Saturday, March 19, 2005

Democrat Party - D. P. - Despise and Prevent

It is painful to see a party once considered progressive; a political force once famous for caring “for the little guy”; my father’s party; decay into a spiteful monster determined to prevent anything that might bring success to American. Here are some examples you might consider:

1. Democrats will stop at nothing to support abortion on demand (call it the right to kill) -*- How they must despise the unborn to be so determined to prevent their birth. The most helpless of human beings – the voiceless unborn - have no defense against the judicial legislation of Democrat appointed judges who, as Democrats once fought to support slave owners right to property over black peoples right to liberty, now fight for a “woman’s right” to choose death for a baby over that baby’s right to life.

2. Democrats and their appointed judicial lackeys block the law of the land and the will of loving parents to force the removal of Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube - *-With no way of knowing what Ms Schiavo wants Democrats opt for her death. Democrats demonstrate how they despise life and are determined to prevent it even though this means the most gruesome sort of suffering – slow and agonizing death by thrust and starvation. To “right to kill Democrats”, if a person has no voice they have no right to life. Democrats fear that Terry’s voiceless cry might call attention to the 1,000,000 other children cut off each year from their feeding tubes while in the womb. Realize, if our prison wardens killed by thirst and starvation the murdering terrorists that have slaughtered our heroes and assaulted our nation, those wardens would be justly condemned as Monsters. Yet judges, legislating their despite for this precious life, seek to prevent Terry from living. The President has called for “erring” on the side of life. Just to prevent Bush from saving a life Democrats find themselves cheering for death by torture.

3. Democrats seek to stop drilling for oil in ANWR and elsewhere in the Artic Oil Reserve -*- While our enemies rejoice in our economic challenges and seek to override our prosperity by withholding or overcharging for fuel, the Democrats attempt to prevent Americ from using its own resources. Democrats do this because they despise American success, success that will bring vindication to George Bush and force the Democrat's failed policies into the wilderness.

4. Democrats, who despise President Bush, are determined to prevent him from saving Social Security -*- While admitting that the security of future generations is in danger Democrats, and I quote Nancy P. from CA, call out to, “stop, stop, stop! the reform of Social Security.” Here we see bitter Democrats poking holes in our national lifeboat in an attempt to drown the captain!

5. To defend their last foothold of unjust power Democrats unconstitutionally block the up or down vote on Judges appointed by the President. George Bush was chosen by a clear majority in open and free elections. If his picks as judges are unfit for service, Democrats can prove this in open debate. Knowing they have no case Democrats seek by subterfuge to prevent the will of the people, the President, and the Majority of the senate. American wants the Senate to confirm Judges that will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than legislate from the bench. Democrats, knowing their last hold on power is to control judges, seek to keep the judiciary in the hands of their cronies. Thus they despise and prevent the progress of the Senate.

6. Most painfully, Democrats do everything they can to destory success and discover failure in Iraq. Remembering their last great victory at despise and prevent - the Vietnam anti war movement - they seek to drag our nation back down the road of self doubt and dismay. Despising President Bush they seek to prevent the spread of freedom.

Democrats need to return to their roots – to the needs of the “little guy”, to the defense of the weak as they seek to do right. The White House and the Congress have been placed in the hands of the Republican Party by the American people. If the Democrats believe this was a mistake they can do and say the things necessary to convince the voters to vote for them, but they do not. Bankrupt of ideas, bereft of morality, and sinking daily further and further towards irrelevance and extinction they have chosen to Despise and Prevent!

45 comments:

A_Shadow said...

I know this just makes me sound like a dork, but the only thing that I disagreed with was the tone. But in reality, I don't so much.

If you get down to it, that's exactly what's going on. They are promoting the death of one person or another. They slander "pro-lifers" by saying "anti-choice", I didn't know it was anyones place to dictate who will live and who will die. A beef I have with the death penalty as much as anything in that regard. If you honestly sat back and looked at the debate of abortion, you realize that advocating it promotes the death of the child and the life of the mother. That's what it comes down to, is it the mother or the child that suffers. The only thing is that being pro-life means that neither has to suffer. There is that potential, but being pro-abortion means that the baby will inevitably suffer...

With the current scheming there is nothing but the promotion of death. Playing off of the average Joe's want for avoiding it. Raise your hand if you think that the thousand some odd soldiers that died in Iraq was a good thing. Now raise your hand if you think it was worth the 25 million (and soon becoming more with Lebanon and Egypt) people that were won to democracy and freedom...

Who can argue with that? Who can argue with the tens of thousands of people that we saved from torture and death? Who can argue with the millions that are now free from Saddam's reign of terror? Nobody. Instead they harp on the deceased that fought for that cause, hoping to tug at the heart strings of Americans. And thus far, we've become desensetized to their wantings.

"You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting."

I think that quote should forever ring in your democratic ears. I don't dispise you or your ideas, merely your tactics. Stop whining, you lost and you lost again. Try doing something positive for once.

RealFruitBeverage said...

For all their current sucess don't put to much faith in the GOP. I am very relieved that the Demies are there shouting loud. Even when the people in power are right, they are still wrong if unchecked.

As for life and death, I have seen nothing in either party that would warrent them to be called a party of life. They both worship death and give offerings to his alter. It's just that they hide it a bit diffrently. Everyday we make choices that in the end will kill someone or let someone die. We just make choices as to what we like better. For some it's that nice watch instead of saving people with AIDS in Africa, for others it is saving the unborn, for others it's saving themselves over anyone else. I have yet to see any party advocating saving everyone at the expense of their own life. Would you be so inclined to join a party that advocated your death that others may live? Your suffering? How much do you hold on to? How much blood did that car cost? How many lives did you let go to have Tommy put his name on your pants?

Both parties put on the nice clothes and promise you the same image. The people wouldn't vote for them otherwise. When was the last time you saw a member of the house or senate have just what they needed. Every dollar not spent saving lives is a dollar spent letting people die. Neither party are the saviors to humanity. Drive on as always and never let your eye blink in watching both the parties.

RealFruitBeverage said...

Oh by the way I support the Patriot Act.

Lysis said...

RealFruitBeverage – it is so nice to hear from you after so long. I hope you are well and will join us often in the Agora. I also agree with you. One should never choose a party by their past – but only by their present actions. I agree with you that there are many actions that bring harm. My argument here is that for the Democrats to “return to their roots”; to be a viable party again; they need to be more than a party of Despise and Prevent. They need to give all Americans, including me, something positive to judge them by.

