You don't discuss, you subvert the statements of others, namely G.Mason.
Now post away to G.Mason until your fingers get gnarled and raw.
Others here will applaud your feeble efforts at "discussion"
Exactly. " Puerility On Parade"
Yes, but you have it backwards. This case is total gov't interference. In demanding privacy rights including the right to kill the unwanted, the appeal was made to gov't. Big mistake, and one repeated over and over. What do you think the courts are? Who is the healthcare system the agent for? For you? Take another look.
And with this post of yours, you prove my point.
Have a nice day.
Yes.
Quite glaringly so.
YOU ASKED: "Do you believe in Moral Law?"
I believe in the rule of law.
Liberals call for moral law when their views don't square with the rule of law.
You know that too.
They call for moral laws to outlaw the SUV. You're no different.
"the hypocrisy of wanting the Government to intervene here, but no where else, is baffling to me."
The problem here is that the government intervention now is necessary because the government intervened where it should not in the first place. The government (Judge Greer) gave Michael S carte blanche to murder his wife by starving her to death. Now someone has to have the balls to protect her.
The husband is to blame for all of this...
He should do the right and most loving thing. Let Terri's parents take care of her... turnover guardianship to them.... That would be real genuine love... as Jesus loved..
I asked the question because I wanted to see if you have a basic understanding of morality (right versus wrong). You don't seem to, so it'd be a waste of time to continue the discussion.
Her nurses disagree with that. Iyer recently said in an interview that the nurses used a baby bottle to feed her thick foods. I found that interesting. She said she couldn't report it before because of a gag order but refused to elaborate when pushed. I know in other interviews on radio, Schiavo and his brothers have threatened these nurses who are talking. The Freepers who heard it were shocked.
This simply means there will be less and less people stepping up to the plate to serve in government, and we will eventually be taken over by mobs.
Greer is not a noble public servant.
I thought conservatives fought for the the sanctity of marriage?
Does the healthcare system trump the rights of a husband?
I need an answer from you. A yes or a no. Don't duck or dodge my question.
Does the healthcare system trump the rights of a husband?
Liberals claim the health care system trumps parent's rights when a child wants a condom. That's what you're doing. Rights are in place to be defended.
Liberals grind down the system of rights so they create large government agencies; you're grinding down the rights of married couples so you can insert your religious views. There's no difference.
If you truly believe in the sanctity of marriage you have no choice but to display it in this case.
Help support the sanctity of marriage by defending Michael Schiavo's rights.
You are so confused it's become comical.
"Help support the sanctity of marriage by defending Michael Schiavo's rights. "
Sure, first I need you to strap yourself down to a table to simulate disability.
Then we'll dehydrate you.
You can tell us how peaceful it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.