GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Now is the winter of conservative discontent

February 10, 2012 by B. Daniel Blatt

Scanning the Facebook feeds of our liberal friends, we see them gloating the Republican infighting, particularly Rick Santorum’s surge and Mitt Romney’s failure to rally conservatives to his cause.

Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker laments:

The presidential primary season has turned into a disaster, in my view. Mitt Romney has shown a discouraging inability to appeal to the party’s base, while the race has damaged both Romney and the party. Newt Gingrich, in particular, sacrificed the party to his own ego by launching left-wing attacks against Romney. Gingrich is gone as a Republican contender, but we will see more of him in the fall, in Obama ads. What a swan song for someone who once led the conservative movement!

Yet, at the same time, the president is not projecting an image of confidence.  Indeed, he seems mighty insecure.  Today, he walked back his “newly announced requirement for religious employers to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter to their religious beliefs.”  (But, this still does not seem to have satisfied most critics.)  Earlier this week the New York Times reported he “signed off on a plan to dispatch cabinet officials, senior advisers at the White House and top campaign staff members to deliver speeches on behalf of Mr. Obama at fund-raising events for Priorities USA Action, the leading Democratic “super PAC’.”

The president is surging in the polls and there are some signs of economic recovery.  Perhaps, this is not to be a conservative year.

All that said, perhaps the president feels insecure because he sees something in the internals of his polls — or realizes his recent rise is due to perceptions of an economic rebound.  Or that he realizes that one reason he has been doing so well is that the media have been focusing not on him, but on the battle for the Republican nomination.

He may not do as well when the attention turns to him.  His campaign has never really played a good game on defense.  Recall how well HIllary did during the 2008 campaign when she started taking the campaign to him.  And how he was floundering after the GOP Convention that year, all until the media made mince meat of Sarah Palin and John McCain behaved erratically in the wake of the market meltdown.

This is not to say he’s going to lose come November, but merely that November is a long way away.  And a lot can change in 8 1/2 months.

Filed Under: 2012 Presidential Election

Comments

  1. The Livewire says

    February 10, 2012 at 1:38 pm - February 10, 2012

    Um, the ‘back away’ was anything but. Rather than mandating the employer must provide contraception, he decrees that ALL insurance policies must provide it.

    So it goes from:
    “Churches have to buy policies that provide this.”
    “We refuse based on religious beliefs.”
    to
    “We’d like to buy a policy that doesn’t provide contraceptives, to satisfy our religious beliefs.”
    “No you can’t. We can’t offer any by decree.”

  2. V the K says

    February 10, 2012 at 1:56 pm - February 10, 2012

    The Dead Cat Bounce of the economy coupled with having the entire mainstream news media cheering for his campaign and combined with a weak GOP candidate will probably be enough to drag his skinny Marxist carcass over the finish line.

  3. Little_Kiwi says

    February 10, 2012 at 2:26 pm - February 10, 2012

    it’s amazing, eh? Romney wants to amend the US constitution to ban LGBT couples from being allowed to marry.

    so much for “Smaller Government”, eh?

  4. The Livewire says

    February 10, 2012 at 2:47 pm - February 10, 2012

    V the K, my CEO thinks the same thing, with the primaries helping him.

  5. The Livewire says

    February 10, 2012 at 2:56 pm - February 10, 2012

    Interesting to see that a President Romeny would continue the feelings on SSM as conveyed by the current administration.

  6. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    February 10, 2012 at 2:58 pm - February 10, 2012

    This GOP Presidential campaign season has been a true political train wreck. Indifference battles with loathing over the current candidates…not a single one a traditional mainstream small-business Republican.

    … Ex-liberal wishy-washy Romney to the left. Family-conservative bedroom-intruder Santorum on the extreme right. And two crazy-uncles working the corners of the room; one wearing a tin-foil party-hat and muttering about the gold standard and Federal Reserve conspiracies, the other drunk and hanging-off his trophy-wife #3 and free-associating about Moon Colonies how nobody loves him.

    Lord-help-us we’re going to endure another four-years of Obama’s incompetence and unwillingness to actually lead the Republic…preferring to preside over an ever-increasing bureaucracy and soaring debt.

    **le Sigh** Where ARE the adults?….

  7. V the K says

    February 10, 2012 at 2:58 pm - February 10, 2012

    It’s more interesting that so many gays are willing to flush the country down the toilet for the sake of their social agenda.

  8. Sebastian Shaw says

    February 10, 2012 at 3:12 pm - February 10, 2012

    Obama is in deep trouble; he has to deal with the long term unemployed, job stagnation, & inflation which are all the results of his policies. I just don’t see Obama winning in 2012. His name is Mud.

  9. Sebastian Shaw says

    February 10, 2012 at 3:14 pm - February 10, 2012

    Oh, the ObamaCare monster will continue to haunt Obama all throughout 2012; his doubling down on the forced abortion matter will only make matters worse for him as ObamaCare comes to the forefront, again. ObamaCare remains radioactive for a reason.

  10. V the K says

    February 10, 2012 at 3:26 pm - February 10, 2012

    Sebastian Shaw, I don’t think a weak economy hurts Obama as much as it would a Republican president for two big reasons.

    1. The MFM will be blowing smoke up the public’s butt for the next eight months about how great everything is. At this point, 90% of the population could be reduced to dumpster diving, and Andrea Mitchell would be raving about great Obama is for ordering new Dumpster Safety Regulations so the lids wouldn’t slam on our fingies.

    2. The economy has sucked for so long, people have kind of accepted it as the new status quo. What happened in 2008 was like getting hit by a car. Four years later, we’ve kind of accepted that we’re never gonna be the same again, and we certainly don’t see much in the GOP alternatives to inspire us to think that.

  11. sonicfrog says

    February 10, 2012 at 3:31 pm - February 10, 2012

    Sebastian – Yes, ObamaCare will hurt him some. But consider, the core of his party likes that particular piece of legislation. They are much more distressed over his ties to Wall Street, and his continuation of Bush policies concerning the GWOT.

    Unless something unexpected happens, this election will swing on the economy. One wild-card here is the certain collapse of the European Union. That will affect our economy. Yet, if that happens, I suggest Obama won’t be affected that much, as it will be difficult, foolhardy even, to try to pin that on him. If the republicans try to do so, that will backfire.

  12. Little_Kiwi says

    February 10, 2012 at 3:32 pm - February 10, 2012

    hating Obama won’t change the fact that your fathers wish you weren’t their sons 😀

  13. sonicfrog says

    February 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm - February 10, 2012

    Little Kiwi…. Normally I don’t call anyone out on trolling…. But, could you please either post something of substance, or at least be creative in your trolling? I love a good troll, if it’s well done. But you’re boring me, maybe even annoying me, and I’m the most tolerant person that post on this blog!

    Even Levi did much better. Step it up man!

  14. sonicfrog says

    February 10, 2012 at 4:03 pm - February 10, 2012

    I know, I know…. Don’t feed the trolls!!!! 🙂

  15. V the K says

    February 10, 2012 at 4:10 pm - February 10, 2012

    I think it would be hilarious to see L’il Queefy perform his deranged troll act on AoS HQ. They’d shred him.

  16. Heliotrope says

    February 10, 2012 at 4:11 pm - February 10, 2012

    Let us stipulate that defeating an incumbent is not an easy task.

    It is also true that the country has turned more toward the conservative view, but that does not mean those who are looking to the right have the same thirst for “red meat” conservatism that there is among the conservative base.

    The TEA Party has not disappeared. They don’t have their “ideal” candidate, perhaps, but they will turn out to vote for the best alternative to Obama and they will campaign vigorously to throw Obama and the whole socialist fundamental transformation of America out on its keister. I think it is a big mistake to think the “silence” of the TEA Party means we have gone away in any fashion.

    A great many of us are sitting by watching this primary season play out without getting into the fray.

    On a side note, this fear of “family-conservative bedroom-intruder Santorum on the extreme right” is just hyper-drama silliness. If any sentient human being sees Santorum as a crusading “bedroom intruder” let him present his evidence that he is operating on something more potent than pure paranoia.

    I expect to work hard to defeat Obama and I have every expectation that the job is doable. I, too, am sometimes discouraged by the ups and downs of this clown car demolition derby. But, the fact is that the vast majority of people who will go to the polls in November have not begun to take even a cursory notice of the whole primary process. Nor will they get particularly involved in educating themselves beyond what sticks in the fall mud-slinging.

  17. V the K says

    February 10, 2012 at 4:19 pm - February 10, 2012

    “Bedroom Intruder” sounds like something Andrew Sullivan would order from Fort Troff.

  18. ChrisH says

    February 10, 2012 at 6:02 pm - February 10, 2012

    I’m really starting to lean towards the Republicans are purposely throwing the election.

    Could it be that TPTB know that another type of financial crisis and collapse is inevitable and they’d rather have Obama on the job when it happens? That’s when Republicans can ride in as heroes in 2016?

    That’s the only way I can explain such bad candidates running when there are so many better potential candidates across the country.

  19. ChrisH says

    February 10, 2012 at 6:03 pm - February 10, 2012

    *towards believing
    *ride in as heroes in 2016.

    I should proofread next time 😉

  20. Eddie says

    February 10, 2012 at 6:17 pm - February 10, 2012

    What are the chances of us getting a candidate who’s not even in the race? What would have to happen? Anyone? I’m grasping at straws, but it could happen, right?

  21. sonicfrog says

    February 10, 2012 at 8:33 pm - February 10, 2012

    On a side note, this fear of “family-conservative bedroom-intruder Santorum on the extreme right” is just hyper-drama silliness. If any sentient human being sees Santorum as a crusading “bedroom intruder” let him present his evidence that he is operating on something more potent than pure paranoia.

    His response to the Lawrence v Texas:

    <blockquote"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

    His support and participation for the embarrassing Congressional invasion into the Terry Schaivo case. Congress had no business getting involved in that mess. Santorum went down to FLA personally to interfere with the process. It shows the lengths the Santorum wing of the Republicans will go if they feel they have the moral right to do something.

    PS. Here is Terry Schaivo’s CAT scan in 2002.

  22. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    February 10, 2012 at 8:55 pm - February 10, 2012

    It’s Sen. Santorum and his “family-values” fellow-travelers who are responsible for Pennsylvania being the only state left in the US Northeast without basic state-wide gay rights, and that has proactively-banned SSM or Civil Unions.