Dan Simpson said...

As happens, infrequently, I must stand in strong opposition to one of lysis' points.

I have watched with great sadness as the government has, time and time again, stepped into a choice that should not be theirs to make. The story of terry schiavo is a sad one, make no mistake, but I think that the real tragedy is the fact that people think that they have the right to force their opinion on terry and her husband.

No one but terry's husband knows what her wishes would be. They spoke about this eventuality. He has stated again and again what her wishes were. This is a story of political convenience, and it sickens me that the legislature of first Florida, and now the U.S. congress have stepped in where they should not.

It is a shame that terry and her husband did not write their discussions down on paper. If her wishes had been put down in a living will this whole thing would not be happening.

I also find it disturbing that her husband is painted as one of those who are "terry killers". No one who hasn't lost a spouse could possibly know what he is going through. I can only imagine how horrible it would be if my wife were to end up in a similar vegetative state.

How dare his in-laws put their selfish feelings (and yes, I believe they are being incredibly selfish), above her wishes. How dare the legislature step in and assume they can make this decision for her or her husband.

The courts have ruled, according to the law Lysis, not against it as you would imply, that it is no ones decision but the husbands.

Luckily, the congress does not have the power to force the tube back into her throat. And hopefully, the federal courts will not legislate, as Lysis is so critical of, and force the tube back in either.

A_Shadow said...

Lysis, you agree with that malarky? Nothing to say at all...?

Ok, in form seperating my incredulity from my want for rebuttle, I'll take this one in points:

" Even when the people in power are right, they are still wrong if unchecked."

So no matter what, unless there is someone screaming some idiocy somewhere, you're wrong if you are right? I don't understand that comment. If the powers that be are just and good, then the only reason that a check exists is to prove that. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell. The check does not make them right or wrong. They are right, period. That's assuming the best case. In this case, the current ruling party is the best fit for Americans. It would be that way even if the Dems suddenly disappeared. But it wouldn't be that way forever.

"For some it's that nice watch instead of saving people with AIDS in Africa, for others it is saving the unborn, for others it's saving themselves over anyone else."

I suppose here you're attacking the average Joe that doesn't give up something for charity, to send it to these causes that you bring forth here? The first thing that came to my mind was the huge ammounts of food that we send to Africa and her starving nations. What would you really have us do for aids? Last I checked there wasn't a wonder cure. Sure, we could educate them, and I believe that's under way. But when you look at the numbers, that's hardly going to stop its spread.

You go on about how saving your own life is advocating the death of others. But in saving others lives aren't you then advocating the death of yours? Your point draws back to your comment about advocating death, just hiding it better. There are more altruistic ways of doing things, but even with the altruism of sleflessness that you bring up, you die, death wins something. But then those comments are frivilous and pointless because someone will die no matter what, and oft times its not a choice we can make. Where's the legislation to ban cars? How many hundreds of thousands are dead or maimed each year because of it? Until someone out there creates a way for everyone to be immortal and invincible, people will die.

I'd like to think that we're taking the less for more. Less deaths, more life. Shouldn't that kind of be what we're always aiming for? The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one.

While I would be a fool not to conceed that people die, and that not even the current parties could prevent most deaths, I hardly think that they are (for the most part) just hiding death in different ways. People die, it's a fact as life as natural as breathing. A cure for AIDS and cancer wouldn't stop it. It would just make the numbers less. You selling your watch or car and giving it to a charity so that they could buy food for starving children would merely delay it. I'm not advocating that we do nothing, I'm advocating that what we do is, should be, and will be the best we can manage. You can't stop death anymore than you can stop the rain, but we're working on the rain thing...

Dan Simpson said...

I'll let RFB take that one. He is better at this than I am anyway. I await his response.

Dan Simpson said...

Luckily, the U.S. congress just failed to pass the "save terri" legislation.

Lysis said...

Shadow; thank you for your passion. I am too heart sick to muster mine but perhaps I might ask Dannyboy to consider these things:


1. If she is a vegetable she is in no pain, if not she has a right to life.

2. Dannyboy you are right – if there were a written will there would be no question – but there is not, so there is.

3. As for husbands being the one most interested, caring, or understanding of a person's needs – I guess you haven’t been a parent long enough to know how strong and permanent that bond between father and child is. Her husband’s love has not kept him at her side these many years – that was the place occupied by her father and mother, why should they now be blocked from her side and their love and succor withheld just because some convention of legal statue gives him a guardianship he has not earned.

4. Neither legislatures nor courts have the right to set aside ancient laws. In the words of Antigony – “no one knows where they come from but everyone recognizes their existence.” You will remember that for convenience sake Creon locked Antigony in the tomb to die of thirst and hunger. He too argued the majesty of the state as justification for his abuse of power. The gods were quick in their retribution. The final arbitrator of justice must be neither the masses, the courts, the congress, nor the king – it must be the truth.

Let’s here some justification for this brutality beyond the “right” of a court or a husband.

Bryan Hickman said...

To RFB --

Once again, you show your pension for dressing up what sounds like a legitimate argument but, under a minimal amount of scrutiny, is easily revealed as blatant attempts to remain above the fray. Pitiful...just pitiful.

Your examples are flawed. Even if the US was callous and indifferent to the AIDS crisis in Africa (which it's not as it has provided and pledged to provide more assistance to the crisis than any other country) it would not be the same as actually advocating the death of those.

There is a distinct moral difference between passively allowing someone's death and actively causing it to take place. While neither, in the end, are excusable, killing someone is far more immoral than letting someone die.

Ultimately, your AIDS example also doesn't work as there is no cure for AIDS in Africa, the US, or Jupiter.

And, once again, I must take issue with your belief of the role of the minority party is government. Certainly, as one who as a deep (almost lustful) love of the way our Founders designed our system of government, there is NO value in opposition for opposition's sake.

There's a brillaint Monty Python sketch that I think the Democrats mindset should remind many of us of.


To Dannyboy --

Dannyboy, you ignorant slut.

It surprises me that you ascribe such a level of sympathy to Michael Schiavo (Teri's husband). The fact of the matter is, he has no legal proof that Teri, had she forseen her circumstances, would prefer the long, slow process of death by starvation. Given the facts, he has more of a motive to lie than anyone involved, either directly or indirectly in this case. This includes all 535 members of Congress.

