Posted on 02/02/2007 3:49:53 AM PST by 8mmMauser
I don't know about anyone else, but I am still waiting for Michael Schiavo to make a correction on his blog about what "actually" took place in Colorado when he went there (to the debate) to supposedly ask Congresswoman Musgrave one question and she and her staff supposedly tried to have him removed. He called it, "My unreal night in Colorado - with radio link" (Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:05:14 PM PST). I'll say (from what I read) that it was his "unreal night".
As I said before in "Standing up and Admitting a Mistake: Not Schiavo's Style?", if four uniformed officers were around my seat, I would have some idea of what was going on. I certainly wouldn't be sitting in "duh mode" to only be told later of what took place right there around me, as Michael suggests he was. If Michael's account is realistic -- his response and reaction is not. Nor is his response appropriate now that he has "learned" what he was "allegedly told" is not what took place. One would think if he can't get the words out that he was mistaken, he could at least have removed the inaccurate entry from his blog.
He has done neither.
I'm also still waiting to read about, "Also, maybe tomorrow I'll post about my election-eve rally with Bill Clinton in Florida." (A real election impact by Michael Schiavo, Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:40:34 AM PST). Indeed, I would love to read that story by Michael, since I read it was not possible. Not if he was implying it was the Bill Clinton that is the former President of the United States. Will be interesting to see what he says about that if he ever does.
If Michael couldn't get it straight what happened at the Musgrave debate or even if he spent election-eve with former President Bill Clinton -- do you suppose he might have gotten Terri Schiavo's wishes mixed-up as well? (He does claim to have a bad memory from what I read.) Makes one wonder. At least makes me wonder. Whatever...
I'm still waiting for the corrections if not the explanations!
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
So they do, so they do. A wiser view is that THEY are the disease. The ills and pains of the flesh we can endure and even gain from. The torture of the soul we cannot endure.
I agree. However, I think it is very important to dispute the overall premise that certain conditions are death sentences. Once the culture of death determines that a significant portion of society is "okay" with killing off people with "condition x," they will simply expand the number of conditions that will result in death to the point that people are being executed with curable conditions.
♫ Fellow Texans Massachusans, I am proudly standing here to humbly see.
♪ I assure you, and I mean it- Now, who says I don't speak out as plain as day?
♪ And, fellow Texans Massachusans, I'm for progress and the flag- long may it fly.
♪ I'm a poor boy, come to greatness. So, it follows that I cannot tell a lie.
♫ Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't-
♪ I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
♪ cut a little swathe and lead the people on.
♫ Now my good friends, it behooves me to be solemn and declare,
♪ I'm for goodness and for profit and for living clean and saying daily prayer.
♪ And now, my good friends, you can sleep nights, I'll continue to stand tall.
♪ You can trust me, for I promise, I shall keep a watchful eye upon ya'll...
♫ Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't-
♪ I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
♪ cut a little swathe and lead the people on.
♫ Now, Miss Mona Haleigh, I don't know her, though I've heard the name, oh yes.
♪ But, of course I've no close contact, so what she is doing I can only guess.
♪ And now, Miss Mona Haleigh, she's a blemish on the face of that good town.
♪ I am taking certain steps here, someone somewhere's gonna have to close her down.
♫ Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't-
♪ I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
♪ cut a little swathe and lead the people on.
♫ Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep...
♫ And, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step...
♫ Cut a little swathe and lead the people on.
♪ ♫
Riddle me this:
How do you save the life of a special, one-of-a-kind child, trapped in an abusive home?
I don't know about that. When we lived on the farm, we always spread it with a pitchfork. That took long enough. I can't imagine having to spread it with a butter knife. We'd never get done in time for dinner.
You're waiting too long! I spread two truckloads by pitchfork this fall, but the mix of straw and time made it pitchable. When fresh you can use a butter knife, but not for gardens. That is when it is toxic and corrosive. They try to make us sandwiches out of it.
Yeah, but they don't use the same ingredients for a BLT that the rest of use.
And BLT's are usually served with chips.
What kind of chips?
No, don't answer that.
Oh, come on, come on, come on! Try my riddle. TRY MY RIDDLE!!!
Unique up on them!
☺
Do I get to be a DSS person now? I know how to do all those special things they do to keep kids safe. 'Cept pulling plugs. I can't murder anyone. But I can do all that double naught spy stuff.
Thank you for pitching fat, slow softballs!
I habitually think in terms of market economics, and in this case, it offers a unique perspective. Theoretically speaking, I would try to "buy" the child and place it up for adoption in a loving home. That is to say, offer the parent a suitable compensation to allow the adoption. "Buying" people is illegal, wouldn't you know, so we'd need enabling law. I should think it could be done under religious auspices, privately financed.
Actually, that solves two problems, because a lot of people are eager to adopt and cannot, and the children who need a home can't get one either. This is due to a government monopoly on people trading. Only the state can own children and they do it by coercion, not be market prices. The DSS owns Haleigh Poutre, for instance. (These laws are thanks to past generations of liberal reformers who reasoned that fat, ugly capitalists with big cigars would buy the children and force them to work in coal mines or cotton fields.)
Staying with my economics metaphor, this is a classic example of government intervention wrecking the market, and the classic answer is to privatize the market.
(In fact we should get the government completely out of the child protection business, which socialism screws up as royally as everything else it touches.)
Making Sense Of Bioethics by Fr. Tad Pacholczyk: Should You Have A Living Will?Many people believe they can exercise better control over their own destiny by filling out a living will (also called an "advance directive.") They may have concerns about becoming caught in a tangle of tubes, wires and technology as they are dying, unable to break free and extricate themselves. They hope that by signing on the dotted line, they may be able to breathe their last "easily and peacefully." At first glance, an advance directive may appear to address many of our end-of-life concerns, and hence, can seem like a good idea, but it often tends to serve as a rather "blunt instrument" when it comes to handling complex and nuanced end-of-life situations. Moreover, living wills are sometimes used to buttress or justify some of the morally problematic decisions being made in health care settings today.
I was with him, right up until the last paragraph. He may be right that assigning a health care proxy is better than trying to spell out every possible health care situation that might arise in the future. But I'm still having a problem with the concept that we should assign a person to decide whether we live or die. It's now generally accepted that somebody has to make the decision. Can we ever go back to a policy in which nobody gets to decide whether or not to murder the patients? Can we just decide in advance that nobody get to commit murder, and leave it at that?
Slavery is alive and well. Massachusetts DSS owns Haleigh Poutre. Pennsylvania has new legislation that provides guidelines for determining who owns incapacitated individuals. Every state has legislation that provides rights of ownership over certain individuals. The specifics vary by state. There is not a state in the union that doesn't allow somebody to decide to starve and dehydrate another individual to death. If that isn't ownership, nothing is.
You got it.
The Dred Scott decision is restored. The crucial protections of life, liberty and property under the Fifth Amendment have been nullified. The 14th Amendment is dead. The right-to-die movement killed that, too.
The whole thing is one paragraph. The formatting is awful :-)
But they did find in The Constitution, a right to kill those who are incapable of defending themselves against such assaults. It's called "The Right To Privacy," and it supercedes all other rights, except the ones it completely negates.
True, but if you look very carefully, you can tell where he meant the paragraphs to be. Most of the lines end in a space. Paragraphs don't have a space at the end of the last line. If you highlight the text, and look closely, you can see it.
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.