  23. Heliotrope says

    February 10, 2012 at 9:15 pm - February 10, 2012

    The national crisis we are caught in is not affected in any way by the issue of same sex marriage. There is a time to be gay and there is a time to be a patriot. Somehow, my expectation of being a GayPatriot is that one would put the country ahead of the gay agenda until the country is back on safe footing. Fine, if you can have both, but if that isn’t in the cards, then choose your priorities wisely.

  24. rusty says

    February 10, 2012 at 9:44 pm - February 10, 2012

    Sorry Heliotrope, Santorum is not going to be riding the white stallion and save the country. He has been stuck on an ass rolling out the same droll repetitve non-sense for over 10 years.

  25. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2012 at 10:22 pm - February 10, 2012

    The president is surging in the polls and there are some signs of economic recovery.

    Lots of Americans are socialists, or even fascists (people who get off Big Government acting as their agent to control and punish others).

    Lots of Americans believe nonsense. They may even believe in (or be) witches. They must learn, before they will change.

    Reality is the teacher. It can be put off for only so long, as Europe has discovered.

    I’ve been watching the news about Greece. It’s interesting, to see the Greeks rage and demonstrate… against reality, in effect. (Not that they should necessarily stay in the Euro. If they value their sovereignty i.e. freedom, they should leave the Euro. But sooner or later, in one form or another, they must and will cut back drastically on their number of public employees.)

    For the U.S., a lot can change by November. We are headed for a “Greece times 100” financial crisis. The headlines on Greece serve the convenient purpose of making the world forget it. But it won’t forget, forever.

    Whether Obama wins in November, depends on whether the new U.S. crisis hits by November. It might, or it might not. Either way, it will destroy Obama’s presidency… because it will hit with him sitting in office (having won the election, or not), and he will not have a clue what to do about it.

  26. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2012 at 10:29 pm - February 10, 2012

    Could it be that TPTB know that another type of financial crisis and collapse is inevitable and they’d rather have Obama on the job when it happens?

    Too clever. I think the better Republican candidates know that the time is not right, but, more along the lines of their knowing or observing that the media environment would be too strongly against them – that is, too many Americans still believe too much nonsense and so are still too willing to be misled. Even Reagan ran (more or less) for a good 16 years or so.

  27. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2012 at 10:36 pm - February 10, 2012

    [Santorum] If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.

    WITHIN YOUR HOME, and with consenting adults: Yes, that’s right. Santorum got it right.

    I disagree only with Santorum’s evaluation of it: to him it’s unacceptable, while to me it must be accepted as a consequence of far greater goods: human freedom, limited government, the 4th Amendment, etc.

  28. V the K says

    February 10, 2012 at 10:42 pm - February 10, 2012

    Santorum did get that right. Yeah, sodomy laws are done, but nothing in the Constitution prevents states from passing them. (That’s the job of an informed electorate.) Once again, Mr. I <3 Ron Paul comes down on the side of judicial tyranny… so long as it is exercised on his behalf.

  29. sonicfrog says

    February 10, 2012 at 11:04 pm - February 10, 2012

    27… Santorum was not giving his permission. He is very concerned with what we do in our own homes. The full quote with context is here. And the question is not whether you happen to agree with him or not, it is whether or not Santorum is willing to use the government to intrude into our private lives. Clearly, he has no problem with that.

  30. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2012 at 11:49 pm - February 10, 2012

    “Santorum was not giving his permission” – Never said he was. Said the opposite.

  31. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2012 at 11:53 pm - February 10, 2012

    A telling tidbit, re: Greece and its proposed cuts to the public sector:

    The biggest police trade union said it would issue arrest warrants for Greece’s international lenders for subverting democracy, and refused to “fight against our brothers.”

    It illustrates:

    1) The depth of Greek rage.
    2) That it’s justified: The EU, and specifically Germany, want to take over Greece. They should resist that.
    3) That it’s unjustified: You cannot change the laws of mathematical accounting. The cuts will have to be made nonetheless, in the new Greece.

  32. davinci says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:09 am - February 11, 2012

    Ted B. says “Where are the adults?” Well, none of them ran for President for a few reasons. First, it is tough on the family with the press looking for dirt. Second, running against an incumbent is not easy to do, and to work at something for two years with only a 50% chance of success keeps some people out. And third, many of the best need more seasoning as governors or senators (ie Rubio, Christie) while Daniels and Ryan have the credentials but did not enter for personal reasons.

  33. davinci says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:13 am - February 11, 2012

    I live in very liberal northern New Mexico, where Obama should get 70% of the vote in the fall. Will I help the GOP nominee? Probably not as NM will go with Obama. The vote will be 51-48% at best for the GOP, so I am not one to toil for no good result. If there was a chance of a win, I would get out the vote.

  34. B. Daniel Blatt says

    February 11, 2012 at 1:18 am - February 11, 2012

    Don’t be so certain davinci. W narrowly lost New Mexico in 2000 — and I had read that if there had not been a snowstorm in a Republican party of the state, he might have pulled that off. He flipped the Land of Enchantment in 2004. If the raise heats up, it’ll be competitive again.

    And maybe Governor Martinez can help!

  35. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 1:55 am - February 11, 2012

    His support and participation for the embarrassing Congressional invasion into the Terry Schaivo case.

    Having federal courts review the case is an “invasion”?

  36. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 2:29 am - February 11, 2012

    PS. Here is Terry Schaivo’s CAT scan in 2002.

    I don’t remember. Did he make an official diagnosis which was contrary to that or was he merely helping his constituents by making the point that she ought not to be starved to death so her POS husband can live guilt free?

    Also, wouldn’t we want a President who would order a federal court review of claims that one’s rights were being violated or would we rather have one who would respond with “Yeah, sorry. Some smug Ronulan foil hatter might call that an ‘invasion'” (or some variation including “Zionist” and/or “Neo-con”)?

  37. Cas says

    February 11, 2012 at 3:21 am - February 11, 2012

    Hi Dan,

    Today, he walked back his “newly announced requirement for religious employers to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter to their religious beliefs.”

    The contraceptive issue is now a dead letter. The President finessed it very nicely, so the storyline of “respecting religious beliefs whilst still giving women contraceptive relief” will be the dominant meme, I think. The oxygen for the firestorm is gone… Republicans will have to move on to another issue, cause Elvis has left the building.

  38. Heliotrope says

    February 11, 2012 at 10:00 am - February 11, 2012

    it is whether or not Santorum is willing to use the government to intrude into our private lives. Clearly, he has no problem with that.

    This uncontrolled fear of the imperial presidency which outflanks Congress and forces the government into “our private lives” is well founded. It is a good assessment of how Obama is operating.

    The first thing Clinton did out of the box when his administration focused like a laser on the “its the economy, stupid” was …… DA/DT.

    So, yeah, the unrestrained use of the executive order and the process of manipulation by regulation are very real.

    Some believe that Santorum is motivated by nothing greater than “plugging up the sodomy hole.” If I believed that, I would be yelling to the world that in this time of trouble and strife, Santorum is a dangerous waste of critical time.

    If I were trying to “keep the sodomy hole” open for private use and enjoyment, I would have to be a bit more circumspect than a heterosexual who has options. I would have to weigh Santorum against Obama and the potential of Santorum taking on the sodomy fight while correcting the fiscal course of the country and the potential of Obama keeping sodomy off the agenda while correcting the fiscal course of the country.

    In my opinion, the country is more aligned with correcting the fiscal course of the country than it is with getting into anybody’s bedroom to snoop around under the sheets. In my opinion, if Santorum were to get the nomination, he would have gained the support of the social conservatives like me, but he would have to focus on the problems that plague all of us, not just the small number of us who believe that the Judeo-Christian ethic has been under constant assault by liberals who want to drive religion out of the public square and replace it with the sacraments of the socialist (communist) state.

    To no small extent, I am urging people here to think their fear of Santorum through.

    I would fight him tooth and nail if he tried any of the liberal’s tricks used by FDR, LBJ, Clinton and Obama to implement their social agenda without the proper use of checks and balances set out in the Constitution.

    That said, I can not help but wonder how infected by liberal extra-Constitutional manipulation some commenters here have become.

    I would ask those who fear Santorum to step forward and justify their fears. We all know that homosexuality as a sin is a tough pill to take. But, I want a reasoned argument to study that would give me pause in my “blind” faith that hating the sin while loving the sinner is in jeopardy.

    Does anyone really feel that Santorum is gearing up for gay death camps in Colorado and he will name James Dobson as the Private Life Intrusion czar? Will gays have to wear pink flamingo patches on their clothing? Will people doing sex out of wedlock have their heads shaved and numbers tattooed on their wrists?

    Certainly, I have taken the argument of my concerns to the hyperbole level. But I am not the one fearing Santorum and his use of “government to intrude into our private lives.”

    And this business of commenters here being responsible for going to other web sites and reading posts there is a pure dodge of person integrity. I am not moved by “where there is smoke, there is fire” arguments.

    At this juncture, I would appreciate having a GayPatriot or somebody of similar balanced disposition go directly to Santorum and ask him to go on record about his beliefs and attitudes concerning the gay population of the United States of America in 2012. Challenge him with what he would do as President of the United States of America to put the gays where he wants them. Go down the list from gay partnerships hiding behind closed doors to the whole 14th amendment and federal civil rights protection of how one does sex.

    Just imagine all the fear and loathing that could be coaxed out of every inference and nuance of anything the man uttered. It would be a regular shopping list of the bonfire of the vanities artifacts and Santorum would become Savonarola.

    Who among us is going to throw “faggots”* on Santorum’s pyre of cleansing by fire? This is the time for the gay Renaissance man to be reasoned in his reasoning.

    (* faggot: 1 short faggot of sticks = 2 ft girth × 3 ft long bundle of short wood sticks/billets. 1 long faggot of sticks = 2 ft girth × 4 ft long bundle of long wood sticks/billets)

  39. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 10:02 am - February 11, 2012

    The “Let the Bitch Starve” crowd did not exactly cover themselves in glory during the Terry Schaivo spectacle; especially that POS husband’s ghoul of a lawyer. Note, afterwards, all the Democrats (even though most of them also voted to let the courts intervene) were the ones who were flogging this as a campaign issue; including the POS husband who leveraged his new-found fame to create a PAC to help Democrats, IIRC.

