Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers

[80sU2isBest]

80s, with all due respect, why did you listen to them?

I didn't make my decision about whether I thought she was a vegetable or not until I saw the videos. Once I saw the videos and read some other things, I agreed with them because they were supporting what I had seemed to see with my own 2 eyes.

 

[financeguy]

Did Tom Delay spend time in the room with her, or was he too busy trying to enforce Biblical law in America?

 

[Harry Vest]

The real truth about the "Religious Right"????
www.antipasministries.com

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that the "religious right" looks completely sane and level headed when compared to that apocalypse cult.

 

[BVS]

I think that the "religious right" looks completely sane and level headed when compared to that apocalypse cult.

And that's saying a lot.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Did Tom Delay spend time in the room with her, or was he too busy trying to enforce Biblical law in America?

Tom Delay didn't, but art least 2 neuro-specialists who said there was hope did.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And now we know that those 2 were wrong that the rest were right.

 

[Irvine511]

And as far as "choosing whom to listen to", your side did the same thing. You chose to listen to the doctors that were on your side even though there were other specialists who disaagreed.

yes, but we were right and you were wrong.

the autopsy only validated what everyone already knew, except those in this delusional world you've all been inhabiting in regards to this case. you listened only to people who said what you wanted to hear. it's as simple as that. you willfully allowed youself to be deceived, and now you're seeing the consequences. and for you to give even an ounce of credibility to that video -- the video that is utterly bogus, and had been highly edited by the Schindler's to be used as a propaganda tool -- really renders any argument moot, and makes you look just as silly as Frist and Delay since we know that her vision centers were dead, she wasn't following a balloon, and you were just seeing what you wanted to see -- like people who see the image of the Virgin Mary in a water stain or grilled cheese sandwich.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Again, Irvine, it doesn't matter who was right and who was wrong in what I am arguing, as I was simply saying that Danforth misrepresented my motivation.

I don't know why that point was so hard to figure out.

 

[Irvine511]

Again, Irvine, it doesn't matter who was right and who was wrong in what I am arguing, as I was simply saying that Danforth misrepresented my motivation.

I don't know why that point was so hard to figure out.

because your motivation was based on manipulation, lies, distortion, and wishful thinking.

if you had paid attention to the facts of the case, instead of self-selecting your information, "you people" might have arrived at a much more logical conclusion.

in the end, this has been a great victory for those who believe that science, medicine, and the courts should remain secular.

 

[80sU2isBest]

because your motivation was based on manipulation, lies, distortion, and wishful thinking.]

I said that I didn't understand why it was so hard to understand that I was pointing out that Danforth misrepresented my view, and this is how you answer? It makes no sense.

Look here, and you'll see what I mean:

Me: I don't understand why the fact that I was pointing out Danforth's misrepresentation is so hard to understand.

You: Because your motivation was based on manipulation, lies, distortion, and wishful thinking.

What the heck kind of answer is that? It doesn't have anything to do with what Danforth said. Danforth said that the motivation was power.

Did the fact that you think my motivation was "based on manipulation, lies, distortion, and wishful thinking" really somehow make it hard for you to understand what my point was? I find that incredible.

All one had to do was read Danforth's original statement about the motivation, and then read my statement that his accusation about the motivation was wrong. to understand what my point was. It certainly should have not been hard to understand, as it was written right there in navy blue and cyan. I didn't mince words; I didn't hide my words in secret code. But still, I had no less than 3 people talk to me about what was revealed when the autopsy was done. It was, quite frankly, like talking to walls.

However, I am certainly glad to see that you are so gleeful that your side of the argument was vindicated.

As for Michael Schiavo, he is finally free of his burdensome wife and can now impregnate as many women as he wants to without fear of the press being all over him.

 

[Irvine511]

80's, you originaly wrote:

"And what was it really about for most of us? It was about life; We saw signs that we interpreted as Schiavo being more lucid than what some said; we saw our plight as protecting Terri against a husband who, although having left Terri years ago and shacking up with a woman and having 3 kids by her, expected us to have faith in his word that Terri had said she's want to have feeding stopped, even though he couldn't provide a scrap of proof towards that end. So, to say that those of us who wanted the feeding tube to stay in wanted thus for reasons of power, is a gross misinterpretation, and he should be ashamed of himself."





you said you were on the side of Life, yet what you think you saw as Life, wasn't life, as most of us knew, as pretty much everyone who wasn't choosing to be deceived knew. you might disagree with Danforth about his use of the word "power," but your argument, the one you feel he is mischaracterizing, is utterly and totally false and predicated upon, as i said, lies, manipulation, propaganda, and so many other things that have become commonplace when the Religious Right (for lack of a better term) is faced with scientific evidence that contradicts whatever religious argument is being put forward. and if you think that the intervention of DeLay and Bush (who flew back to DC from Crawford at midnight) and Frist wasn't about power, then you're also being naive. just look at wanna-be Prez Jeb and his "investigation."

