Cynical Nation

I agree that the democrats will win back congress and that the senate will be real close. I also predict a possible huge upset: Connecticut. Although Lieberman is leading by more than 10% in the polls, I think he will lose to Lamont on Tuesday. Of course, there is undoubtedly wishful thinking in this prediction. But remember me on that anyway.

> I also predict a possible huge upset: Connecticut.

"Wishful thinking" affects both sides, of course. ;-)

Barry, I think you're pretty much right on both counts.

Four major Senate races (Misouri, Virginia, Montana and NJ) are all very close and could easily go either way.

Yes, most polls undercount Republican votes and deliberately so, in my opinion in an attempt to tamp down Conservative voter turnout...dopey idea.

Still, with the border issue still a disaster, post-war Iraq still a mess with the Iraqis either unwilling or unable to take control of their own military and policing and the rampant over-spending (the prescription drug boondoggle & the NCLB Act are two examples) it's amazing it's this close...

...even though the Dems would be worse on the border issue, worse on spending and recless and irresponsible in the WoT which they don't believe in.

Hey JMK,
NJ is not close. Menendez has a 10 point lead. That race is over. Where it is close is RI. In a poll from today Chaffee is all of the sudden ahead by 1 point. I think MO, VA and Montanta will all go democratic. It will be interesting to see what happens in RI. Of course, Chaffee is my favorite republican. In reality, he is to the left of many democrats.

"I think MO, VA and Montanta will all go democratic." (BW)

Again, all wishful thinking on your part. They're all toss-ups at this point.

I won't engage in that kind of speculation - MO is a toss up, so is MT and VA is polled at a virtual tie...and MD is also too close to call, within the margin of error on most polls.

Rasmussen's latest poll has Menendez up 4...the DNC poll routinely polls only donors the DNC...that may be true of some GOP polls, but that seems unlikely given their results are rarely out of line with the likes of Survey USA & Rasmussen.

At any rate, there's only ONE POLL that counts and that's less than forty-eight hours away.

As I said, I like WF's analysis...two years of a Dem Congress would give Americans a real taste of the extremism of the Democrats - pushing for disastrous tax hikes that would REDUCE federal revenues, seeking to defund Iraq and the domestic WoT, undermining the recently passed border fence and endorsing "open immigration" and attempting to hike federal spending even more - MAYBE Americans NEED a dose of that...and so long as the Dems are blamed for it and any disastrous results, I'd have no problem stomaching it for two years.

I'd rather not, but if that's the tonic it'll take, than so be it.

Which "Liberal policies" can you actually defend BW?

Higher taxes?

Higher tax rates have ALWAYS resulted in LOWER tax revenues.

Race/gender-based preferences?

They violate the concepts of both "equality before the law" and "equal access/equal protection."

More "social spending?"

It mires recipients in permanent poverty and results in a Keynesian collapse as that dufus Jimmy Carter found out.

Are there any "Liberal policies" you can defend?

Just asking.

JMK, I think BW is actually a libertarian at heart. Just needs a little more work, IMO. ;-)

You know Barry, I think every sensible person is a Libertarian at heart.

Our best impulses are all Libertarian - embracing individualism and personal responsibility.

I believe BW's no exception.

It took an unprecedented attack on the mainland United States and the murder of fifty firefighters I knew personally to shift me from a Lew Rockwell/Murray Rothbard Paleo-Libertarian into a Conservative.

I once assailed many of Giuliani's crime policies as "excessive," but (1) the results were impossible to argue with and (2) "9/11 changed everything.

"I think BW is actually a libertarian at heart. Just needs a little more work, IMO. ;-)

I have a lot of respect for libertarians,although I think the libertarian philosophy is a little utopic. I think libertarians are more liberal than conservative, although many fail to recognize that. Anyway, no libertarian in the right mind can support George Bush and the republican congress any longer. Look at the budget, look at the spending, look at the intervention of the goverment in the lifes of average Americans (i.e. Schiavo case).