  40. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 10:39 am - February 11, 2012

    Much to Dan’s chagrin, it will not be made glorious summer by any son of Kennebunkport.

  41. sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2012 at 11:17 am - February 11, 2012

    There was no “The “Let the Bitch Starve” crowd – It was the “Stop interfering where you don’t belong” crowd. I mean, when, on the one hand, you had numerous neurologists examine her, in person, and diagnose her CORRECTLY, then you suddenly have a non-practicing heart surgeon, Bill Frist, (who I generally liked btw), who is not a neurologist and who had never actually examined her, misdiagnose the woman1000 mile away on the floor of the Senate all for the cause of being “Pro Life”….. You definitely have a problem.

    In fact, of all the much more important things that the was doing, two wars, budgets and what, the one thing that actually got them out of bed and act promptly was to interfere in one case involving a brain dead woman. It’s because Schaivo because a proxy for the abortion fight. Social Conservatism will trump Fiscal Conservatism every time.

  42. Roy Lofquist says

    February 11, 2012 at 11:35 am - February 11, 2012

    I have been watching these rodeos since 1952. Ideology has never been much of a factor. What matters is stability. People want get to get on with their “pursuit of happiness” and don’t care much for the bomb throwers.

    There were three wave elections in the 20th century – 1932, 1952 and 1980. FDR ran on a return to prosperity, Eisenhower on ending the Korean War and Reagan on “that shining city on a hill”. Obama ran a “throw the bums out” campaign and faltered badly in execution.

    2010 was the largest change in political power in 70 years. “Don’t Tread on Me” is pitch perfect for the current turmoil.

    I think we are heading for another 1932 whereby the Republican Party was cast into the wilderness for 60 years. Shoe’s on the other foot this time.

  43. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 11:47 am - February 11, 2012

    The national crisis we are caught in is not affected in any way by the issue of same sex marriage. There is a time to be gay and there is a time to be a patriot. Somehow, my expectation of being a GayPatriot is that one would put the country ahead of the gay agenda until the country is back on safe footing. Fine, if you can have both, but if that isn’t in the cards, then choose your priorities wisely.

    Says the person on the side of the issue that insists upon stopping any and all resolution of the question. Believe me, the gays would be happy to move on, it’s people like you who are digging in their heels about gay marriage.

    How can you not see that?

  44. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:03 pm - February 11, 2012

    Believe me, the gays would be happy to move on, it’s people like you who are digging in their heels about gay marriage.

    It’s Teh Gheys that are demanding a radical change to the institution of marriage and insisting that everything else stop until they get their way.

    This is just like the so-called ‘Culture War.’ It didn’t become a ‘Culture War’ until Christians and other groups who thought that proven values that had served Western Civilization well for centuries ought to be preserved began pushing back against a radical secular left determined to obliterate them.

    Levi’s proposition seems to be, “As soon as we’re done destroying your culture and everything you value, then we’ll be willing to compromise with you on other issues.”

  45. sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:05 pm - February 11, 2012

    Why do I have such contempt for Social Conservatives and their faux morality?

    ObamaCare – “How horrible it is that Government should get involved with life and death medical decisions!”

    Terry Schaivo – “Oh My God! The Congress must get involved with life and death medical decisions!”

    Hypocrites!

  46. sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:07 pm - February 11, 2012

    And it’s funny that the only time they got involved was when it concerned…. An evangelical family! Where is the concern for everyone else?

  47. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:11 pm - February 11, 2012

    We get it, Sonic. You wanted the bitch to starve. Can we move on, now?

  48. Heliotrope says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:21 pm - February 11, 2012

    Why do I have such contempt for Social Conservatives and their faux morality?

    No big deal, I am just an average chucklehead, but I take great offense at this statement.

    I am a Social Conservative. So, pray tell, what is the “faux morality” and where do I go to study up on the “real” morality?

    Please, Sonic, no references to your site or babbling hyperbole. Man up and lay it all out so we can admire it.

  49. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:21 pm - February 11, 2012

    The facts of the Schaivo case were a bit less cut and dried than Sonic lets on. Her husband was, and is, a very shifty character who first insisted she be kept alive so he could get a very large financial settlement (well over a million dollars) from the hospital he sued for negligence. Part of the reason the damage award was so large was because of the costs it would take to sustain her life in her vegetative state. Now, as soon as he got his settlement and had settled in with a new shack-up honey, he suddenly remembered that she had once asked him to pull the plug if she were in a permanent vegetative state… apparently a wish she had expressed to him and only him. So, he hired the world’s creepiest lawyer, a man who reveled in death, to get them to pull out her feeding tube and starve her to death. Her parents… not some state bureaucracy or pro-life politician… intervened to try and save her.

    This was a heartbreaking case, and most of the country would really like to just move on and never mention it again. But, of course, there are always those who will exploit tragedy for political purposes. It was an extreme circumstance and in retrospect it probably could have been handled differently. But I think, on the whole, the people who were moved to their position by a reverence for human life are on a higher moral plane than the “Let the Bitch Starve so Her Husband Can Take His Money and His New Honey and Get on With His Life” crowd.

  50. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:25 pm - February 11, 2012

    We also see, sf, that you don’t understand how human rights work.

  51. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm - February 11, 2012

    What Levi and Sonic both seem to agree on is that social conservatives should just bend over and take it while social liberals use every possible tool of Government to assault, disparage, and obliterate socially conservative values.

  52. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm - February 11, 2012

    on the whole, the people who were moved to their position by a reverence for human life are on a higher moral plane than the “Let the Bitch Starve…” crowd

    And that is how human rights work. You take a consistent position in defense of individual rights to life, liberty and property (the work product of one’s life). It kind of requires you to oppose stuff like murder, slavery, rape, theft, etc. So you oppose hospital murders in general, including Obamacare. There is no contradiction or hypocrisy involved.

    The only problem with Congress’ behavior in the Schiavo case is that if you look at it constitutionally, it was probably a State matter… they were perhaps not consistent about states’ rights.

  53. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm - February 11, 2012

    It’s Teh Gheys that are demanding a radical change to the institution of marriage and insisting that everything else stop until they get their way.

    This is just like the so-called ‘Culture War.’ It didn’t become a ‘Culture War’ until Christians and other groups who thought that proven values that had served Western Civilization well for centuries ought to be preserved began pushing back against a radical secular left determined to obliterate them.

    Levi’s proposition seems to be, “As soon as we’re done destroying your culture and everything you value, then we’ll be willing to compromise with you on other issues.”

    I don’t understand something; if you think marriage is such a great thing for our culture and for our society, why is preventing more people from participating in it such a bad thing? You believe it would be ‘destroying your culture’ to have more people involved in this institution of marriage which you endorse so enthusiastically? Is that supposed to make sense?

    Meanwhile, divorce rates hover around 50%, people get married to strangers in Las Vegas, and pseudo-celebrities get married on their reality TV shows because of ratings. Yes, modern heterosexual society has done such a great job of preserving the integrity and seriousness of marriage over the years, it would be a shame for all these gays to ruin the thing, wouldn’t it? Because after all, whenever a gay person participates in something, it is made automatically bad and has a ‘culture-destroying’ effect. Let’s just be grateful that the gays haven’t infected any of the great American culture engines like Hollywood and Broadway, AMIRITE?

  54. The_Livewire says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm - February 11, 2012

    Says the person on the side of the issue that insists upon stopping any and all resolution of the question.

    Several states have resolved the question, some say no, some say yes, some say Fred. You just don’t like ‘no’ as the answer as shown by…

    Believe me, the gays would be happy to move on, it’s people like you who are digging in their heels about gay marriage.

    So it isn’t ‘settled’ until it’s settled Levi’s way. And people wonder why I say…

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

  55. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm - February 11, 2012

    Exactly, the issue isn’t “settled” until the leftists win. That’s the way they operate.

  56. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:44 pm - February 11, 2012

    The contraceptive issue is now a dead letter. The President finessed it very nicely

    As usual, Cas, you spew complete bullsh*t – the left-wing talking points.

    The issue is by no means dead because Obama did not finesse it; rather, he has now made it worse.

    Religious organizations are still forced to pay for contraception and abortions; simply by another ruse. The cost, under Obama’s new plan, is to be forced on them via the general cost of their policies. Same difference, in the end. It remains a giant First Amendment issue. As Ed Morrissey puts it:

    The government is forcing religious organizations to both pay for and facilitate activities that violate their religious doctrine. If anyone thinks that passes muster with the First Amendment, that’s even more magical thinking than this funding shell game.

    More here: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/10/obama-accommodation-insurers-must-cover-contraception-at-no-cost-to-anyone/
    And here: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/11/bishops-to-obama-no-dice/

  57. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:44 pm - February 11, 2012

    And I believe marriage rights will make gays more committed and responsible they way welfare checks give poor people better work ethics.

  58. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:46 pm - February 11, 2012

    The contraceptive issue is now a dead letter. The President finessed it very nicely

    Before the compromise, the Government mandates that religious organizations buy health care policies that provided contraceptive services to women at no cost.

    After the compromise, the Government mandates that religious organizations buy health care policies that provided contraceptive services to women at no cost.

    Only a progressive Fascist would see this as “finesse” and not a heavy-handed and vulgar display of totalitarian power.

  59. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:52 pm - February 11, 2012

    V, yet another instance of the Left’s “We’ve officially compromised when you give up and let me win… Now, why won’t you compromise with me?” approach.

  60. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm - February 11, 2012

    The facts of the Schaivo case were a bit less cut and dried than Sonic lets on. Her husband was, and is, a very shifty character who first insisted she be kept alive so he could get a very large financial settlement (well over a million dollars) from the hospital he sued for negligence. Part of the reason the damage award was so large was because of the costs it would take to sustain her life in her vegetative state. Now, as soon as he got his settlement and had settled in with a new shack-up honey, he suddenly remembered that she had once asked him to pull the plug if she were in a permanent vegetative state… apparently a wish she had expressed to him and only him. So, he hired the world’s creepiest lawyer, a man who reveled in death, to get them to pull out her feeding tube and starve her to death. Her parents… not some state bureaucracy or pro-life politician… intervened to try and save her.