it's all about political power, and about politicians who are pandering to "you people" in order to get your vote, because they know that this particular piece of the voting constituency votes single-mindedly in stark, black-and-white terms. are you a part of the (fucking bogus) Culture of Life or are you a part of the Culture of Death? that's how they think "you people" understand the world, and that's how they in turn play their political hands.

i'm not saying if they're right or wrong, but i am saying that this is the political strategy that is being utilized. and it did give the Republicans the white house for another 4 years.

think condoms promote sexual activity? you can find a docor who will say they fail 15% of the time (when most people say that, correctly used, condoms work 99% of the time). it's not terribly hard to find a doctor who is willing to support a political agenda. it's akin to oil companies who hire scientists to produce reports that disagree with global warming.

i'm simply very worried about this. i see it as a refusal to think, to question, and to weigh evidence. instead, people start out with an assumption -- usually inherited -- and then seek to find information that supports that assumption.

and this is a perfect example of that.

and it spells doom for democracy, which relies upon the thinking, critical, alert and aware voter.

 

[Irvine511]

As for Michael Schiavo, he is finally free of his burdensome wife and can now impregnate as many women as he wants to without fear of the press being all over him.

this, sir, is very, very cheap.

i expect better from you.

 

[80sU2isBest]

this, sir, is very, very cheap.

i expect better from you.

Why is it cheap? I didn't insult you. I made a statement about Michael Schiavo. Why is it okay for you to say that the politicians who were behind the "save Terri campaign" were doing it all for power, and that those of us who aren't in power are "choosing to be decieved" and exercising a "refusal to think" and yet when I say something against a man who cheated on his wife and had 3 kids with the woman, you say it's "cheap"? That's just hypocritical, Irvine.

 

[Irvine511]

Why is it cheap? I didn't insult you. I made a statement about Michael Schiavo. Why is it okay for you to say that the politicians who were behind the "save Terri campaign" were doing it all for power, and that those of us who aren't in power are "choosing to be decieved" and exercising a "refusal to think" and yet when I say something against a man who cheated on his wife and had 3 kids with the woman, you say it's "cheap"? That's just hypocritical, Irvine.

it has nothing to do with hypocrisy. you really need to get a grip on what that word means, because you use it incorrectly.

Michael Schiavo isn't running for office, doesn't hold any political power, and is just one player in a very sad family drama. to compare him, someone close to the situation and directly affected by all it's twists and turns, to grandstanding politicians who are seeking to exploit this situation for political gain (again, see Jeb's new crusade), to politicians like W, Jeb, and DeLay is, i would say, another refusal to think, and a stretch to make comparisons when they cannot be logically made.

also, i know it's convenient for you to apply whatever view of marriage you have -- btw, being in a PVS isn't even close to "sickness," is akin to death -- but i think MS accepted the fact that his wife wasn't coming back, she was essentially dead, and that NO ONE would want to 1) be kept in a PVS for 15 years with no hope of recovery, and 2) to be PUT ON TELEVISION instead of being paraded around by her obviously greiving parents. MS struck me as the adult in the situation, and his refusal to grant divorce was probably an indication of the fact that he knew Terri would never want to be either kept on life support, or dressed up by her parents.

if he just wanted to rid himself of the situation, the easy way would have been divorce.

i know you've lost the argument, you've all been humiliated by the autopsy and the egg is all over the face of the shreiking sanctimonious windbags who wanted to bring Terri bread and water (so she could choke to death!?!?! oh, wait, you'd only know that she was incapable of eating on her own if you listened to doctors and knew something about medicine), but to say that Michael Schiavo was running around and impregnating Florida is such a weak little fart of an argument, so free of fact, that it's hard to take seriously.

so hard, in fact, that i'm totally done with this thread.

few things in the news have made me so angry as this whole sad, ugly spectacle has. so it's probably best, since i've said my piece, and we on the secular side have been thoroughly vindicated, to step out now.

 

[80sU2isBest]

it has nothing to do with hypocrisy. you really need to get a grip on what that word means, because you use it incorrectly.

The term hypocrisy does indeed apply. You griped about what you called my "cheap shot" at Schiavo, and yet, you made the equally insulting statement that I "refuse to think" and "choosing to be deceived". You don't see the hypocrisy in that?

Michael Schiavo isn't running for office, doesn't hold any political power, and is just one player in a very sad family drama. to compare him, someone close to the situation and directly affected by all it's twists and turns, to grandstanding politicians who are seeking to exploit this situation for political gain (again, see Jeb's new crusade), to politicians like W, Jeb, and DeLay is, i would say, another refusal to think, and a stretch to make comparisons when they cannot be logically made.

I didn't compare him to those politicians. Where did I make any comparison? I said that Michael Schiavo was an adulterer.

also, i know it's convenient for you to apply whatever view of marriage you have --

The LAW has the same view of marriage, Irvine - that unless you are officially divorced, you are still married. Adultery is having sex with a woman who is not your wife. Therefore, Michael Schiavo is an adulterer. Rationalize it all you won't; it won't change the facts.

but i think MS accepted the fact that his wife wasn't coming back, she was essentially dead, and that NO ONE would want to 1) be kept in a PVS for 15 years with no hope of recovery, and 2) to be PUT ON TELEVISION instead of being paraded around by her obviously greiving parents. MS struck me as the adult in the situation, and his refusal to grant divorce was probably an indication of the fact that he knew Terri would never want to be either kept on life support, or dressed up by her parents.