Libertarians all subscribe to Free Market (Supply-Side) economics.

They tend to revile social programs, social spending, many even oppose military and law enforcement spending, most would support the most effiicient and streamlined Military and criminal justice arm of the government.

Most Libertarians oppose government sanctioned discrimination (race/gender based preferences for instance), oppose "Mommy State" regulations like anti-smoking statutes, trans-fat bans, etc, etc.

Blue, if you can agree with Libertarians onthose issues, your embracing the better part of your nature.

You've already said you're opposed to more government spending and more government intervention in our lives...that's a good start.

The Schiavo case?!

Blue, the Schiavo case was about allowing a bigamist, adulterer to end the life of a former wife who was NOT terminally ill.

Those are the basic facts of that case.

Terry Schindler was effectively estranged from her "former" husband (Michael Schiavo), a man who was living with another woman and had fathered children with that second (common-law) wife, making him both an adulterer and a "bigamist in common-law."

Terri Schiavo was NOT terminally ill, no more so than was Christopher Reeves, or Steven Hawking, both of whom were tethered to respirators, without which they couldn't survive.

A poor case to use against "government intervention," Blue!

It actually set a precedent whereby the government can now appoint an independent "guardian" for any and every severely mentally and physically impaired citizen - say a local bureaucrat whose interests are as at cross-purposes with those handicapped people ("human money pits") as Mike Schiavo's were with Terri Schindler's.

The Florida court ruled that our government can arbitrarily assign such "guardianship," knowing that the intended "guardian" is motivated solely to get rid of those debilitated folks.

What are you thinking!

I'm about as un-religious as you can get and even I fully understood the dark implications of that hideous decision, one that was NOT about any "right to die," as Terri Schindler never expressed any desire to die, but about a right of an estranged, adulterer and "bigamist-in-common law" to execute a former wife who was now in the way of his marrying his current common law wife in a Catholic Church.

"Blue, the Schiavo case was about allowing a bigamist, adulterer to end the life of a former wife who was NOT terminally ill."

Hey JMK,
Hello from planet earth. I hope is not too cold up there in Mars. Cheers.

(1) Michael Schiavo was living with another woman when he was declared Terri Schindler's guardian - BIGAMY-in-common law.

(2) Michael Schiavo was still legally married to Terri Schiavo, while fathering children with his then "new common law wife" - adultery.

(3) Terri Schiavo was NOT terminally ill.

She was brain damaged and on a respirator. Neitehr Christopher Reeves nor Steven Hawkings could survive without a respirator, either.

Our opinions don't count.

Can you refute any of these facts?

Do I have any of them wrong?

I'm pretty sure those are the facts of the case...but I'm certainly open to reconsideration, IF you can give me a reason and show any of them to be demonstably untrue.

"but I'm certainly open to reconsideration, IF you can give me a reason and show any of them to be demonstably untrue."

Just take the next shuttle back to planet earth as soon as you can. Mars is not good for you. Cheers.

Blue, that's not a refutation of any of theose facts.

If you agree that my facts are correct, but still feel that it was fully appropriate for an estranged, adulterer, bigamist-in-common law" to be assigned guardianship over a severely disabled, though non-terminal woman, that's...well, that's an interesting opinion.

Not a very "compassionate" one...not a very "Liberal" or "pro-choice" one either.

I'm just wondering where you're coming from on that, that's all.

If you're asserting that any of the facts of the case I presented are wrong, point me to some documentation and I'll be more than glad review it.

I'm preety sure those are indeed the facts.

JMK, I believe that Terry was in a vegetative state, unlike Reeve who was coherent and cognitive.

I agree with you that she was not terminally ill any more than Reeve or Hawking.

Her death was a travesty of justice.

Similarly, to me anyway, the GOP pandering in congress was disgusting in its attempted manipulation of the story for political points.

Blue, does Elian Gonzalez have any resonance with you these days while you are accusing the Bush administration of violation of rights?