    You make it sound like he tried to pull the plug a month after her accident – it was nearly a decade. I think that’s a long enough time to wait and gauge if there’s going to be any improvement.

    I don’t think there’s a person here that wouldn’t agree ahead of time to letting their partner pull the plug after ten years of complete non-responsiveness, when MRIs are showing your brain to be shriveled up to almost nothingness, instead of just lingering there forever as a burden for your family to take care of and prevent anyone from moving past. You wouldn’t want to put your family through that and you’d want want your spouse to get away with as much money as they could (and you’d hope they would even find someone else to marry and have kids with, too.) The autopsy revealed how irretrievably gone Schaivo was when she died, and you’re some kind of crazy, selfish monster if you could seriously say that you’d want to be kept alive artificially in that way.

    This was a heartbreaking case, and most of the country would really like to just move on and never mention it again. But, of course, there are always those who will exploit tragedy for political purposes. It was an extreme circumstance and in retrospect it probably could have been handled differently. But I think, on the whole, the people who were moved to their position by a reverence for human life are on a higher moral plane than the “Let the Bitch Starve so Her Husband Can Take His Money and His New Honey and Get on With His Life” crowd.

    Again – something is wrong with you if you didn’twant your spouse to do that, if you would prefer that they spent the rest of their lives working their asses off so they could afford to sit in a hospital next to you while you crapped your pants and drooled. Are you telling me that would be your preference if you were in that situation?

  61. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2012 at 1:06 pm - February 11, 2012

    something is wrong with you…

    Levi, you have a call on line 2. It’s the kettle.

    …if you didn’twant your spouse to do that, if you would prefer that they spent the rest of their lives working their asses off so they could afford to sit in a hospital next to you while you crapped your pants and drooled.

    So, you argue in effect, Terry Schiavo is to blame. Because she *should have* left instructions that she be terminated. She would have been inconsiderate, if she didn’t. It’s not her husband’s fault. If he remembers her doing it, then she did, because she ought to have. It was her husband’s life… and so on.

    I’m reminded of this passage from _The Lord of the Rings_:

    [Gandalf speaking to Frodo] ‘The murder of Déagol haunted Gollum, and he made up a defence, repeating it to his “precious” over and over again, as he gnawed bones in the dark, until he almost believed it. It was his birthday. Déagol ought to have given the ring to him. It had previously turned up just so as to be a present. It was his birthday present, and so on, and on.’

  62. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2012 at 1:08 pm - February 11, 2012

    Argh sorry for typo, “It had -obviously- turned up just so as to be a present…”

  63. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 1:23 pm - February 11, 2012

    Creepy bastard husband didn’t call for her plug to be pulled a month after the accident, he waited until he got millions in settlement money, then he suddenly remembered she wanted to die.

  64. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 1:25 pm - February 11, 2012

    I note that the left has made a hero out of Terry Schaivo’s sleazy bastard of a husband just the way they have made an icon out of gay-hating, racist mass murderer Che Guevara.

    You can tell a lot about people by the heroes they choose.

  65. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 1:34 pm - February 11, 2012

    So, you argue in effect, Terry Schiavo is to blame. Because she *should have* left instructions that she be terminated. She would have been inconsiderate, if she didn’t. It’s not her husband’s fault. If he remembers her doing it, then she did, because she ought to have. It was her husband’s life… and so on.

    Wow, I don’t know what kind of stupid argument you’re trying to have, but that isn’t what I said at all. I wouldn’t blame anyone in the mid 20s or mid 30s for not having a definitive plan with their spouse in place for what to do if someone goes brain dead, but I guess you’re just desperate enough that your first resort will be to pretend like I’m disparaging the dead person in this scenario…

    What I actually said was that no human being, if given the choice, would choose to put their family through all of the hospital bills and exhaustion of caring for someone who is certifiably and irretrievably brain dead. Tell me, ILC, that if you were the one on the hospital bed, you would want them to keep feeding you, for 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? Tell me, ILC, that you wouldn’t prefer that once it became clear that you weren’t going to recover, to just pass away so the people you left behind could get on with their lives?

    I simply can’t imagine anyone choosing that as an outcome. Would you choose that if it was your situation?

  66. Heliotrope says

    February 11, 2012 at 1:44 pm - February 11, 2012

    Everybody, especially the moral relevancy crowd, loves to play out the “lifeboat” scenario where somebody has to be sacrificed for the “good” of the others.

    This is always at the man-as-beast and the survival of the beast hypothetical level where those who play situation ethics have no skin in the game. The game is usually more “fun” when you have a roaring fire and some single malt scotch or other high priced libation fueling your fantasies.

    The moral relativist liberal (redundancy?) is always hot to write a “consensus” theory of reasoned conclusion to “solve” the dilemma. They are fully ready to play the role of “rent-a-rabbi” and wheel in on a unicycle and pronounce the “correct” outcome.

    Arguing with that type of mindset is like trying to unscramble eggs. These people justify their predetermined ends with any straw in the wind they can grasp. And if no straws blow by, they can just switch the argument or name call. In this case, everybody who is not in agreement is in the crowd where:

    something is wrong with you if you didn’t want your spouse to do that, if you would prefer that they spent the rest of their lives working their asses off so they could afford to sit in a hospital next to you while you crapped your pants and drooled.

    Oh, the name being called? Heartless, lunatic, God fooled imbecile.

  67. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 2:03 pm - February 11, 2012

    Before the compromise, the Government mandates that religious organizations buy health care policies that provided contraceptive services to women at no cost.

    After the compromise, the Government mandates that religious organizations buy health care policies that provided contraceptive services to women at no cost.

    Only a progressive Fascist would see this as “finesse” and not a heavy-handed and vulgar display of totalitarian power.

    Gee, wouldn’t it be great if we all knew the taxes we paid were going only to things that we enthusiastically support? I mean, I have to pay for all kinds of things that I find unconscionable, things like dropping bombs on Middle Eastern children, like throwing people in prison for smoking marijuana, like writing checks to banks that caused the financial crisis without attaching strings, etc. Do you suppose these concerns of mine are any less important than these whiny bishops who get to sit around inventing stuff to pretend to be upset about?

    Well of course they’re less important, because I haven’t couched my concerns in all sorts of stupid religious mumbo-jumbo that you can make up as you go along! And boy, the way our wonderful healthcare system is humming along, we just really need a bunch of backwards-thinking cultists throwing fits and demanding exemptions for their bullshit religious edicts. If you’re going to offer healthcare plans to your employees, you shouldn’t interfere in your employees’ private health issues and dictate what kinds of care they can or cannot receive (especially when your intervention only applies for a single demographic – women.) What other kinds of arbitrary exemptions and latitudes should society afford religious organizations in the healthcare plans they offer? Scientologists shouldn’t have to cover anything that involves mental health or prescription drugs, should they, because of their conscience?

    Freedom of religion doesn’t include the freedom of employers to interfere in their employees’ medical treatment.

  68. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm - February 11, 2012

    Since when does the Government mandating what any employer must provide in any insurance policy consistent with any notion of “freedom?”

    To progressives, Freedom just means the freedom to do what the Government tells you to do.

  69. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 2:27 pm - February 11, 2012

    How about this. If I don’t like my employer’s insurance package, I can quit and go work for another employer. Or, buy my own insurance.

    I know, it’s a crazy idea. But then, what do I know, I’m just an ignorant, bigoted, religious, capitalist social con.

  70. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 2:30 pm - February 11, 2012

    Everybody, especially the moral relevancy crowd, loves to play out the “lifeboat” scenario where somebody has to be sacrificed for the “good” of the others.

    This is always at the man-as-beast and the survival of the beast hypothetical level where those who play situation ethics have no skin in the game. The game is usually more “fun” when you have a roaring fire and some single malt scotch or other high priced libation fueling your fantasies.

    The moral relativist liberal (redundancy?) is always hot to write a “consensus” theory of reasoned conclusion to “solve” the dilemma. They are fully ready to play the role of “rent-a-rabbi” and wheel in on a unicycle and pronounce the “correct” outcome.

    Arguing with that type of mindset is like trying to unscramble eggs. These people justify their predetermined ends with any straw in the wind they can grasp. And if no straws blow by, they can just switch the argument or name call. In this case, everybody who is not in agreement is in the crowd where:

    Oh, the name being called? Heartless, lunatic, God fooled imbecile.

    So many words to say so little. I’ve made it clear what my position is and have grounded the argument in moral terms, but I don’t see you doing the same. You’ll gleefully talk about my supposedly rudderless morality and then refrain from telling anyone what your own sense of the scenario is. I can only assume you would insist on being kept alive for as long as possible, regardless of your deterioration, regardless of the expense and the emotional drain on your family? Dating back to when this became a national issue, I’ve never heard a single person say that they would prefer to be kept alive if they were the ones on the hospital bed. When couples talked about Terri Schaivo, it was frequently to make clear to their significant other the following; ‘If I’m ever that far gone, pull the plug and don’t feel bad about it.’ I believe that to be the overwhelming consensus, do you beg to differ? Do you think there are millions of people in this country who would volunteer their families and friends for decades of hospital visits, thousands of dollars in bills, and lingering emotional stress?

    As pessimistic as I am and as greedy as most Americans are, I just can’t imagine that there are more than a handful of people who are so selfish that they’d submit their family to such ongoing trauma. But at this point I’m repeating myself – what do you and your Superior Jesus-Approved Morals (TM) have to say about this specific scenario?

  71. Bastiat Fan says

    February 11, 2012 at 2:38 pm - February 11, 2012

    As pessimistic as I am and as greedy as most Americans are…

    And there we have the leftist mindset, distilled to its essence. Translation: “I’m a miserable bastard because the world doesn’t work the way I want it to. Oh, and if someone else has more than I do, they must be GREEDY.”

  72. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 2:40 pm - February 11, 2012

    And there we have the leftist mindset, distilled to its essence. Translation: “I’m a miserable bastard because the world doesn’t work the way I want it to. Oh, and if someone else has more than I do, they must be GREEDY.”

    What a worthwhile contribution you’ve made, thank you so much for this.

  73. Heliotrope says

    February 11, 2012 at 2:47 pm - February 11, 2012

    Freedom of religion doesn’t include the freedom of employers to interfere in their employees’ medical treatment.