Ms. Schiavo is the recipient of a $1 million malpractice award to which Michael Schiavo's has devoted years of his life to obtaining. He currently is living with another woman with whom he has 2 children. He will not divorce Teri because doing so would mean relinquishing his rights to this fortune.

Has not pledged to donate the money to charity. Indeed, in most public venues, he will not comment on the money.

Yet you call his in-laws...who, by the way, are Teri's parents, selfish? That's interesting.

If we look at the situation -- Ms. Schiavo's mental state is at least debatable. True, she will never recover. However, her family claims that she is responsive to their presence, to touch, and to sound. Therefore, she cannot just be written off as braindead.

In the absence of a living will and in the presence of conflicting beliefs as to what her actual condition is, should we not, as the President has eloquently put it, "err on the side of life?"

Nah, says Dannyboy, Mikey Schiavo has earned his million...let's just kill her in one of the most inhumane ways we can think of.

Not that I necessarily support an intervention on the part of Congress -- ultimately that would depend on the language of the legislation and what it would mean for future circumstances.

However, under no circumstances, unless a living will explicitly called for the allowance of Death by Starvation, would I find such a practice to be anything but callous and completely lacking in human decency.

Bryan Hickman said...

Just reread my previous post and saw that is is ample grammar and spelling and proofreading malfeasance.

Please excuse me...it's late here on the East Coast.

Ares said...

RFB,
Although you may be correct in part, no one can ever know to what extent we affect each other by our actions. By your reckoning, if I were to take the last gallon of milk at the grocery store and someone dies of a lack of calicum in their diet, it is my fault, I should be punished for doing something anyone else would do. How can you hold someone to a standard of care when you can't establish that either they had a duty of care or that there is a connection between us both? In our example, I have no duty of care to make sure that everyone in society gets adequate calcium nor is there any connection between myself and Average Joe that goes to the grocery store.
I am not saying that we owe nothing to Africa's nations, but how can you accuse me and everyone in America of killing thousands of Africans because we chose to buy a new watch? (oops, I used the accused pronoun, hope Blowhard doesn't read this!)

To your comment about "every dollar not spent saving lives..."

Although by strict definition that is true, why is it our government's responsibility to save everyone's life in Africa? I was under the impression that our government is in place to protect our safety and happines and that is what their government is supposed to do for them.

Once again, I'm right there with you Shadow

-Ares

Dan Simpson said...

I find myself once again as the lone man defending his position. I don't mind this arangement at all.

Because I hate it when people argue past me instead of to me, I will first speak to Lysis' points.

1. You are right. The problem is that her "right to life" is hers. If she wants to not be kept alive through extraordinary measures, it is her choice.

2. You are still right, there is a question. That is what courts are for. The law is set up, and I strongly agree with it, that when there is any question about someones desires concerning living will type things, that their legal guardian can make those decisions. There is also in place the opportunity to take that to court and claim that the legal guardian doesn't have the best interests of the individual at heart.

Now, if Bryan wasn't giving a spin to the facts, if what he said was true, in the light that he said it, then in all liklihood a judge at some point over the last seven years of litigation would have found that her parents were better legal guardians. The fact is that no judge has ever found for Terri's parents. Not knowing every fact of this case, that tells me a lot.

While you denounce the judges in this case, I find it highly unlikely that every judge that has touched this case has such a slant as you would have us believe.


3. First, I will not respond to the comment that I just don't understand yet, I find it beneath me.

Secondly, I find it interesting that you say he hasn't earned this legal guardianship. We obviously believe differently as far as marriage.

I for one believe that when a couple gets married they leave behind their family and cleave unto their spouse and none other. I think that when a spouse elevates any relationship in this life above the one with their spouse it is wrong.

Now, this doesn't mean that the family isn't still vital, nor do I suggest that the bonds between child and parent are ended. I do however, think that the most important bond any married individual should have should be to their spouse, not their parent.

(I would go on a tangent here to answer some of Bryan's rantings, but I will wait til I finish with Lysis' list.)

4. This is an interesting hearkening back to Sophocles (If I remember correctly that is who wrote Antigone), but I don't think it applies. You are begging the question. You are assuming that Terri's husband is doing this out of convenience. I am not convinced of that, nor do I think there is any such evidence.

Now I will again give my reasons for my stance.

IF Bryan is right, which I highly doubt, then the husband is not a really good guy. But, then I believe if money were his only motivation, he probably would have accepted that guy from california's million to transfer legal guardianship.

Bryan, in case you haven't listened in law school let me let you in on a very important part of judicial precedent.

Bad facts make bad law.

If you legislate to the very worst case scenario, you make bad law.

Lets assume that Bryan is right. Let's assume that the husband doesn't give a crap about Terri, and just wants her money. What would we have the law be? As it sits right now, the family has the ability and opportunity to take this to court and show a judge that the husband is not the best for Terri. The law today allows a judge to transfer the legal guardianship away from a husband isn't best for Terri.

What change would all of you have made?

Bryan has stated to me that he would not stand opposed in this case if Terri was on a respirator. Okay, that means he isn't opposed to her husband pulling the plug, he is opposed to removing a feeding tube specifically. If that is the stance that you have, lets put our efforts into making THAT illegal, not by attacking a husbands legal rights.

Make no mistake, if this case is found the other way in Federal court a very dangerous precedent will be set. First, it will have been another instance of the federal government getting involved in something that should be a state question. Second, it may well make it impossible for a legal guardian to make such difficult decisions regarding a loved one in a vegatative state without a living will.

I really would like someone to explain in what way they want the law changed. If it is just to make removal of feeding tubes illegal, I won't disagree. If, however, you want the law changed so that those hard decisions are made by a spouse, unless others can show in court that the spouse is unfit, then I will always stand opposed to that change.

Something that has to be understood is that these legal decisions will have consequences, and you must accept the consequences to be able to defend your stand on an issue.

Ares said...

Dannyboy,
I think there is a law against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. I think that there is also a law against killing (or allowing to die) your spouse to get gain (assuming of course that bryan's info is correct).
It seems like the Federal Government is always sticking its nose where it doens't belong, if not directly, then indirectly. If not by imposing caselaw on us, then by withholding Federal funding from us.

The Federal Government needs to butt out.

Bryan Hickman said...

Dannyboy --

We're in substatial agreement, despite your unnecessarily harsh rhetoric.