Or does Waco float your boat?

Neither side is without sin, my friend.

Mal, I agree that Terri Schindler was in a persistive vegitative state, and yes, a non-terminal one.

The thing I found problematic was assigning guardianship to an adulterous "husband" who'd long moved on and was, at that time, a "bigamist in common law."

Michael Schiavo's and Terri Schindler's best interests where at cross purposes, virtually antithetical at that point.

Had Terri Schindler left any kind of testament that she wished to die rather than be kept alive artificially, I'd fully support her "right to die," unfortunately, that wasn't the case in this instance.

The GOP pandering for political gain with the over 40 million fundamentalist and evangelical Christians in this country?

Well, it was one of the few times they were able to even throw that constituency a bone.

How often did they ever "come through" for that group?

Hardly ever.

Shameful?

Sure, but ALL politics is shameful. Look at Maryland, where Ben Cardin, who voted against the kind of legislation M J Fox wanted passed, assails a guy who actually supports SCR!

It is funny how those hysterical over a "UN opposed and unprovoked war of aggression against a sovereign nation" (Iraq) today, didn't oppose the SAME when it was the Balkans, that was that UN opposed and unprovoked war!

The same people outraged over the treatment of enemy combatants that mean to do them harm, didn't make a peep over Waco, or Ruby Ridge - over American citizen's whose basic rights were violated, while no threat to America, American interests, nor their neighbors.

It's pretty much necessary for those on the Left to forget those abuses, in order to ignore the hypocrisy over their stances AGAINST LESSER abuses, and GREATER threats, today

Just throwing in my two cents as a thinking person and democratic voter...

Why are you defending the current crop of incompetent, lying, thieving republicans?

What is your answer to Katrina? The disastrous war based on lies? Bush's obvious immaturity and stupidity? The ever-growing republican-led deficit? The ignorance of global warming (which, at this rate, will eventually leave all liberal-leaning coastal cities underwater. Would you like that? Be honest now)? The race-baiting in the Tennessee Senate race? And of course Senator Allen's racism. Santorum's "man on dog" beliefs?

Let me know what among these issues you find defensible, and why. Please.

And the congress' enabling of all Bush's follies? You really think they deserve to stay in office? What are your motivations? Seriously. What about them inspires your passion?

6 years ago we were living in peace and prosperity. Now we are on a path toward imminent disaster. Please explain how exactly it's Bill Clinton's fault.

I realize you're just going to say I'm a flaming liberal spewing his misguided beliefs where they're not wanted, but how can you defend Republicans, really? They're not even conservative. They're just AWFUL.

I just don't know how you people live with yourselves. Talk about misguided.

Oh, I'll answer for JMK. You see, poor Bush inherited a "recession" from Clinton, and because Clinton failed to act, poor Bush was hit with 9-11. Clinton created the tech bubble and allowed Kenny-boy Lay and other Republican CEOs to commit massive frauds, and poor Bush had to clean up Clinton's mess.

Katrina was the fault of mayor Nagin, who refused to us hundreds of buses and force evacuation and did not cooperate with Brownie who was just itching to get all kinds of aid to New Orleans, but Nagin wouldn't let him. Poor Bush was blamed for what that black guy, Ray Nagin, did.

Poor Bush. Just an honest, hard-working, straight talking guy with a big heart, was screwed over they the biased media, Clinton, and other Democrats.

The Iraq war was completely necessary, but poor Bush had traitor Democrats critisizing him because they hate our troops, hate America, and want Al Quida to win. If it hadn't been for Democrats, Iraq would love us and be a peaceful land of flowers and honeybees buzzing charmingly in a fair summer breeze.

I'm glad Blue Wind gave me a rest and spent some time arguing with this idiot Rushbot for a while.

Terry Schiavo was a vibrant young girl obviously enjoying her friends and family from her hospital bed when her mean husband, who actually dared to GET A GIRLFRIEND after only TEN YEARS or her being in a coma, just up and murdered her so he could marry his girlfriend, and that was ALL it was about.