    Swine blather cast before pearls.

    The government requires the employer to provide health insurance. The government requires the health insurer to provide ill-defined contraceptive services at no cost to the insured.

    Just how does the insurer cover the costs of what is provided “free” to the user?

    So, if the employer is categorically opposed to contraception (on First Amendment grounds), can he employ only those who do not need contraceptive services as a responsible way to avoid people from using the “free” services mandated in the health insurance he is mandated to provide?

    Or, should the employer just get out of business and take Catholic charities to places where they are desired and appreciated?

    Or should the Catholic doctrine be altered to fit the politically correct water boarding pressure being applied to the Catholic entity?

    Or, should the employee be fully informed before being hired that the health insurance will not include contraceptive services and seek his own supplemental insurance?

    Or should the health czar create a special contraceptive entitlement funded by the taxpayer which will cover contraceptive services for employees of Catholic hospitals who want and apply for the coverage?

    Or should Planned Parenthood (which barely has anything whatsoever to do with abortion) “unionize” those who want and can’t receive contraceptive coverage and give them a Planned Parenthood cut rate package which includes a “free” t-shirt?

  74. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 2:55 pm - February 11, 2012

    Heliotrope, what you are describing are freedom and personal responsibility; two things we absolutely cannot have in the progressive Utopia Levi and his ilk want to drag us kicking and screaming into.

  75. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 3:05 pm - February 11, 2012

    Swine blather cast before pearls.

    The government requires the employer to provide health insurance. The government requires the health insurer to provide ill-defined contraceptive services at no cost to the insured.

    Just how does the insurer cover the costs of what is provided “free” to the user?

    So, if the employer is categorically opposed to contraception (on First Amendment grounds)

    Who cares if they’re opposed to it? When it comes to the social contract and a taxypayer-funded government, we all end up paying for many, many things which we oppose. Does opposition to something exempt you from having to pay taxes for it, automatically? Why does their opposition to contraception take priority over my opposition to the war in Iraq? If, two years from now, the Vatican arbitrarily decides (like they arbitrarily decided to oppose contraception) that it’s against the Catholic religion to treat cancer because cancer is God’s will, does that mean Catholic affiliated organizations can claim the same exemption with their employees’ healthcare plans?

  76. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 3:13 pm - February 11, 2012

    The obvious answer is to get the Government out of the health care business so no one has to pay for things they don’t want to. And as a bonus, you eliminate the deficit. Win-Win.

  77. The_Livewire says

    February 11, 2012 at 3:28 pm - February 11, 2012

    So many words to say so little.

    There he goes, talking about himself again.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

  78. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2012 at 3:37 pm - February 11, 2012

    What I actually said was that no human being, if given the choice, would choose to put their family through all of the hospital bills and exhaustion of caring for someone who is certifiably and irretrievably brain dead.

    If that’s truly all you meant to say, poor Levi, then you have said something with NO BEARING on the Schiavo case. Congratulations.

    The only way it be a remotely meaningful comment to Schiavo would be if you had meant it as a rationalization for Michael Schiavo’s actions (i.e., rationalizing that surely Terry would have approved of his actions, if only we could have asked the poor woman). You now claim that you didn’t – making what you did say an empty ‘nothing’. I had given you the benefit of the doubt, in assuming that you had somehow meant to say something relevant or meaningful.

    So congratuations again, Levi: once more, you have succeeded in proving that even with my exceedingly low expectations of you, I still didn’t go low enough. I still overestimated you.

    Why does their opposition to contraception take priority [in terms of not having to fund it] over my opposition to the war in Iraq [sic; what war?]

    It is called the United States Constitution, Levi. Try reading it sometime.

  79. Heliotrope says

    February 11, 2012 at 3:38 pm - February 11, 2012

    When it comes to the social contract and a taxypayer-funded government

    Where does the employer go to get a copy of this “social contract” so that he knows his requirements and obligations?

    How is this “social contract” amended?

    What connection is there between this “social contract” and a “taxpayer-funded government”?

    I am aware of the Constitution of the United States of America. Is that the “social contract” to which you refer? If so, where do I go in it to find the part about the state panel that decides the “whys” and “wherefores” of universal health care? Is it the part in Obamacare where the Secretary of Health and Human Services has carte blanche to make any ruling she wishes without regard to any oversight whatsoever? And is that the part where Kathleen Sebelius puts her personal interpretation (a la Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Teddy Kennedy and John F’n Kerry) as a Catholic above the Pope in the Vatican? Is that the part where Kathleen Sebelius drags the Catholic Church kicking and screaming into moral relevancy, moral relativity and evolutionary enlightened epiphany?

    Oh, this should be good. Really, really instructive.

  80. The_Livewire says

    February 11, 2012 at 3:41 pm - February 11, 2012

    Reposting my comment from NRO:
    The employer offers salary and benefits for work provided. Once the employee has been reimbursed for his labor, it’s not the employer’s concern what he does with it.

    With President Obama’s diktat, the employer is being forced by the government to provide the service as part of the compensation to that employee. The employee can choose to work for the employer, the employer can choose to hire the employee. If the terms become what either dislikes, they can leave. With the diktat, the employer is given a choice to adhere to their ethics, or not have a business. (if the fines paid go to a plan that covers abortion, then they’re still being forced to violate their beliefs).

    Now, with the revised diktat, it becomes “We’re not going to require you to pay for contraceptives. Instead, we’re going to make it so you can’t buy plans that don’t provide it.”

    Insurance companies will write any kind of policy you’re willing to pay for. Now it’s being demanded that they provide a coverage whether their buyer wants it or not.

    And it’s not just ‘religious organizations’ If Dave Thomas was still alive, he’d be livid at the thought of the government telling him he had to cover Plan B. He was adopted and chose to pay to have his company’s benefits reflect his beliefs.

    Standard Disclaimer: I work for an insurance company. I don’t speak for them, and they sure as hell don’t want me to.

  81. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2012 at 3:47 pm - February 11, 2012

    Who cares if they’re opposed to it?

    (ILC raises his hand)

    Freedom of religion doesn’t include the freedom of employers to interfere in their employees’ medical treatment.

    But that’s not the issue here. The Catholic employees will still be perfectly free to get contraception and/or abortion – on their own dime.

    Seems to me Dan just wrote a post about that. Oh yeah, here it is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/02/03/do-nyt-editors-understand-meaning-of-liberty/

    …the Times assumed that a private entity was depriving an individual of liberty by not giving him the benefits he demanded. So by that notion, a company is depriving its client of liberty if it can’t provide him the product he wants.

    Do the editors of the old gray lady even understand that even if Catholic institutions don’t provide their employees with insurance coverage for birth control, said employees still remain free to procure contraceptives [ed: and abortions] on their own?

    Try to get your money back from the community college, Levi. They didn’t teach you what liberty is, nor how to think.

  82. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 3:48 pm - February 11, 2012

    If that’s truly all you meant to say, poor Levi, then you have said something with NO BEARING on the Schiavo case. Congratulations.

    The only way it be a remotely meaningful comment to Schiavo would be if you had meant it as a rationalization for Michael Schiavo’s actions (i.e., rationalizing that surely Terry would have approved of his actions, if only we could have asked the poor woman). You now claim that you didn’t – making what you did say an empty ‘nothing’. I had given you the benefit of the doubt, in assuming that you had somehow meant to say something relevant or meaningful.

    So congratuations again, Levi: once more, you have succeeded in proving that even with my exceedingly low expectations of you, I still didn’t go low enough. I still overestimated you.

    Holy shit, I can’t imagine anything more boring than going over this over and over again with you. You tried to put words in my mouth, saying that I was blaming Terri Schaivo for the entire predicament when I didn’t say anything of the sort and that wasn’t my intention at all. If you’re not even going to try to follow along with what I actually said, then I care little about what kind of bar you’ve set for me. Why should I care about the assessment of someone whose first response is to lie about what I say?

    It is called the United States Constitution, Levi. Try reading it sometime.

    Again, if I have a moral objection to war, and if you have a moral objection to contraception, why do you get the exemption and I don’t? Why should I have to pay for something I object to, but you shouldn’t have to pay for something you object to? Which part of the Constitution says that?

  83. Heliotrope says

    February 11, 2012 at 3:59 pm - February 11, 2012

    Anybody here want to join me in demanding the government force Chick-fil-A to get rid of its Dark Ages voodoo mumble-jumble mission statement?

    S. Truett Cathy’s official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists “To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”

    [All Chick-fil-A locations (company-owned and franchised, whether in a mall or freestanding) are closed on Sundays, as well as on Thanksgiving and Christmas.]

    “I was not so committed to financial success that I was willing to abandon my principles and priorities. One of the most visible examples of this is our decision to close on Sunday. Our decision to close on Sunday was our way of honoring God and of directing our attention to things that mattered more than our business”

    Does any greater example exist of the need of government to get into this Neanderthal’s cave and drag him kicking and screaming into the enlightenment?

    Do you know what Cathy does? He meddles with his employees personal problems. He actually believes that a sense of community and a caring employer help create a more productive employee, person and citizen.

    Who does he think he is? Obama or a village raising a child or is he just some sort of maverick out to short circuit social justice and community organizers who are working to empower the masses with victim rights?

  84. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:01 pm - February 11, 2012

    Where does the employer go to get a copy of this “social contract” so that he knows his requirements and obligations?

    How is this “social contract” amended?

    What connection is there between this “social contract” and a “taxpayer-funded government”?

    I am aware of the Constitution of the United States of America. Is that the “social contract” to which you refer? If so, where do I go in it to find the part about the state panel that decides the “whys” and “wherefores” of universal health care? Is it the part in Obamacare where the Secretary of Health and Human Services has carte blanche to make any ruling she wishes without regard to any oversight whatsoever? And is that the part where Kathleen Sebelius puts her personal interpretation (a la Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Teddy Kennedy and John F’n Kerry) as a Catholic above the Pope in the Vatican? Is that the part where Kathleen Sebelius drags the Catholic Church kicking and screaming into moral relevancy, moral relativity and evolutionary enlightened epiphany?

    Oh, this should be good. Really, really instructive.