In general I believe that, as a strictly moral issue, removing Teri Schiavo's feeding tube is damnable and inhumane torture of another human being and should not be allowed by a state court or any other court for that matter.

However, part of our system of Federalism (indeed, an invaluable part) is that we have to sometimes accept that sometimes a state government, through any of its branches, will come to a decision we don't like. The Florida courts' decisions in the Schiavo case and Utah's liquor laws are prime examples.

My support for Congressional intervention was dependent on the actual means of intervening. Having just read the legislation (S. 686 for anyone who wants to read it themselves), I've concluded that it amounts to Congress's attempts to subvert the rule of law in one instance because they don't like the result.

The bill is limited to Schiavo's case and all it does is give jurisdiction to the Federal courts. What happens if that court reaches the same result? It's a bad move politically and, in the long and short runs, I think it will hurt the pro-life movement.

I'm not reversing ground -- Mike Schiavo is still a bastard and I completely disagree with the Florida courts decision here. But, I think congressional intervention in this way is wrong on its face.

I am a Republican because I believe that it is the party that best advances the agenda for limited government and the rule of law. However, as has become common in recent years, I'm disappointed with this particular policy decision.

Proving, once again, that, yes, the Democrats are the Evil Party...but the Republicans and the Stupid Party.

Lysis said...

I do NOT agree that the Republican Party is blindly for State over Federal power. What I do believe is that there are rights and wrongs. One of the most important basic human rights is life. Check out the Declaration of Independence – which I maintain holds authority over the US and any other constitution. When any government becomes destructive of these ends, in this case life, it is the duty of the people, in this case through our representatives, to reform or abolish it. The actions of the Congress were completely within the bounds of the Constitution – but that is not what makes them just. Saving the life of a helpless human being is the duty of any other human, and that is where the justice of the actions of Congress and the President is found.

It has repeatedly been the Democrat Party that has invoked “State’s Rights” to excuse injustice. The Democrats fought for the state’s right to support slavery, the Democrats fought for the state’s rights to impose segregation and political cast systems, and now the Democrats invoke states rights to justify starving a defenseless human being. Shame on those who retreat behind unjust statue in order to defend immorality. Was the Republican Party calling for Terry’s death I it would be in the wrong. Politics are not the primary issue, state or federal jurisdiction is not the primary issue. What is at issue is the fact that no one knows this woman’s wishes and therefore it is the obligation of just government to protect her unalienable right to life against any court or other power that seeks to destroy it. It is the erro on the side of life that President Bush calls us to chance.

To answer Dannyboy’s question, if the roles were reversed, then the state courts would be right and the Congress would be wrong. It is the absolute truth that is important and eternal, courts and legislatures and the statues they concoct are only of value to the degree that they support eternal truths.

Bryan Hickman said...

Lysis --

You and I are in agreement in that as a matter of universal and eternal law, the removal of vital nutrition from Ms. Schiavo is wrong and immoral.

However, determinations of what is right and what is wrong according to natural laws are always open for debate as, while they are immutable, they are not always widely agreed upon. Therefore, they cannot be concretely set forth in any political or governmental agenda.

I believe THE reason both our political and legal systems are set up the way are is that the guarantees of due process, separation of powers, and respect for the rule of law will, far more often than not, render results that are in accordance with right and justice.

The integrity of that system demands that those powers that entities that are supreme in their own sphere's remain such without unwarranted outside intervention. Otherwise, those at the top are free to impose THEIR notions of natural rights upon those who disagree. Such was the case in Roe v. Wade and is the case here as Congressional Republicans attempt to appease those who, ironically, are already their strongest supporters.

I may sound callous, but the maintenance of our system, which I believe was divinely inspired and is unique in the marketplace of ideas, is worth the life of Teri Schiavo -- or mine, for that matter.

Bryan Hickman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan Simpson said...

Okay, to bring you back to my argument, I was nice enough to talk about your points, please address mine.

1. Are you against the removal of a feeding tube if there is a living will stating that the individual does not want to be kept alive? (in other words are you completely against the removal of feeding tubes in any instance as cruel and immoral?)

2. If the answer to #1 is no then are you against the presumption under our current system that a spouse can express what the comatose person has said they wanted, though not put onto paper? (not specifically terri's husband, but the idea that a spouse is given that presumption.)

3. Terri's husband says that she did not want to be kept alive in these circumstances. He says that they had such a conversation. I know that my wife and I have had this conversation so I don't think it unlikely that they may have had this conversation as well.

Do you just believe he is lying?

Our courts are currently set up to make these decisions. The courts have heard the evidence on both the in-laws and Terri's husbands sides.

Their findings make me believe that the courts find no evidence of dishonesty in the husbands statements about Terri's wishes.

4. Do you want the law changed so that Spouses have no say in this decision? Do you want the law changed so that without a living will an individual will be kept alive indefinitely despite any family wishes?

I am not going to claim that Terri's husband comes off clean in this case. My point is that if the court cannot find evidence that Terri's husband is lying, then he has (and should have) the ability to make this decision.

Bryan Hickman said...

Fine, Dannyboy -- luckily I have nothing important to do at work today.

1. I am NOT against the removal of a feeding tube in the presence of a living will so long as the will explicitly mentions the removal of fluids and nutrition and not just a blanket statment of "life-support" or "medical care." In my opinion, removing feeding tubes and forcing starvation are categorically separate from simple withholding medication or turning off a respirator.

2. I am NOT against allowing a spouse's account of the wishes of a comatose or incapacitated person be a determinating factor in discerning the will of the patient. However, I am against the presumption that their account should be the sole basis for such a judgment, or even the "primary" basis in the presence of conflicting evidence. In all cases involving a patient who was an adult prior to their incapacitation, I believe that THE PATIENT's will should be paramount. Any reasonable means of ascertaining that are fine with me.

4. I agree with your assessment of the what the courts used in making their determinations and, I believe they a) gave too little weight to conflicting medical evidence which would call into question her status as "braindead," b) gave too much weight to testimony of the husband given his obvious motives to lie, and most importantly, c) treated the removal of feeding tubes in the same manner they would have treated removal of a respirator when they are, as I stated, categorically different. This third factor should have, in my opinion, overruled all others given the fact that both her medical condition and her own desires were, at best, questionable.

4. I don't necessarily want the law changed at all. Except maybe to add greater weight to the manner in which the patient will die once medical care is withheld. Such would raise the bar of evidence required to establish the will of the patient. In the absence of clear evidence indicating that the patient wanted to be starved to death, the presumption should be to prevent such from occurring.