Even though he didn't marry his girlfriend while his wife was still in a coma, JMK Roves the situation into BIGAMY, which obviously doesn't apply to alleged "common law" marriages or half the NBA would be bigamists for fathering children from multiple women.

Then, JMK puts forth this HUGE FACT: Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill.

Wow. I didn't see anyone stopping her from driving to Burger King. They just stopped artificial, ARTIFICIAL, life support.

However, I do wish that JMK had been allowed to personally pay for her care for the rest of her non-life, out of his own pocket, not mine.

That's the trouble with liberals like JMK, they want to use other people's money to fund their kooky ideas. JMK would raise taxes to force the world to reflect his own personal views.

Don't vote for Liberal JMK, he will raise your taxes!

If you read BH's above post really fast, it is so damned funny. And pretty on the mark, in a good way. Everything is Clinton's fault!!!

I was hoping for a return to the halcyon days of divided government, but it's beginning to look like the Democrats can't even be trusted to turn a 20+ point lead in the polls into electoral victory.

It's almost a kind of electoral Darwinism.

I just came back from Vegas last night and can't tell you how disappointed I am. I tried the sports book in six hotels and none of them would take a bet on an election result. I was ready to take Menendez and give 8 points and nobody would go on it. This was before I had heard about the Marist poll from Friday.

"Why are you defending the current crop of incompetent, lying, thieving republicans?

What is your answer to Katrina? The disastrous war based on lies? Bush's obvious immaturity and stupidity? The ever-growing republican-led deficit? The ignorance of global warming (which, at this rate, will eventually leave all liberal-leaning coastal cities underwater. Would you like that? Be honest now)? The race-baiting in the Tennessee Senate race? And of course Senator Allen's racism. Santorum's "man on dog" beliefs?" (Adam Keller)
"The War on Terror won't be WON, until Sharia Law is DONE."

That statement acknowledges that our fight is not merely against a few radicalized Islamicists, or "Islamo-fascists," but against ANY & ALL Sharia-adhering Muslims...that's a huge task.

Are we ready for another twenty-years of bloody warfare?

We'd better be, cause it's coming.

"The ignorance of global warming (which, at this rate, will eventually leave all liberal-leaning coastal cities underwater. Would you like that? Be honest now)?

No problem being honest on that one - HELL YEAH! I'd like that a LOT!!!

To paraphrase an old "lawyer's joke," What's 10 million Liberals at the bottom of the ocean?

A pretty good start.

The "racism" in TN???...in VA???

Must've missed it.

I sure didn't miss the overt and obvious racial bigotry (I really don't know what the f*ck "racism" is, so I don't use that term)...a far superior candidate in Maryland has been assialed by a white Liberal as "incompetent" and "bringing nothing to the table but for the color of his skin," THIS from a mediocre Congressman at best.

"Cardin's campaign had to fire a staffer who had maintained a blog about her experiences within the campaign. In addition to revealing details about the campaign, some of the blog entries contained racial and ethnic slurs. For example, some entries discussed the hypersensitivity of the campaign to racial issues, claiming that a black staffer on the campaign was able to keep his job solely due to playing "the racism card". In another entry, the staffer expressed her belief that she was a "sex object" for Jewish friends of Cardin, who she described as having "Jewish noses". Although the Cardin campaign maintained it was a "junior staffer", some bloggers revealed that the staffer was Ursula Gruber, a regional director in charge of other workers in the campaign."

Another Cardin supporter from Queens, NY posted viscious charicatures of Steele online.

The Cardin campaign has been steeped in racial animus and overt racial bigotry, which is what I believe you mean by "racism."

Moreover, while Maryland Republicans have fielded a number of black Conservative candiates (Steele served as Lt Governor under Ehrlich), MD Dems have fielded exactly ZERO black candidates.