    I don’t know why you’er playing dumb, the concept of a social contract is older than government itself, and one of its basic precepts is that each of us is occasionally inconvenienced on an individual level in exchange for the benefits of living in a group. We pay taxes for things that we may not utilize or ever have a need for, and others use those services. Conversely, other people pay taxes for things they don’t need which you use. If you want to get picky and start filtering out everything that you don’t support 100%, then no one would pay any taxes and we wouldn’t have a government.

    If the church doesn’t want a penny of their money to go towards contraception, then I don’t want a penny of my money going towards incarcerating potheads. What about the church’s request is more important than my request? You guys don’t support the Obama administration, why should you have to pay taxes at all? Don’t you find it morally unconscionable that you have to give money to an administration that allocates in ways that you disagree with?

  85. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:03 pm - February 11, 2012

    Does any greater example exist of the need of government to get into this Neanderthal’s cave and drag him kicking and screaming into the enlightenment?

    Do you know what Cathy does? He meddles with his employees personal problems. He actually believes that a sense of community and a caring employer help create a more productive employee, person and citizen.

    Who does he think he is? Obama or a village raising a child or is he just some sort of maverick out to short circuit social justice and community organizers who are working to empower the masses with victim rights?

    Congratulations, you’ve discovered a non-sequitor that doesn’t have anything to do with anything. Do you think I support that government forcing all businesses to be open 24/7?

  86. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:17 pm - February 11, 2012

    What I actually said was that no human being, if given the choice, would choose to put their family through all of the hospital bills and exhaustion of caring for someone who is certifiably and irretrievably brain dead.

    Here’s the thing: Her parents WANTED to go through that. They wanted to take on the bills and the exhaustion of caring for someone. That was their whole position. What they got was the courts, and a partial court of public opinion, telling them “Nope, she gets to die instead”. That’s why they had propagandists going on TV to tell Americans how wonderful it is to die from dehydration. That’s why we get lying sacks of crap that insist that Bill Frist made a diagnosis “from 1,000 miles away” when clearly he did not.

    The issue before Congress was NOT about how to interfere or an “invasion”, but to address the concerns that her United States Constitutional rights were being violated. So yes, it does seem like we have a portion of our society that were more interested in letting the bitch die and lie about the whole damn affair for whatever reason. Somehow it doesn’t seem to bother these people that they were cheering for death rather than letting someone live, regardless of condition. Somehow it doesn’t seem to bother these people that they were supporting the position that one life was worth less than others. Somehow it doesn’t bother a certain SOB to assert that everybody who opposed letting a human being starve to death are monsters. And this would be the SAME SOB who wet his panties when murderous Islamo-fascists get water splashed in their faces.

  87. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:19 pm - February 11, 2012

    AMIRITE?

    To make the argument that the institution of marriage sucks so much ass as it is that we should let more participate? Really?

    I never understand the argument for gay marriage that is based on maintaining how horrible marriage is in the first place. I just don’t get how that works.

  88. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:22 pm - February 11, 2012

    Again, if I have a moral objection to war, and if you have a moral objection to contraception, why do you get the exemption and I don’t?

    Defense is a constitutional requirement. Forcing the people to pay for free contraception is not. Are you really that f@cking stupid?

  89. Heliotrope says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:26 pm - February 11, 2012

    So, Levi, your reference to the “social contract” is not to the Constitution.

    Where can I get a copy of your chosen “social contract” and how does one go about amending it?

    Don’t you think it only “fair” to let me know what is OK and what is not OK as spelled out in your social contract?

    Somehow, you want to stay all riled up over this “war” thing you have to pay for. Guess what, I agree (in part) that when we render unto Caesar that we lose control of what Caesar spends it on. (Feel better?)

    What I don’t get is how Caesar going to war is parallel to Caesar going to war on how you believe. Especially when the master social contract (The Constitution) says that Caesar and the church are separate entities. (First Amendment.) My confusion in your parallel lies in large part over where war parallels speech, religion, the press, peaceable assembly and the redress of grievance.

  90. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:28 pm - February 11, 2012

    Further, YOU’RE party rattled the sabers and banged the war drums for Iraq way before Bush got into office. Your party was for it before they were against it. They made the case for it. They argued that the WMDs were there and were being manufactured. They made the removal of Saddam Hussein into US foreign policy.

    Perhaps your argument is with the party you so asininely defend.

  91. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm - February 11, 2012

    To make the argument that the institution of marriage sucks so much ass as it is that we should let more participate? Really?

    I never understand the argument for gay marriage that is based on maintaining how horrible marriage is in the first place. I just don’t get how that works.

    I’m all for people jumping into a conversation that they’re not involved in, I do it frequently here. But for the love of god man, try to keep up. I never said marriage is horrible, I said that if people are so concerned with the integrity of the institution, they have bigger fish to fry (divorce rate, Kim Kardashian, etc.) How preventing more willing participants is a higher priority for the marriage-is-sacred people is beyond me.

  92. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm - February 11, 2012

    Defense is a constitutional requirement. Forcing the people to pay for free contraception is not. Are you really that f@cking stupid?

    I referred the poor guy to the Constitution. But I guess you can’t make a horse drink the water, LOL 🙂

  93. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:32 pm - February 11, 2012

    Whoops! YOUR, rather.

    And another thing, can you explain how going to war to put the Muslim Brotherhood into power is so much better? I’ll note that the Bamster didn’t give a rat’s ass about supporting the people of Iran nor did he care about supporting the people of Honduras. But when it comes to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, he’ll stand up and fight for that “freedom”.

    Congratulations. Your President has done more for radical Islam (and shat on their opponents) than any President in US history.

  94. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:33 pm - February 11, 2012

    Defense is a constitutional requirement. Forcing the people to pay for free contraception is not. Are you really that f@cking stupid?

    Defense may be a constitutional requirement, but invading countries on manufactured evidence to enrich your business partners is not.

    Regardless, and before we bring the wars into this rapidly swerving conversation, switch mine to anything you like – use my incarcerating potheads things. I have a moral objection to it, why can’t I be exempted from paying taxes for it?

  95. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:35 pm - February 11, 2012

    I said that if people are so concerned with the integrity of the institution, they have bigger fish to fry

    How about that lesbian poster couple for gay marriage in California who just recently divorced? Can we start with that?

  96. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:37 pm - February 11, 2012

    I have a moral objection to it, why can’t I be exempted from paying taxes for it?

    AGAIN. There’s no constitutional duty to force churches, or anybody else, to pay for contraception so you don’t have to be responsible for your choices.

    Asked and answered, dipshit.

  97. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:37 pm - February 11, 2012

    invading countries on manufactured evidence to enrich your business partners is not

    Thankfully, that never happened.

    before we bring the wars into this

    Too late… *YOU* did it. (#75)

    Typical leftie, always trying to evade responsibility.

  98. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 4:43 pm - February 11, 2012

    why can’t I be exempted from paying taxes for it?

    Perhaps your argument is with your party that loves to levy taxes on everyone for anything. We got the AMT to force the rich to “pay their fair share”. It’s currently caught up the middle class into paying more. Now you want an AMT II and call it a “Buffett Rule” which will NEVER apply to him.

    Maybe you should have some words with the fiscal retards you keep voting for?

  99. The_Livewire says

    February 11, 2012 at 5:13 pm - February 11, 2012

    Guys,

    Levi’s perfectly happy in his racist tyranny.

    The scary thing is he wants to drag us kicking and screaming into it.

    Laws? Who needs laws? We’ll just let the judges tell us what we can do. Government’s always right, and those unintelligent ‘Arabians’ and sexually active poor people can just get removed for Levi’s utopia.

    Pointing out that he continues to lie and show his hatred, is kind of like pointing out I’m fat. It’s hard to avoid. 😉

  100. North Dallas Thirty says

    February 11, 2012 at 5:19 pm - February 11, 2012

    And here, gentlemen, we see where Levi the idiot bigot blows up his own argument.

    I don’t know why you’er playing dumb, the concept of a social contract is older than government itself, and one of its basic precepts is that each of us is occasionally inconvenienced on an individual level in exchange for the benefits of living in a group.

    Followed within mere sentences by:

    What about the church’s request is more important than my request?

    Comment by Levi — February 11, 2012 @ 4:01 pm – February 11, 2012

    And therein we see Levi the liar bigot’s true beliefs. WE are supposed to shut up and sacrifice; HE should never ever ever ever have to do so.

    Levi and his fellow liberals have no intention of keeping the “social contract”. As we see with OWS, they are lying rapists and thieves who destroy private and public property, attack police, and try to bully and intimidate private citizens to get their way.

    And when they are Levi’s precious Obama Party, they openly commit tax and welfare fraud, refusing to pay while simultaneously looting the funds others did.

    If Levi supports the “social contract”, then let him call out his fellow OWS Obama Party members for breaking it. The fact that he doesn’t — and indeed, spins that breaking the “social contract” is perfectly acceptable when Barack Obama does it — shows what a sniveling, hypocritical little bigot he is.

  101. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 5:41 pm - February 11, 2012

    Not only is national defense a Constitutional requirement, it’s also a service that only Government can provide. (Unless you want to outsource defense to mercenaries, which may be a valid approach, but is still something Government must pay for.) Whereas health care is a service the private sector and free market are capable of providing quite well.

  102. Heliotrope says

    February 11, 2012 at 5:44 pm - February 11, 2012

    Congratulations, you’ve discovered a non-sequitor that doesn’t have anything to do with anything. Do you think I support that government forcing all businesses to be open 24/7?

    By your enlightened statist thinking, you darn well should!!!!

    1.) Cathy’s voodoo, turtle-in-the-sky religious mumble-jumble (I concede that I don’t do religion bashing with your polished sincerity) keeps the government from getting the taxes they are owed by his not generating income and paying employees one day a week.

    2.) The country needs more jobs and Cathy is denying them and that is unpatriotic, unAmerican and Democrat proclaimed dirty-birdie poo-poo and stinky.

    3.) Jews might just like some Chick-fil-A on Sunday when they are off from religion.

    How can one man’s religious fever and idiocy be allowed to short circuit the compelling state interest in collecting more tax money and providing jobs and patronizing Jews who vote correctly?

    Furthermore, I darn well bet you that when a Chick-fil-A worker gets knocked up, they do everything to make her a slave to an unwanted, unneeded clump of cells and goo that will only cause her endless misery and an inability to contribute to Planned Parenthood which is dedicated to women’s health by only marginally dealing reluctantly with abortion.