That's my position...thanks for playing.

Anonymous said...

Blowhard here . . .

Lysis vents:
"Democrats will stop at nothing. . .
Democrats and appointed judicial lackeys . . .
Democrats opt for her death . . .
Democrats find themselves cheering for death by torture . . .
Democrats who despise president Bush . . .
Democrats unconstitutionally block . . .

"You see, he 'feels impelled' to write--feels, presumabley that he has something new to say--and yet his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern. This invasion of one's mind by ready-made phrases (see above) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anesthetizes a portion of one's brain."
And also, "In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer." -George Orwell

Now, some of US think that Lysis has concocted powerful arguments. (see above) However, I find the above to be argumentative and provocative, but certainly not an argument.
Lysis! Bring forth this person who speaks for ALL Democrats (other than yourself). Or are you over-generalizing again -- to follow this posting with qualifications and amendations that smirk at the wrecklessness of the original. "What evil lurks in the hearts of men --- only THE 'Shadow' and Lysis know." (comparatively other "Shadows" are mere Shadows)

Find one Democratic lie that doesn't have a Republican brother or father.

I am saddened that Lysis' search for "Eternal Truth" has to be done with such a limiting set of politcal affiliation blinders on.
-Lysis, "We are world."

Silver Lining said...

There are many issues floating around here in this discussion. The overwhelming and most powerful seems to be the moral issue of removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Because that is so compelling, it shadows everything else. So it should. There is nothing wrong with discussion of moral issues. I'll come back here though.

Looking at Lysis' original post that very obviously brought up the heating Terri Schiavo issue, the first issue that actually comes up is judicial legislation. In discussing the Schiavo case, Lysis mentions the judicial lackees of the Democratic Party. This case is a huge demonstrator of the power of the judiciary and the potential for abuse in that department. Is it any wonder that such huge capital is being placed by both parties on the fight over judicial nominations? This issue, as many others, can be used to demonstrate what the big deal is over what judges are appointed and on their tendency to agree or not with legislating from the bench.

There have been a lot of statements about Republicans vs. Democrats on this issue. I just want to point out the obvious that this bill was passed with quite a bit of bi-partisan support. It is my opinion that any political backlash will be felt only by the Republican Party. However, the Republicans didn't do this by themselves.

Dan initially brought up both the moral point and the argument regarding Congress' authority. Again, the moral argument is more compelling. It has received a bit more attention. I too was weary about the Congress stepping in here not because they shouldn't fight for what is right but because of the dangerous precedent. Lysis mentioned Roe v. Wade and one side/philosophy/political party imposing their "notion of natural rights." First of all, that is exactly what some will claim is being done here. Secondly, when I here some supporters of the Schiavo Bill say they have an obligation to (referring to Thomas Jefferson) protect the rights of an individual which are being violated by a state, I get nervous. This has been done before. Slavery, segregation, and the like have all been mentioned and are great examples. That wording though smacks to be of "rights" that are being legislated into the Constitution and the ability to use that argument in the future to protect those rights as well. I take strength in the limits of this bill but admit not being fully aware of its contents yet. Having said that, I think that the state court in Florida helped bring this on. Judge Greer did not merely rule in favor of the guardianship of Michael Schiavo. If he had done so, a raging debate about the morals of the situation would continue, but I doubt to what extent we would have had political involvement. However, the judge ordered that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube be removed until she was dead. In essence, he issued a death sentence. No individual in this nation recieves a death sentence without an opportunity for federal review. The judge in the Florida court should have stuck to what was in his power to rule, the guardianship decision of Mr. Schiavo. This makes one wonder about the clean hands of the court. I don't want to be cynical. I find Dan's faith in the judicial decisions in this case refreshing, but I don't share it. Congress is within its power to set jurisdiction here. I hope that it will stay tempered to the circumstances of the case. It is indeed a scary precedent, and Dan and Brian aren't off base in my opinion.

I suppose I should quit now as another opinion on the moral issue isn't going to add to the discussion, but I'm not going to. Dan mentions respect for the spouse and the spouse's position as legal guardian. He also mentions that we shouldn't get in the way of Mr. Sciavo's decision because it can't be proven that he is lying. Dan, without a living will, no individual is going to be able to prove he is lying. Likewise, no one is going to be able to prove the parents are lying. You say that you and your wife have had this conversation. I am sure most married people have at some point. You and your wife, given this situation, have probably discussed a feeding tube situation like that of Terri Schiavo. Do you think that she and her husband discussed this or just life support? You obviously see a difference based on your questions about changing the law. It seems likely that Michael Schiavo is going to have interpret a bit as any of would in his situation. I am not going to pass judgment on him. However, I am not going to go Dan's route and call the parents selfish either. I love my children. I love my spouse. My husband would want what is best for me. So would my parents. I know they wouldn't always agree on what that is. I hope for my children that they will find wonderful caring people with whom to spend their lives when the time comes. I won't stop loving them when they leave, and I won't stop wanting what is best for them. This situation is difficult to say the least. Terri's parents want the burden of caring for her. They have doctors who say she could recover more given different treatment. She has never been declared brain dead. Some doctors have declared her to be in a permanent vegetative state. Others disagree. What a difficult position, so much harder than being braindead and on life support. I love my husband. We have had "the conversation." Guess what, other people love my husband too, and I would have a hard time telling his parents who gave him life and raised him that they couldn't continue to do so. That is my personal opinion. You don't have to agree or respect it. I think the whole notion of a hierarchy of love is cut and dry and unrealistic. Why are they selfish and the husband not? Why are they liars and the husband not? Why if the Schiavos had this conversation did she stay in this condition for 15 years before all of this was done? None of this can be substantiated in court. Therefore, the President and Lysis seem most reasonable. Let us err on the side of life. A federal court will make the final ruling soon enough, and it is very likely that they will uphold the ruling of the state court at least as regards guardianship.

Lysis said...

Dannyboy – I am sorry for having put off a more detailed response to your comments. I slipped in a line or two between classes, but could not do your ideas any kind of justice. I am eager to respond to you points and to the comments of others as well.

Dannyboy, on your 8:30 AM posting I will try a point by point:

1. I maintain that Terry did not make a choice to die. For seven years her :”husband” said she would want to be rehabilitated, even last week he said it was “his choice” to end her life because, “no one knows what Terry wants!” I admit I heard the above on talk radio – but even if it is not true, no one has given any proof of Terry’s wishes in this situation!!