"6 years ago we were living in peace and prosperity. Now we are on a path toward imminent disaster. Please explain how exactly it's Bill Clinton's fault."
NOT "peace."

Actually the Tech Bubble Bust (another S&L Scam) was indeed perpetrated by the Clinton administration.

In 1997 and 1998 SEC rules on margin rates and IPO standards were changed...drawing huge amounts of investment capital into the NASDAQ (the Tech Sector), then were changed back to their default positions by that same administration in January of 2000.

The "Tech Bubble Bust" began in late March of 2000.

That caused the recession that followed and lasted into early 2002.

The Tech Bubble never should've existed! It, by itself, did a lot of harm to the U.S. economy, by drawing money away from conventional businesses and into unprofitable, often disreputable e-businesses and NASDAQ start-ups.

Amidst that loose atmosphere a number of huge business scandals (Worldcom, Adelphia, Tyco, Enron, etc) flourished.

Nothing was done to rein them in until the Bush administration came to power and shut them down, bringing the culprits to justice and ensuring those kinds of Clintonian scams wouldn't happen again with the passage of the GOP written and backed Oxley-Sarbannes Act.

If anyone...ANYONE can prove ANY of the above facts to be in error, I will publically apologize and withdraw from posting such factual diatribes in the future...in fact, in all future posts, SHOULD anyONE prove me wrong, I'll henceforth refer to my statements as "facts" (in quotes).

That's how positive I am that there isn't a soul capable of doing that.

How's that for a challenge?

Hey JMK,
Forget all that analysis man. Just go and cast your vote tomorrow. Vote democratic. It is in your absolute interests.

"Then, JMK puts forth this HUGE FACT: Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill." (BH)
"an active and progressive illness/disease which cannot be cured and is expected to lead to death and/or death due to symptoms of disease."

Chris Reeves did NOT have a terminal illness, though he was fully dependent upon a respirator...

Steven Hawking doesn't suffer from a terminal illness despite being fully dependent upon a respirator...

NYPD hero Steven MacDonald doesn'tsuffere from a terminal illness, despite being fully dependent upon a respirator...

And Terri SCHINDLER didn't have a terminal illness, despite being fully depndent upon a respirator either.

She, like Reeeves, MacDonald & Hawkings, had no condition that would ostensibly and inevitably lead to impending death.

Her immediate family was willing to maintain her upkeep.

"...her mean husband, who actually dared to GET A GIRLFRIEND after only TEN YEARS or her being in a coma, just up and murdered her so he could marry his girlfriend, and that was ALL it was about."

Again, since you don't seem to undertstand these terms, I'll help you out - adultery is ADULTERY. There are no "special considerations."

When her "husband" moved on, he had a duty to divorce this first wife.

For TEN YEARS he lived with another woman, fathering children with her - that is what is legally called "BIGAMY in-common-law."

Come on! At least try getting some of your facts straight, next time.

"Forget all that analysis man. Just go and cast your vote tomorrow. Vote democratic. It is in your absolute interests." (BW)
(BW)


Blue, I remain a registered "Zell Miller" Democrat...and I'm going to happily cast my vote for a cousin of mine running for the NYS Assembly from Staten Island. Mike's running, as all Dems should on both the Democrat and Conservative lines.

On Staten Island all politics is ethnic - Democrats = Irish & Republicans = Italians and almost ALL Democrats are Conservatives.

After the Civil War, many wealthy Southerners came up and settled in the most bucolic and beautiful of NYC's five boroughs. Most of them were ardent Democrats and that little bit of "Southern tradition" still carries forward on Olde Staten Island.

My Dad's family's political roots go straight back to Tammany Hall where some members served as "District Bosses," little more than "enforcers" who made sure people "voted the right way," with force, when necessary. Most of them worked on the docks and were big, bruiser-type politicians, kissing babies in one hand, while slapping down those who didn't "vote right" with the other.

Ahhhh, the "good old days."