    My Chick-fil-A parallel is a whole lot closer to your core convictions than your lame Iraq war parallel was to forcing Catholic employers to provide insurance for contraception and abortions.

    Try looking up “non-sequitur” and see if you can master the meaning.

  103. North Dallas Thirty says

    February 11, 2012 at 5:49 pm - February 11, 2012

    Also, people, we need to keep this in mind: since Levi doesn’t pay taxes, he doesn’t bear any of the costs of his “social contract”.

    Think about life that way. All Levi has to do is demand more and more and it is given to him, all without him ever having to lift a finger, to earn it, or to pay for it.

    It is the mentality of a spoiled three-year-old. And that is the mentality of the Obama Party and Levi-level “progressivism”.

  104. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 6:22 pm - February 11, 2012

    Levi is Exhibit A. In my thesis that all liberal policies are rooted in selfishness.

    And L’il Kiwi is Exhibit A. in the Thesis that liberalism is a mental disorder.

  105. Bastiat Fan says

    February 11, 2012 at 7:56 pm - February 11, 2012

    Levi, honey: I didn’t sign your “social contract.”

    http://www.zazzle.com/i_didnt_sign_your_social_compact_bumper_sticker-128305819553420732

  106. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 8:00 pm - February 11, 2012

    Question: Do you guys think Levi realizes he is basically advocating Fascism; absolute control of the Government over the individual? Does he know this is what he is advocating, and he doesn’t care? Or is he simply to dumb to realize this is what he is advocating?

  107. Heliotrope says

    February 11, 2012 at 8:08 pm - February 11, 2012

    Bastiat Fan,

    We hereby declare you to be a KKK-loving, Nazi, xenophobic, Chauvinistic, neo-con, right wing-nut homophobe with cannibalistic tendencies.

    (signed)

    The Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo division.

  108. Heliotrope says

    February 11, 2012 at 8:14 pm - February 11, 2012

    V the K,

    I can only go by my classroom experience. He gets high on sniffing his own nether regions. Whatever causes that particular high in his particular case is known only to him and fully not worth exploring.

    Just saying ……

    However, I still enjoy plinking at tin cans on the fence posts. Don’t you?

    And, when is the last time you had an intellectually challenging debate with a liberal who set you back to rethinking your argument?

  109. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2012 at 8:16 pm - February 11, 2012

    Does [Levi] know [that fascism] is what he is advocating, and he doesn’t care? Or is he simply to dumb to realize this is what he is advocating?

    Can’t it be both? He gets off on the thought of the State controlling and punishing others for his benefit (he thinks); he hasn’t grasped the full consequences – and doesn’t care to. Moral-political stupidity is always at least partly willful.

  110. Levi says

    February 11, 2012 at 9:46 pm - February 11, 2012

    Here’s the thing: Her parents WANTED to go through that.

    No, that’s not the thing. What her parents wanted is completely insignificant compared to what she would have wanted, which I continue to suggest is to be taken off life support. I empathize with the parents and could see myself wanting to never pull the plug either, but there’s still no doubt in my mind that most, if not all of us, would not want our families to go through it, regardless of whether or not they are willing to.

    They wanted to take on the bills and the exhaustion of caring for someone. That was their whole position. What they got was the courts, and a partial court of public opinion, telling them “Nope, she gets to die instead”. That’s why they had propagandists going on TV to tell Americans how wonderful it is to die from dehydration. That’s why we get lying sacks of crap that insist that Bill Frist made a diagnosis “from 1,000 miles away” when clearly he did not.

    You can pretend that people were running around with hard-ons about Terri Schaivo dying if you want, I’ll be over here….

    The issue before Congress was NOT about how to interfere or an “invasion”, but to address the concerns that her United States Constitutional rights were being violated. So yes, it does seem like we have a portion of our society that were more interested in letting the bitch die and lie about the whole damn affair for whatever reason. Somehow it doesn’t seem to bother these people that they were cheering for death rather than letting someone live, regardless of condition. Somehow it doesn’t seem to bother these people that they were supporting the position that one life was worth less than others. Somehow it doesn’t bother a certain SOB to assert that everybody who opposed letting a human being starve to death are monsters. And this would be the SAME SOB who wet his panties when murderous Islamo-fascists get water splashed in their faces.

    If you would be so kind as to answer clearly – if you were the one in the vegetative state, would you want to be kept alive at any cost? No one else has answered, so feel free to be the first one to take a swing. Put your money where your mouth is and tell me about how you respect life so much that you’d insist that your family and friends catered to you regardless of how far gone you were. I can wait.

  111. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 9:47 pm - February 11, 2012

    #106 Yes.

  112. TGC says

    February 11, 2012 at 9:50 pm - February 11, 2012

    Ask Little Kewpie why he thinks shaving your pubes is “gross”. It’s out there on the internet. Also, there’s this bit of brilliance from a video of his:

    You show me a birther that isn’t a complete racist, a complete homophobe or an absolute slave to unquestioning blind right wing conservative Christianity. Show me those things and I will show you a unicorn. A pink, sparkly unicorn.

    Forgetting, of course, that the 2008 Hillary campaign were the original “birthers”. Guess it would be hard to know that if all you can see is the inside of your own spastic colon.

  113. The_Livewire says

    February 11, 2012 at 10:29 pm - February 11, 2012

    I find it interesting and insightful Levi’s contribution to the Schiavo discussion. I believe the feelings of most of us are that there was a clear question of her wants, and possibility of bias on her husband. Her family was willing to take the costs. We say in a grey area like that choose life. Levi chooses death.

    So I think this shows a great deal of insight into Levi’s mindset. If he doesn’t see you as viable, he’s all for killing you.

  114. V the K says

    February 11, 2012 at 11:46 pm - February 11, 2012

    I think the other thing about Levi, TL, is that he is convinced that he is right about everything that no one else should be allowed to choose differently than he would choose for them.

  115. AZ Mo in NYC says

    February 11, 2012 at 11:49 pm - February 11, 2012

    I want yo know why insurance companies are paying for contraception at all. Is it really that expensive? If it is, then keep your legs together because you clearly can’t afford a kid if you can’t afford contraception.

  116. TGC says

    February 12, 2012 at 3:26 am - February 12, 2012

    Someone on Sen. Nelson’s FB page commented that contraceptives reduce your health care costs because it reduces pregnancies. Of course there’s a number of comments one could make in reply. I merely pointed out that these meds do have side effects, contraindications and warnings.

    To illustrate absurdity by being absurd, I suggested we could hold down costs by mandating that women who take these do so at their own risk and any costs due to any problems related to the medications should be borne by the patients alone. That and they waive their ability to participate in any lawsuits of the manufacturers.

  117. The_Livewire says

    February 12, 2012 at 10:36 am - February 12, 2012

    @AZ Mo,

    Here’s a dirty little secret Obama doesn’t want you to know…

    Insurance companies often *do* pay for birth control pills to treat abnormal/heavy menstral cycles and other conditions. Covering it for birth control is a rider, normally. i.e. you’d pay extra. here’s one example.

    Standard disclaimer: I work for an insurance company. I don’t speak for them, and they sure as hell don’t want me to.

  118. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 12, 2012 at 10:36 am - February 12, 2012

    If he doesn’t see you as viable, he’s all for killing you.

    It’s the way of the New Reich, which for our own good, will drag us “kicking and screaming into the future”.

    Is it really that expensive? If it is, then keep your legs together because you clearly can’t afford a kid if you can’t afford contraception.

    And where is it, in the Constitution, that the government’s job is to provide (or mandate others to provide) contraception? But I’ll tell you this: Contraception is going to be expensive, by the time Obama is done with it. History shows that when the government subsidizes, regulates or mandates something that was formerly cheap and efficient, it *makes* that thing become expensive and inefficient. Exhibit A: our entire medical system. Exhibit B: College.

  119. Heliotrope says

    February 12, 2012 at 11:44 am - February 12, 2012

    ILC,

    Contraception is going to be expensive, by the time Obama is done with it.

    But wait! It could be a real money saver. When the schools are doing their body fat checks and documenting the habits and utility of each little charge, they could just herd some off to the organ recycling program and save everyone a bundle of money while giving loyal party members a second chance.

    You gotta be more progressive in your thinking.

  120. sonicfrog says

    February 12, 2012 at 3:23 pm - February 12, 2012

    Somewhere up the thread, someone asked a question of me “Why do I hate Social Conservatives?”.

    First, I don’t “Hate” Social Conservatives. My mother-in-law is a Social Conservative, and I love her dearly. I distrust Social Conservatives greatly when it comes to politics. One of the major tenants of his campaign in 2000 was to to implement major reform to the budgeting structure of the US Congress and move away from baseline budgeting. After he and the other Social Conservatives got elected???? Nothing. Not a single attempt for any kind of budget reform at all.

    Second, Machael Schaivo. I’m glad you brought him up, and regurgitated the character assassination talking points spread by the Social Conservative right wing media bigwigs. Every day would bring one unsubstantiated accusation after another. I stopped listening when Hannity went on and on about how Michael Schaivo would not let anyone take an MRI or a CAT scan of his wife, and yet, there is the scan posted on the internet of the 2002 CAT scan. It’s funny, we (myself included) harp on the wackos that cling to the 9/11 truther fictions and deride Sully for doing the whole Trig Birther thing, yet, when it suits your convenience, the SC’s will jump on any conspiracy that benefits your sacred cause. In this way they are not a heck of a lot different than some of the climate scientists who advocate exaggerating and lying about the science to get their goals accomplished.

  121. TGC says

    February 12, 2012 at 4:04 pm - February 12, 2012

    I’m glad you brought him up, and regurgitated the character assassination talking points spread by the Social Conservative right wing media bigwigs.

    I think it says a lot more about you to assert that that f*@ktard is as pure as the wind driven snow. Sorry, but when you suddenly remember, 10 years later, that your wife casually mentioned that she wanted to die and then spend every day for the next few years salivating at the chance of eliminating her, you’re not that great of a guy.

    In this way they are not a heck of a lot different than some of the climate scientists who advocate exaggerating and lying about the science to get their goals accomplished.