2. As for the court’s deciding life and death : these are the same courts that allow the killing of unborn children on demand. They have not earned my blind faith! I do not find it unlikely that these judges would miss rule. The truth is that only one judge has ever ruled on the facts of this case. All other state judges ruled only on procedural matters related to the first case. Remember it was Florida judges that blocked counting the votes of American Military personnel in 2000 and nearly set aside the electoral process in order to get “their” man elected in the same election.

3. I’m sorry that a discussion on the standing of the love of father for son is “beneath” you. It seems God holds this relationship to be rather special! As for earning the right to be a guardian, Saying “I do” does not give one any right in and of itself. Many husbands are abusive, unfaithful, or murderous. Parents, even birth parents, can also be abusive and murderous. In these cases both husband and father should be prevented from claiming any special power over those they betray. Wives are not minors and wedding vows do not make women the property of their “men”. Husbands must “keep their covenants” and earn their authority by love! Neither parents nor spouses own position by virtue of title. Evil abrogates either relationship.

4. You are right; Antigony is by Sophocles. You are wrong about my ducking any argument. Creon made an unjust law and defended it by arguments of authority and statue. He defended his “man made laws” by arguments of power, authority, and title, rather than reason. I feel that Antigony is an excellent literary example of the misrule and the arrogant usurpation of power by the lawyer class, legal aristocrats, in this nation. Made petty kings by their own rules, they ignore reason because they can. Dannyboy, considering your chosen profession, you would benefit from another read!

Bryan – I don’t think that right to life is open to debate. Neither did the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Once more I quote, “among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Which one of these natural rights do you want to debate? Congress’s vote and the President’s signature are perfectly within our system. No one has set aside the Constitution. The court maintains its position of balance on the power of the other branches but the legislative and executive branches also have an obligation to hold runaway courts in check.

Now back to Dannyboy’s 1:00 PM post::

1. No – if there is a living will, I would be against the wisdom but not the justice of removing a feeding tube.

2. Yes: I am against a “spouse” claiming “without evidence” that they know the will of another individual.

3. I don’t know if Mike is lying or not, but there is a reason to doubt his word. If we must error let us error for life.

4. I don’t want anyone to have power to kill another individual when the defense of another life is not involved. That means I would not give the arbitrary power of life and death to a father, not to a mother, not to a husband, not to a child, not to the state! Yes, I want the law changed so that no one will be able to arbitrarily kill another human who is harmless and helpless.

Blowhard – Thank you for dealing with the entire post above rather than just the single point of Terry’s life. I would ask you for some time for me to consider your post before I attempt to answer.

A_Shadow said...

I suddenly wish this were an open forum, because Blowhard's comments would have earned him a slap to the back of the head.

Know when to hold your peace child, let the adults talk.

Ahem... You may now resume this interesting spectacle.

(And Silverlining, as always, it's a pleasure to hear your comments, however rare.)

Lysis said...

Blowhard:

I might be generalizing. That was my intent. The horsemen are charging. Rather than commenting on their formation, take some shots before they run you down.

1. Horseman one – Democrats will stop at nothing . . . Tell me at what they will stop.

2. Horseman two – Democrats and appointed judicial lackeys . . . Show me how judges that attack the pledge of allegiance, the Boy Scouts, the Legacy Highway, the Ten Commandments, and the right to life itself are anything but lackeys of the left.

3. Horseman three - Democrats opt for death . . . deal with partial birth abortion, euthanasia, starving women to death, legalizing marijuana . . .

4. Horseman four – Democrats cheering for death . . . Did you listen to the debate last night? Defend any of their calls to kill Terry or explain their inane attacks on the legislative process and their meaningless accusations on political memos.

5. Horseman five – Democrats Despise President Bush . . . Listen to Dean’s “hate speech” Give me an example of anything but disrespect and hate. That would be a shot between the eyes.

6. Horseman six – Democrats unconstitutionally block – my definition of legislating from the Bench on all the above mentioned issues. Listen to relativist judges who claim international law as applicable precedent if it supports the position they choose to support. Show me where I am wrong.

Blowhard; quit worrying about the tone of my arguments and give some of your own.

As for Republicans and Democrats both lying. That shot is a dud. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Falling back on that argument didn’t work for Marx and it won’t save the Democrats from the charging cavalry of truth. If my chargers are wearing blinder, at least they have eyes and a goal to run for. Take aim or take cover!!!

Silver Lining: Thank you for your words. You have neither flinched nor turned away. I appreciate your words about being a child as well as a wife and a mother. We are the sum of our parts. I hope we all remember that friends also love and feel and care.

Yes Blowhard - - WE ARE THE WORLD!

A_Shadow said...

That was funny. I hope you don't mind that I'm going to have to take that comment and use it, Lysis. Too good to look over.

And your comments are much the reason why I didn't return in kind to his... Not really my place to run up and defend them (don't need to steal your thunder), and you usually make the same comments I would...

I'm sorry I haven't had anything pertinent to the actual and important discussion going on here. I just haven't followed it hardly at all. I realise where some of you are coming from, but it doesn't seem like it should be nearly as big a deal as it is. Just like Elizabeth Smart and 90% of the "news" these days. Definately not something that should get the governments collective nickers in a twist, but I'm saying that as though Florida weren't the root cause. If the decisions would have been made right from the get go, none of this would be as blown up as it is...

Dan Simpson said...

@ silverlining. I really liked your post.

@ lysis.

Your attack on the courts as a whole, in my opinion, is incredibly misplaced.

For most of the issues you speak of the power was taken out of the hands of 99.9% of the judges when five people decided Roe v. Wade. To lay the blame of that on every judge who has since had to rule according to the LAW (however incorrect it may be) is to place the blame incorrectly. Blame our society, for there are only two ways to overrule the Supreme Court, and one of them rests squarely with the people.

3. This kind of comment will get me to leave the Agora pretty quick.

Don't twist my words into that kind of an insult. You had posted saying that I obviously didn't understand the bond between parent and child, I didn't want to get into that argument because I thought your comment was low, incorrect, and BENEATH a response. You seem to want to keep it up. I will not wallow in that with you.

thats it, I'm done with this.

@ blowhard, you have done your usual best, and made no point whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Blowhard here . . .
Dan:
Could there be any point to a debate that ends . . . "That's it, I'm done with this."?