On a national level, however, the Democrats have been a huge disappointment.

I get the impression that there are a number of Democratsic politicians who actually believe that my vision of a twenty-five year war with Sharia-based Islam can be averted or even negotiated away.

No chance...and quite frankly, I don't want to see us roll the dice with folks who are that naive.

P.S. I'll probably be "all over the map" today with my votes, so that might seem heartening to folks like Blue;

For Congress, I'm going to vote Vito Fossella (R). He ran a great ad with the mock terrorist phone call being abruptly cut off, with an operator intoning, "This wiretap ended to protect terrorist's rights," claiming his opponent Democrat Steve Harrison "is more worried about protecting terrorist's rights than protecting you and your family."

Great ad!

For Governor, I'm not crazy about either Spitzer or Faso, but I may just vote for Spitzer...he couldn't be much more Liberal than Pataki anyway.

For Atty General, both Pirro and Cuomo are so bad, I'll probably have to look for a Third Party candidate.

For Comptroller - I'm voting against Hevesi, though I do admire his out-and-out "Old School techniques." When asked to explain his using public employees to chauffer his wife around for the last three years, he cleared his throat and in a deep, clear, confident voice bellowed, "I'm ROBBING you!"

Love it, but I've got to vote against him anyway.

For Senate, I know this may be a shocker, but I'll probably vote for (gasp!) Hillary Clinton.

As a Senator, she's actually been pretty decent - she's supported the war in Iraq, supported the Patriot Act and fought for more funding for Police & Fire (First Repsonders).

I just hope she'll stay in the Senate. She's NOT one of those Dems who seems think this long, ugly war with Sharia-based Islam can be averted or even negotiated away. She actually seems to GET that.

In a Blue State, like NY, I can do that, without much worry. National Democrats tend to do very well here.

Of course, when I retire from the FD in a few years, I'll hopefully add another Conservative vote to a Virginia or Carolina electorate. One of the more amusing (maybe interesting, is a batter word) trends is Blue Staters who move to laregly Conservative Sun Belt states tend to vote more and more Conservative, the longer they're there. I'm sure the same goes for Red Staters who move to Blue States in the northeast.

Though it does very little to explain Blue State Conservatives, such as myself.

MINOR CORRECTION:

"Then, JMK puts forth this HUGE FACT: Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill." (BH)
Hey stupid!

"Terminally ill means "an active and progressive illness/disease which cannot be cured and is expected to lead to death and/or death due to symptoms of disease."
"stupid" (refusing to acknolwedge facts), but "ignorant" (apparent lack of knowledge about the facts).

It seems you've used "Chronic" and "terminal" as synonyms.

Of course, they're not synonyms at all.

A "chronic condition" (as Terri Schindler's massive brain damage) is a long-term, often permanent condition or debilitation, while a "terminal condition" is one that inevitably and directly leads to death.

"Stupid" is refusing to see the light on H-1B Visas (which are indeed needed to address the problem of Structural Unemployment) - that the previous administration signed off on two consecutive cap increases and that THIS current administration dropped that cap back down to its lowest pint, the first chance it got (wrongly so, in my view, as many radiologists, accountants, etc are still needed to fill jobs here that aren't being filled by citizens).

Stupid is not understanding, after it was made as simple as possible, that marriage rates can decline and birthrates remain the constant, when illegitimacy rates rise.

While you've been both, I shouldn't have excoriated you for stupidity in this case, when it was mere ignorance you evinced...and it seems an honest mistake, like many of your errors.

Confusing terminal with chronic is actually a pretty common error.

I just want to be fair about this.

""The ignorance of global warming (which, at this rate, will eventually leave all liberal-leaning coastal cities underwater. Would you like that? Be honest now)?" (Adam Keller)
"No problem being honest on that one - HELL YEAH! I'd like that a LOT!!!

To paraphrase an old "lawyer's joke," What's 10 million Liberals at the bottom of the ocean?