    I think you’re forgetting that Americans were treated with explanations of how wonderful it is to die by dehydration and that was the ultimate way to go. How desperate do you have to be to provide THAT to back your cause of killing the bitch?

  122. TGC says

    February 12, 2012 at 4:07 pm - February 12, 2012

    #117 One of my classmates was telling me that she was on Depo once and it caused her to have a period for 3 months. But we’re supposed to believe that contraceptives are so wonderful and actually keep costs lower.

  123. The_Livewire says

    February 12, 2012 at 5:16 pm - February 12, 2012

    @TGC

    It’s the peril of any chemical that fraks with what the body is supposed to do. Heck, even the drugs that keep me out of depression cause others to audio-hallucinate and make things worse. Though I’ve heard that about Depo too.

  124. V the K says

    February 12, 2012 at 5:39 pm - February 12, 2012

    Sorry, but when you suddenly remember, 10 years later, that your wife casually mentioned that she wanted to die and then spend every day for the next few years salivating at the chance of eliminating her, you’re not that great of a guy.

    Actually, TGC, he suddenly remembered that she had expressed a wish to die only AFTER he had received a massive financial settlement from the hospital.

    How convenient.

  125. Heliotrope says

    February 12, 2012 at 5:45 pm - February 12, 2012

    the SC’s will jump on any conspiracy that benefits your sacred cause.

    I am not the poster child for social conservatism, nor do I aspire to be one. But I am a true, for real, social conservative.

    If this broad generalization you have concocted ever applies to me, I beseech you, with your infallible ability to read between the social conservative lines to smack me with your piety stick.

  126. sonicfrog says

    February 12, 2012 at 7:46 pm - February 12, 2012

    I think it says a lot more about you to assert that that f*@ktard is as pure as the wind driven snow.

    Gee… Somehow I missed the part where I typed that I believed he was pure as the driven snow. But, at the time, M Schaivo went from being a money grubber, to a cold blooded killer who was trying to kill his wife on the night she collapsed.

    Don’t have time to continue now. Will do so later.

  127. sonicfrog says

    February 12, 2012 at 7:48 pm - February 12, 2012

    If this broad generalization you have concocted ever applies to me, I beseech you, with your infallible ability to read between the social conservative lines to smack me with your piety stick.

    Of course I don’t besmirch all Social Conservatives. I know many that are upstanding sane individuals. My venom is aimed squarely at those who use such devices at the drop of a hat to gain / remain / and wield their power.

  128. V the K says

    February 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm - February 13, 2012

    The next logical step beyond Terry Schaivo, killing the disabled in order to harvest their organs, has already been embraced by “bio-ethicists.

    Just as “fanatical pro-lifers” predicted it would.

  129. sonicfrog says

    February 13, 2012 at 3:32 pm - February 13, 2012

    Because, you know, this has never been debated before! This very topic, along with euthanasia, came up every year in my high school debate classes in the early 80’s!

    The Journal of Medical Ethics is a journal that debates these very controversial issues. Should we ban that? Oh, you’re a Conservative Big Government Santorum supporter, I guess your answer is yes!

    V, did you actually read the journal article, or are you simply taking the DC’s angle of this paper blindly? Note that they seem to leave out a detail or two; that the theoretical Betty’s brain has been blown out the back of her head by an assailant with a gun. This theoretical Betty has no upper brain function at all and absolutely no chance of any recovery.
    They also get another critical fact very wrong in this article:

    It is important to note here that transplant medicine remains an ethical enterprise and that doctors are not yet doing the deed.

    Whereas, the journal states:

    The primary source for vital organs consists of individuals with traumatic brain injury who are diagnosed with ‘brain death’ or ‘total brain failure’. Although legally dead, these individuals maintain a wide range of vital functioning of the organism as a whole, at least with the aid of mechanical ventilation and other intensive care interventions. These vital functions include circulation, respiration, digestion and metabolism, temperature control, fighting infections, wound healing and gestation of fetuses for up to 3 months in pregnant women. Whereas these unfortunate individuals are totally disabled (as well as permanently unconscious), their bodies remain alive.

    A secondary and growing source of vital organs is from neurologically damaged (but not ‘brain dead’) patients determined to be dead following withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. A short interval after the heart stops beating (typically 2–5 min), the patient’s death is declared and organs are procured. However, cessation of circulation and respiration must be irreversible to warrant a determination of death. While circulation and respiration will not start up again on their own in this situation, in many cases cardiopulmonary resuscitation could restore these functions at least for a short period of time. Thus, the criterion of irreversibility has not been satisfied; hence, these patients are not known to be dead at the time of organ procurement.12–15

    In such cases, the dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view.

    The ethics here, of course, are the concerns with saving the life of another.

    I was at my Dad’s bedside when was dying of emphysema. He slid into unconsciousness one day. The next day was the day he died. Now, because of his age and his illness, and the fact that his organs were already dying on the inside as he shut down, there was no chance that he would be a candidate as an organ donor. That said, on the next day, the last day, the man that was my father was definitely no longer there. The shell was still clinging to life, the heart was still beating, but the man was gone. On that last day, if doctors would have asked my permission to give one of his organs to another in order to save a life, I would have said yes. it would not have been an easy decision, mind you, but to me it would be more ethical to save a life at the expense of the last few breaths and heart-beats of the shell that was my father rather than, through my denial of doing so, possibly condemning another individual to die.

  130. sonicfrog says

    February 13, 2012 at 3:54 pm - February 13, 2012

    Oh, and BTW… On the charge that Michael Schaivo was trying to kill her for the claim to the malpractice settlement…. Not likely.

    By 2001, long before the Conservative megaphone got a hold of this story to vilify M. Schaivo for wanting to kill her for the money, the settlement in question had already dwindled to half the amount due to the court challenges by the Schindlers. If he really was after the money, then, seeing the way things were going, he certainly would have settled with them rather than watch the money go to the lawyers in the case. How if half was gone by 2001, how much do you think was there by 2006 when this all finally ended?

    In fact, it’s on record that he rejected offers and court settlements that would have resulted in him keeping the remaining malpractice award. So, what ever he was in it for, it doesn’t appear to be the money.

    So another popular Conservative meme in this case fails to hold water, not that it matters. It’s more important for so many on both the right or the left to blindly follow the talking heads they so admire, instead of actually looking into things and deciding on your

  131. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 13, 2012 at 4:26 pm - February 13, 2012

    Deciding on your… what? I guess that’s what they call a cliffhanger.

    But back on the contraception thing… I was so please so see Cas’ announcement earlier:

    The contraceptive issue is now a dead letter. The President finessed it… The oxygen for the firestorm is gone… Republicans will have to move on…

    What a relief! It was so good to be simply informed of all that, as fact! Although I see that not everyone got Cas’ memo:

    At masses across the country Sunday, Roman Catholic priests blasted the Obama administration’s compromise on contraceptive insurance coverage, a sign the White House’s backtrack late last week did little to defuse the controversy. …

    At St. Brendan Church in San Francisco, the Rev. Michael Quinn compared the church’s opposition to the contraceptive rules to the civil-rights fight waged by 1950s activist Rosa Parks, who refused to give her seat up to a white man on a bus. “I believe this is our Rosa Parks moment,” Father Quinn told more than 200 parishioners on Sunday. “This is our moment to say this is wrong.”

    Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami said that while he appreciated Mr. Obama’s attempt to strike a compromise, it doesn’t go far enough.

    “A legislative remedy to this overreaching and unprecedented incursion of state power into the domain of religious freedom and the rights of conscience is still necessary,” he said in a statement.

    “By what authority does the President of the United States seek to impose this immoral policy?” Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, R.I., asked in a statement. “This is the United States, not North Korea.”

    […]

    Twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members–led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars–have signed a statement declaring that President Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.”

    The statement—put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School–is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College…

  132. Rattlesnake says

    February 13, 2012 at 6:06 pm - February 13, 2012

    The next logical step beyond Terry Schaivo, killing the disabled in order to harvest their organs, has already been embraced by “bio-ethicists.

    So, if those organs harvested could have saved someone else’s life, but were never harvested, then you’d have at least 2 dead people (assuming that the “disabled” person in question is, in fact, disabled beyond the point of consciousness or resuscitation) instead of only 1. How is that the “pro-life” position that respects the sanctity of life?

  133. V the K says

    February 13, 2012 at 7:06 pm - February 13, 2012

    If it’s okay to harvest fetal tissue, if it’s okay to perform partial birth abortions, and if it’s okay to harvest organs from the brain damaged… why would it not be okay to grow fetuses specifically to use as organ banks, inflict brain damage on the womb, and keep them alive until the organs were harvested?

  134. Rattlesnake says

    February 13, 2012 at 7:25 pm - February 13, 2012

    I am strongly anti-abortion, especially partial birth (i.e. head crushing) abortion. And I’m not advocating for simply “brain damaged” or “disabled” people from having their organs harvested. My position is, that if harvesting a viable organ from someone beyond resuscitation will save the life of someone else (even if it kills the former), with the permission of whoever is legally responsible for the former, then it is worthwhile.

    It is quite a stretch to equate that with “grow[ing] fetuses specifically to use as organ banks,” because, assuming you view a fetus as a distinct, living organism (as I do), then that would be equivalent to killing a perfectly heathly person to save the life of someone else. Of course, I guess to anyone that views a fetus as an inanimate object that may be disposed of at will, there is no ethical problem with using a fetus as an organ bank.

  135. The_Livewire says

    February 13, 2012 at 8:58 pm - February 13, 2012

    V the K,

    Wasn’t that the basic gist of Gattica?

  136. V the K says

    February 14, 2012 at 5:54 am - February 14, 2012

    It was closer to the plot of ‘The Island.’ (Which was a complete rip-off of ‘parts: the clonus horror.’)

    Once you start down that path of seeing a severely brain-damaged person as an organ bank, how quickly and how far to the left does the meter start sliding as to the point when a doctor or a bureaucrat decides a person is no longer worth saving and just want to harvest their lovely pink organs?

  137. V the K says

    February 14, 2012 at 5:56 am - February 14, 2012

    We already have cases where the families of severely injured people are pressured to suspend life-saving treatment so that the organs can be harvested; I think we’re a bit further on the path to treating humans as organ banks than people would like to admit.

Categories

Archives