Was that a slamming door among the revolving doors at the Agora?
Naw, he'll be back!

Lysis:
My post said OVER generalizing.

Tone equals meaning -- can't talk about one without the other.

Two wrongs do not make a right? My point exactly. Now tell me once more why the Republican "wrong" is "right"?

To ALL of your "show me" "arguments". Does this mean that you would PERSONALLY admit empirical evidence, or statistical evidence, or inductive logic or deductive logic or some of MY wild assertions about the TRUTH? I do not think that "showing you" ANYTHING would would be possible. But that doesn't change the Eternal Truth of ANYTHING either.

There are three choices Lysis in the Schiavo matter. Who do you have "faith" in? The doctors, the judges or the politicians? I would like to "ERR" on the side of the doctors. Are Doctors always correct? Nope -- but, they have taken a Hippocratic oath that the others haven't and that would be my "hope" for truth and life.
I assume your taking the politicians?. . .

Apollo said...

I'm not a father and I'm not a husband so maybe this doesn't effect me but the way I see it is that it is better to ere on the side of life. Especially if she wants to live, you die, you can't come back unless you're religious and believe you can in another body or at the melenium or whatever. My point is that once a life is taken, it's gone. If she wants to die, she will because her mind will shut down her body. That's why you need to be optimistic.

Cicero said...

Wow!!! I guess that is what you get when you speak to Dannyboy and not past him. Dannyboy – it seems to me that while you might be able to dish it out – you sure can't take it. If you disagree; try an argument. Show us where Lysis is wrong. Most of us would like to see that!

Anonymous said...

Blowhard . . . again

"It depends on what the meaning of "IS", "IS".

The terms "life" and "death" seem to have such precise and calculated meaning here at the Agora that I must have missed the posting where these words were defined.
Shouldn't it be known exactly what is being "erred on the side of", before erring is made?

Does "life" include genetically manipulated forms that might "live" at the expense of, or eventually replace an inferior host that is also alive? Should one be killed and the other live?

Technology in the form of genetics can conceivably make the terms life and death moot -- the human genome has been mapped.

As technological intervention becomes such a necessary "life affirming" procedure (as it certainly is for Schiavo) where does the redefinition of life and death end? Extend a little into the future. Can anyone foresee permanent technological intervention without death? -- what is the meaning of life without death?

Is the legal system or religion or any political system prepared for a redifinition of human being? What are the socio/political ramifications of "more human than human"? -- and is it a good thing?

Today,the Terry Schiavo scenario is a "worst case" scenario -- but, not for long. With technological assistance, who would choose to live forever? (not I)--and would that be a definition of life that can be now know?
Lysis sees the "horsemen of the Apocalypse" in the form of Democrats. I see his "faith" in the benefits of freemarket technology to be of MUCH greater concern.

-No I did not say ,"Stop the technology I want to get off."

Lysis said...

Blowhard – Thank you for engaging in the discussion. I want to agree with Apollo that life is something special to consider when making decisions that cannot be reversed.

First – Yes I would like to see some empirical evidence. That would give me some reason for faith.

Secondly - I will try to explain how I feel about life and death. I look forward to the day when man will cure death. I agree with you Blowhard; technology will some day make life and death as distant and irrelevant a memory as Communism. Perhaps there are those who will still choose to die – hoping to land safely on that “distant shore from which no traveler has returned”. I would prefer to live. I enjoy my life, its every day repetitions and the constant new things that friends. love, learning and beauty provide. I do not crave “ultimate cosmic power”. I think I would be content just to be me forever. The thing that I think is important is that whether you die or I live should not be anyone’s choice by mine for me and yours for you. That is exactly why Terry’s case is so painful to follow. Other people who can only guess at her desires are making decisions about what might well be her most precious possession. I maintain all men have an unalienable right to life. If you choose to die, either because you prefer annihilation to the quality of your life or because you have faith in some “better place”; that is your choice. But you should not be able to make that choice for me or for Terry!

Anonymous said...

Blowhard,

Not that it matters, but you seem so interested in definitions that I thought I would point out that Lysis' horsemen were not those of the apocalyse but rather those of an oncoming cavalry hence the reference to reducing their threat rather than commenting on their formation. Also, there are four horsemen of the apocalyse. Lysis had six. I am sure if I am wrong, I will be corrected.

A_Shadow said...

Wow, for once I find that Blowhard has made a point. Yep, mark that one on your calendars folks.

And the point is -- What is life? It's an interesting conceptual term because no one agrees on it. Not even biologists will agree on what is alive or isn't. It depends on your critereons, faiths, and own beliefs it would appear. At least for your opinion on the matter. Viruses for instance can only reproduce via another living organism and are dormant most of the time (another living organism in this case means that they aren't a species in the exactness of the term because two viruses can't hook up and procreate). But the truth is that there are things that are alive, so don't start to run off with relativist nonesense.

No one would argue that Blowhard, Lysis, Silverlining or the other innumerable people that we interact with daily are alive. At least not seriously, I would hope. But that then raises the question of what constitutes a living being? Is it that they can eat, reproduce, and are conscious? Hardly, lest every sterile person or most teenagers (the last one's a bit of a joke, don't strain yourself laughing)wouldn't fit that bill. So why is it that Terri isn't ALIVE? It's certainly not because she can't eat, the only thing stopping that is the Judiciary system. It's certainly not that she can breath or that she could reproduce (the only thing baring actual birth would be the consciousness of the mother, and that can be overcome). So what is it? Please tell us Blowhard why it is that Terri isn't alive. Tell us why it's ok to kill her.

I've listened to the boastings of men of science and those with faith in genetics for too long. Of course, in theory, genetics will solve all of the "problems" associated with death. At first glance. But it's much like the antiquated idea of world peace. In theory, Communism and pure socialism would work, because in theory, all of your variables come down to crossed I's and dotted T's. But what you often miss is the enumerable variables that we can't even fathom yet. How many wonder cures have turned out to kill our families? I think I'd wait to see some actual cures with no side affects before I started to speak of immortality. Not to mention the whole death by car accident thing, that's of course part of death too...

Your boundaries are set by the "worst case scenario" so to not dwell on something that is improbable is nearly unthinkable. How many of you have talked to your significant others about this case with the actual fear that it might happen to you? I wonder what the statistic is on this... The rate of actual cases involving Florida's "Persistant Vegitative State". Sounds like Florida... Go figure...