All of that is assumption. You are ASSUMING that you know how he felt. And your theory that he didn't divorce her because he had respect for compassion upon her, doesn't jive with the fact that he disrespected her by sleeping with another woman and having 3 children with her. My assumption and the assumption of many others, I'm sure, is that if he really had that kind of respect for her, not to divorce her, then he would have respect to not cheat on her.

but to say that Michael Schiavo was running around and impregnating Florida is such a weak little fart of an argument, so free of fact, that it's hard to take seriously.

I didn't say that. What I said was that he is free to impregnate anyone he wants to now, without his burdensome wife.

What I have a hard time taking seriously is that anyone would try to paint Michael Schiavo as a virtuous man.

 

[financeguy]

Michael Shiavo may or may not be an 'adulterer'. It has little or no relevance to the wider issue however. Bringing the alleged character defects (in your view) of Michael Schiavo into it is side-tracking. You are judging Michael Schiavo based on your Biblically-inspired moral code of what is and what is not appropriate behaviour.

Michael Shiavo is not out there seeking election as a Christian conservative, or presenting himself as some kind of model of the Christian life.

In terms of the broader issue, it appears that he has been proven right and vindicated.

 

[financeguy]

What I have a hard time taking seriously is that anyone would try to paint Michael Schiavo as a virtuous man.

What I have a hard time taking seriously is that anyone would try to paint Dubya, Jeb and the aforementioned senators as the guardians of a nation's morals!

 

[80sU2isBest]

What I have a hard time taking seriously is that anyone would try to paint Dubya, Jeb and the aforementioned senators as the guardians of a nation's morals!

Did I do that? If so, show me where.

 

[BVS]

to Financeguy!

 

[financeguy]

Did I do that? If so, show me where.

No, you didn't, but the point is that no-one on the other side has tried to paint Michael Schiavo as some kind of moral paragon either! Or if they have they have foolishly played Delay's game. It's just not relevant as far as I can see.

 

[80sU2isBest]

No, you didn't, but the point is that no-one on the other side has tried to paint Michael Schiavo as some kind of moral paragon either!

Did you read Irvine's posts about Schiavo?

 

[deep]

As someone who claims to be pro-life

I find it puzzling that you keep attacking his chindren.

 

[financeguy]

Did you read Irvine's posts about Schiavo?

Yes and I re-read them. I still don't see where he has painted Schiavo as a moral paragon. He may have said Schiavo was right in regard to this particular issue, or that Schiavo was vindicated in regard to the issue, or something along those lines, etc, but that is a different matter. Can you not see the difference?

Anyway I don't want it to appear that we're all ganging up on you.

I said my piece on it at this stage.

 

[financeguy]

As someone who claims to be pro-life

I find it puzzling that you keep attacking his chindren.

Let's be fair. 80sU2isbest has not 'attacked' Schiavo's children.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Yes and I re-read them. I still don't see where he has painted Schiavo as a moral paragon. He may have said Schiavo was right in regard to this particular issue, or that Schiavo was vindicated in regard to the issue, or something along those lines, etc, but that is a different matter. Can you not see the difference?

I can't see the difference, because there is no dofference. Thsi si what Irvine said about Schiavo:

"i think MS accepted the fact that his wife wasn't coming back, she was essentially dead, and that NO ONE would want to 1) be kept in a PVS for 15 years with no hope of recovery, and 2) to be PUT ON TELEVISION instead of being paraded around by her obviously greiving parents. MS struck me as the adult in the situation, and his refusal to grant divorce was probably an indication of the fact that he knew Terri would never want to be either kept on life support, or dressed up by her parents.
if he just wanted to rid himself of the situation, the easy way would have been divorce."

That's painting Schiavo as a virtuous man, at least virtuous in that situation.

 

[deep]

Let's be fair. 80sU2isbest has not 'attacked' Schiavo's children.

Originally posted by 80sU2isbest

Demonize? I don't have to demonize him. He's done a good job of that with his own actions. Cheap innuendo? I made no innuendo. I said it plainly; he shacked up with and had three kids with another woman while still married to his wife.

reading this

again and again in this thread is saying these children are illegitamate i. e. bastards.

that is what the harping on this says to me.

 

[80sU2isBest]

As someone who claims to be pro-life

I find it puzzling that you keep attacking his chindren.

Who's children did I attack?

I didn't say anything negative about the children that Schiavo fathered with his mistress. I said something negative about Schivao himself. I said that he was an adulterer for sleeping with the woman.

 

[80sU2isBest]

reading this

again and again in this thread is saying these children are illegitamate i. e. bastards.

that is what the harping on this says to me.

Well deep, I'm sorry you misintrept it that way. But what I wrote was very plain, and you certainly have to read between non-existent lines to take that I was attacking the children.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Let's be fair. 80sU2isbest has not 'attacked' Schiavo's children.

Thank you.