A pretty good start. (JMK)
(JMK)


OK, a little flippant, even mean-spirited, but the truth is Conservatives despise Liberals about as much as Liberals depise Conservatives...with rare exceptions on both sides (far fewer of those exceptions are found on the Left, that I've observed).

At any rate, Global Warming must be confronted...and not to save any hapless Liberals, though I'd much rather they be converted than learn to grow gills.

The fact is that many, if not MOST of the causes of global warming are geological and outside the scope of human intervention.

That is, geologists say that we're past the halfway point between Ice Ages and the earth is on its way to warming up...a warming that will eventually melt much of the polar caps and trigger another Ice Age.

But should we do what we can to reduce any human impact that exacerbates and speeds up that effect?

Without question, but while keeping in mind that we're going to constantly need more energy, not less, more industry, not less and that the world, spurred on by developing nations like India and China will need far more energy ten years from now than they do today.

The problem politically is that the Democrats, at least most Liberal Democrats, have alligned themselves with the Luddites, naturally opposed to industry and technology - those who foolishly push for a "return to a simpler, less industrial/technological way of life."

Ain't going to happen and isn't even remotely plausible.

The Conservatives and that includes MOST Republicans respect industry and espouse more human development - "development is GOOD."

They realize that technology isn't merely the problem (though some current technologies are) but the solution as well.

The ONLY hope we have of reducing any manmade contributors to global warming isn't going to come by reducing technologies, but via new technologies.

Most Liberals don't seem to understand that, almost ALL Conservatives DO.

As always, the subtle approach is lost on you, JMK. When I said:

"Then, JMK puts forth this HUGE FACT: Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill."

I wasn't contesting the fact, I was mocking you for pointing out the obvious like you had just discovered penicillin.

Of course she wasn't terminally ill. She was brain dead. Terminally ill people are still alive. Brain dead people are already dead. They will never get up and go to Burger King. Terry Schiavo's brain was destroyed. There was no chance of recovery. Nobody has, and nobody ever will, recover from that kind of brain death until we know how to reconstruct the human brain.

I do agree that the correct course of action would have been to turn her over to her parents if they wanted to foot the bill. She was at least a living momento of the daughter they once had. Let them have hope.

That would have been the kind thing to do.

If I were writing the laws, anyone who wanted to take care of a lost cause, or adopt a late term abortion that could instead be delivered by C-section, should be allowed to put up a bond and do so. Instead of bail bonds, we could have abortion bonds, or vegetable bonds.

People have pets, why not let them waste their money on human beings, even brain dead ones, if they want to. I don't want to. I don't want one cent of my money going into a non-living person or an unwanted baby.

That's where we differ. I believe in liberty and freedom, and you believe in Big Government running people's lives.

Wrong again.

She was severely brain damaged....NOT brain dead.

A "persistive vegitative state" is not remotely close to "brain dead."

Even onthe most elemental facts, you get things so wrong.

A picture is worth a thousand words, clown.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg

The Medical Examiner who did the autopsy explained her condition in great detail;"Terri Scgiavo's brain injury is described as axoxic encephalopathy. Encephalopathy is the general term used for any condition that effects overall functioning of the brain. Lack of oxygen, infections, intoxication with drugs or alcohol, liver and kidney failure are all common causes of this condition."

Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state.

"A persistive vegetative state (PVS) is a condition of patients with severe brain damage, in whom coma has progressed to a state of "wakefulness without detectable awareness." There is controversy in both the medical and legal fields as to whether this condition is irreversible.

"PVS is also known as cortical death, although it is not the same as coma, or brain death."

"Brain death is defined as a complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity. Absence of apparent brain functioning is not enough....Brain-death is often mistakenly confused with the state of vegetation."

That Medical Examiner used those CAT Acan pictures and other evidence to support his report, that reported Terri Schindler's condition as a PVS.

I'm interested in why you insist on contradicting that report and what specialized knowledge your basing that decision upon.