As for putting faith in life or doctors, I am appauled that you put that sort of faith in your "experts" there Blowhard. Would you be one of the astronauts if the "experts" had told you that Columbia and Challenger were safe? "Experts" make mistakes as often as anyone. They just have greater successes. Why is it that malpractice is so rampant in the U.S.? It's certainly because our "experts" are so infalible that we should just believe what they say. Mind you that their official "expert" ruling on the case is that it's improbable for Terri to recover from her current state. NOT THAT SHE'S BRAINDEAD. I've done a bit of reading into it lately.

Anonymous said...

Blowhard here . . .
Anonymous:
You must have missed the quotes around "Horsemen of the Apocalypse" . . .
It was a metaphor.
It would have been better to understand the metaphor/or not, than to count horsemen.

Shadow:
". . . there are things that are alive."
You found me in disagreement with this truism? Refer to the place.

Mice with human brain cells and humans with pig tissue are only two real life examples -- you must know as many yourself. The point is that life transmorgified is still "life", but not in any sense that has ever been known before. It is technology that "creates" these grotesqueries and I would agrue subtracts from "our" notions of the "sacredness" of human life.

Has lifetime expectancy changed in this country over the last hundred years? To what do YOU attribute this longivity?

Given "technological intervention" by human means in deciding life or death issues -- who do you choose to do the intervention? Judges,Doctors or Politicians? I chose Doctors,not because of "expertise" but because of the Hippocratic oath. Once again -- refer to the place.

So much is just "shadow boxing" Find the argument first then hit it!
Rebutal counts as argument -- if you know how.

A_Shadow said...

Around and around and around "it" goes, when "it'll" stop nobody knows. But I think we all pray for it.

My comment that things were alive wasn't a counter to any of your points. It's worthless to parry at an attack not made. My thrusting was with the definition of life. It can't be agreed upon, but it exists. That's my comment; no more, no less.

I think you're worried a bit about the bastardization of natural life, not life itself. Your comments seem to itterate that mice with human braincells or men and women with pig arteries in their chests are somewhat different than living. It's life, just the same as you or me. Should we also be worried when talking about the cyborgism that is rampant in the stead of genetic engineering? Pacemakers and artificial hips, do those make you other than human, other than alive? A funny thing that people hate the idea of respirators and feeding tubes while they would much rather have their pacemaker...

I hold no stock in Doctors for their Hippocratic oaths. An oath only means something if the person making it actually believes in it. I could take the hippocratic oath, does that make me worth listening to on medical manners? I doubt that making such an oath has any real correlation to your knowledge. And in a society that lets doctors tell them that 70% of Americans (man, woman and child) have ADD, I think there's something wrong with that system. How can so much of our population have a disease? And it's not something that can be caught, it's spontaneous... Interesting how they jump on mood enhancing drugs when their afraid of a evolution of consciousness...

To answer your directed questions, life expectancy has changed in the last 5 years, so that should be answer enough. I would attribute this widely to the better ability to fight infections. Of course we can treat some cancers, too, but then more people are diagnosed with it than usual. Your point, "sir"? Have you not read ancient texts and scripture? People have been recorded to live a lot longer than 40 years in the past or even 80 years without "modern medicine" so that's hardly anything to run out and herald our doctors as heroes. We've had that knowledge, it's just long been lost and we're catching up to our ancient brethren.

But like you said, so hard to find the arguments in A_Shadow boxing. But manufacturing artificial "messages" "won't" "get" "you" "anywhere" fast.

Quoting common words is a quaint thing, usually you quote information when it's given, or someones direct speach. I could put my entire text in quotes because I'm quoting the dictionary. You have your beef with OUR usage of pronouns, I can see equal distaste with the pointless addition of artificial quotations.

Anonymous said...

Blowhard here . . .

Shadow:

"Quotation Marks for special words.

You may use quotation marks (1) to distinguish a word that is being discussed, (2) to indicate that a word is unfamiliar slang, or (3) to point out that a word is being USED IN A SPECIAL WAY." (all caps my own -- usual grammar book citation with a "quaint" 2003 publication)

-You know I should get paid for this kind of thing!

A_Shadow said...

Hardly, if being a smartass was talent, I'd be making acutal money.

The point is that it's over used. And "I" "Shouldn't" "have" "to" "quote" "everything" "to" "get" "a" "point" "across" "."

Why should you?

It's quaint. Heaven forbid that if you ever make a point, it be in quotes.

Apollo said...

Now was that really necessary, your choice of words? I know we have freedom of speech, but come on! Let's not abuse it and boast about it in public. Anyways, does anyone know what happened to Dannyboy2? I miss his semi-liberal arguements. I guess that's why we need blowhard. Cicero, please don't offend him and get him off the blog too! I agree, people should be paid for this stuff. It gets rough! Look what happened to poor DannyBoy2! Good riddance! People that can't take it should not do anything with politics. Look where that got John Kerry.

A_Shadow said...

Now I think that was a little harsh. Why should we get paid for this? Why must it be harsh? I'm of the opinion that sharing one's opinions shouldn't necessitate the need for hazard pay. I know I don't always follow that, but I try to tend to stick with it.

It's very difficult and rare to sepparate one's emotions from something one feels adamant about. But using the passion can be a tool, and a weakness.

I don't think it's ever good riddance to the opposition. After all, without them, you wouldn't know that you were right, good, and just in what you believe (or wrong for that matter). I just prefer the opposition to be something other than opposing. It's a bit better when it's something more than a slaughter...

Ares said...

Now really, how can opposition be anything but opposing? That makes no sense. But perhaps it is more satisfying when it's not a slaughter, as Shadow puts it.

A_Shadow said...

I suppose it wasn't clear enough. Opposition for the sake of opposition is pointless. It is stagecraft in which neither party cares about the outcome. It makes the arguments and outcomes pointless because essentially both parties are in agreement. It's like fighting a war of slavery when those fighting for the freedom, and those fighting for the oppression are really agreeing, but they won't agree because they can't side with each other over principle. It's dumb, to put it blandly.

Ares said...

Shadow,
Thank you, I understand now. You're right, opposition for opposition's sake is pointless. But you put it better than I could, so I won't try to step on your toes.

-Ares

Apollo said...

Shadow-
I know it was harsh. I was only hoping he was just checking the blog and not commenting. I do really hope he will come back! I miss our old friend.

Medicine said...

The White House and the Congress have been placed in the hands of the Republican Party by the American people.