Posted on 07/15/2005 11:56:01 PM PDT by ElPatriota
I am a conservative. My brother in Law is a liberal. I am visiting them here in Florida and as usual we are having the samE old arguments. The SCHIAVO case poses a new disagreement.
I uas under the impression that Terry's parents **ASKED** for the custody of her daughter, as well as all finanacial responsabilities. (In other words, the government would NOT PAY FOR ANYTHING RELATED TO HER CARE)
My brother in law contends that he never heard the parents in any of the interviews he saw on the news - and they were many - ASK for FULL CUSTODY OF HER, AS WELL AS ALL FINANCIAL RESPONSABILITIES.
So help us, who is right? Me? Him? if neither, what are the facts? (please provide links or references to articles that support the correct position>
Typical Danforth bilge.
At least I gave it a try. But, you? You repay civility with insults.
So be it. Now we know.
But you weren't in the least civil, as your post that I highlighted clearly shows.
Is there one standard for you, and another for me?
What a shame ElPatriota did not choose to clarify
the facts of the matter to her/his relative/in-law.
Let's be scientific. Let's go all out for evidence
based medicine (or whatever it is these days) Let's
get 1000s of hours of videos of Terri, do the MRI and
PET, set up webcams and get a whole batch of MDs in and
see what responses they can get. Might try letting
some sun in the room also. BUT WE CAN'T NOW. She's
truly dead, murdered, and we killed her or let her die.
All these conclusory posts about cortical tissue, etc.
generally would be laughable in a high school herp club.
And no matter what level of functioning, even if as
disabled as k-f-f claims, it was still wrong to kill her.
Genteel bilge but bilge. I am not a Christian. Here's my
take: A people that destroys its virtue will soon be deprived
of its freedom. http://www.jewsformorality.org ---and ---
Terri's murder was by no means exclusively a Christian,
Judaeo-Christian, or whatever term you will. I have never
met (virtually, alas) such a wide variety of people. Buddhist,
Wiccan, you name it. The RINOs are blind to the broader
constituency they could have.
Dorff puts a person dependent on a feeding tube “in the halachic category of treifah, which, he argues, is a life that does not require our full protection.(Excerpted from http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/25359/format/html/displaystory.html)
Does he wash his hands after leaving a cemetary? If so, why?
You attempted to set the tone when you started the conversation between us in #104. But, if my response to you in #107 was less than civil, show me.
as your post that I highlighted clearly shows.
The one you highlighted in #119? By that point, it was clear that civility was getting nowhere.
I have long been interested in a civil, reasoned discussion on the matter. But, as implied by my post #103 to Spyder when echoing his sentiments, I have yet to find anyone so interested on the other side. It's obvious I'm not the only one around here who has found that, rather than have a reasoned, civil discussion, it appears those on your side (i.e. "you people") would sooner hurl insults and other such crap. I can't recall when I've seen such a polarizing issue on FR. It's quite a sight.
At any rate, when you decide to be civil and care to discuss it in a reasonable manner, let me know. I'll be here.
The difference is that post was not aimed at any individual; it was a generalized statement of observation. If the shoe fits, wear it. But, if you want to be the exception, feel free to engage me in a civil discussion.
as have been most of your posts regarding Terri Schiavo Schindler.
Since I'm on the wrong side of that issue, I'm sure you'd like to think that's the case. But you, more than others, should recall how patient I was with you for post after post, in spite of all your unwarranted anger. (That was prior to your being suspended, if that helps your recollection.) I can assure you that any "insult" I might have levied came only after receiving at least the same from my intended recipient(s).
Okay, so you're just a poor little victim. Boo hoo.
That's not the point at all. Either you knew that, or you're totally lost.
In either case, you're disarmed and can muster only a weak, childish response. No surprise there.
The point is, you blame others for your behavior. You play the victim, because you can't get rational people to agree with your agenda.
What "agenda"? If you're so in tune with my "agenda," tell us all what it is, and be ready to back up your claim with evidence. Your only alternative is to accept the fact that my agenda is simply to engage in a debate with any of these "rational people" you claim to know.
Speaking of "rational people," there you go again. As if only those who agree with you qualify as "rational people," right? On the contrary, I have yet to find anyone on your side who is willing to debate even the simplest points of this issue. In my and others' experiences, your side isn't the least bit interested in a debate. You just want a flamefest or an emote-a-thon. You just want to demonize anyone who dares to question your opinion, as if it is so perfectly high and self-evident and righteous that it transcends any possibility or need of being defended.
Instead of "rational people," I find emotional people like you, hurling invectives and accusations instead of debating the points. That's okay. This isn't to complain; it's just stating a fact. Say whatever you want. Just be ready to defend it with more than a lot of the same. Don't sit there and claim to be "rational" when all the evidence is to the contrary. Prove it. Or, if you can't, don't.
Now, you can prove me wrong by providing something of substance. Or, you can do yourself and your side a favor and simply be quiet. Otherwise, go ahead and post more of your baseless drivel, adding further proof that I've been right about you and yours all along.
You prove me right with your every post. Please, keep talking.
LOL. You're completely disarmed.
You're about two more posts away from being mistaken for the Cuckoo for Coco Puffs loon. Keep going.
Am I posting to a human or an auto-responder (e.g. a parrot)?
Here, I'll make it simple for you.
You mentioned my "agenda" a couple posts back. What is my agenda?
You have a pro forced euthanasia agenda that you have been pushing for a long time. It's obvious to everyone, including you. You'd like to pretend you don't know what agenda you've been pushing, but you most assuredly do know. I predict you will now deny that you have meant any of the things you've said in favor of forced euthanasia. Go ahead.
I will not deny anything that I've actually posted.
Quote something to back up your claim that I am in favor of forced euthanasia. Go ahead.
You won't because you can't. There isn't anything to quote.
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.