“I have long been an advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. Many in that community are keenly aware of the risk of incapacitation. In such cases, I believe that every precaution should be taken to learn and respect their desires regarding the removal of life supports. I would have preferred to address the underlying issue and not just this case. However, I think that the merits of this case warrant further review, and believe that it is important -- in some limited circumstances -- to err on the side of caution and allow extra federal review to ensure a patient’s true wishes are honored.” -Tom Harkin (Senate, D-IA), press release re: Terri Schiavo bill
You are right, this is a country of laws and the Judicial branch is the one flouting them. The legislative branch is the one given the power to make laws not the judicial branch. A ruling by a judge and the law are not the same thing.
The constitution gives the judicial branch very few and limited powers. It was set up to be the weakest of the three branches. Some such as Thomas Jefferson argued strongly that there should be no judicial branch precisely because he feared they would become the tyrants they have become.
Now, go find a copy of the constitution and read it. You will find that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and a trial by a JURY OF ONE's PEERS. Tell me, when has Terri been given this same right that Criminals have?
Further, the Constitution gives the Congress oversite over the Courts. It states they may establish courts at their whim and may determine what the courts may have jurisdiction over and what they may not.
Now let me guess, youa re one of those types that think we should abolish the death penalty for mass murderers and that if someone fails to feed and take care of a horse or a dog they deserve to be prosecuted but you think someone who is not quite as human as you are because of a handicap should be put to death because they wouldn't have a quality of life. Tell me, what kind of quality of life do you have if you are dead?
The Nazi's used the same arguments, the same types of court cases and the same type of movie propaganda as "Million Dollar Baby" to excuse the same euthanasia policies that you propose. You know if the Nazi's did it perhaps it's not a good idea.
One final thing, this is not a right to die case. Terri is not dying anymore than you or I. Like us she needs food and water to live. No, Terri is not being allowed to die, she is being brutally killed without compassion.
People like you scare me. When would you prefer we start up the gas chambers.
In response to Mike: 1. The Constitution set up the EXECUTIVE as the weakest branch of government to ensure that we would not open the door to a dictatorship. 2. The Conservative Congress doesn't mind judicial activism as long as the judges agree with them. Why else would they pass a law providing ADDITIONAL judicial jurisdiction for ANOTHER court to practice judicial activism? 3. If we want to talk about founding fathers perspectives, look at The Federalist Papers. In Federalist Paper No. 48, James Madison discusses the importance of keeping the three branches of government "so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other." The Congress' actions in meddling in a judiciary outcome simply because they don't like the outcome is absolutely contrary to the concept the founding fathers had as evidenced in the Federal Papers. Federalist Paper No. 48 even quotes Thomas Jefferson complaining about the LACK of separation between all three branches in Virginia. Jefferson had said that when the legislative branch takes over the powers of the executive or judiciary, then we no longer have a democracy but rather an "elective despotism." 4. The State will not be taking her life, therefore the due process clause does not apply here. Additionally, on a personal level, I don't like the idea of stopping someone's food very much, but I also believe that she died a long time ago, when her upper level brain functions ceased. Regardless, these decisions should be left up to her husband. I hope to God that I'm never put in the kind of position that he is in: unable to move on but believing that she is gone. 5. I find your comparisons to the Holocaust and Nazis shocking, spurious, and an unnecessary ad hominem attack. If you are unable to debate an issue without pulling out straw-man arguments that are designed only to attack your opponent on a personal level, comparing him (or her) to the Nazis on ridculous bases, then you have no pace in a civilized debate. People like YOU scare ME. Talk to us again when you have stopped comparing ANYONE to Nazis.
on a side note, I think it's completely wrong that the Founders set up the executive as the weakest branch. In their own words, the judiciary was the weakest branch. In Federalist #78, Hamilton writes: "the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power".
Federalist 78: "It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; "
OK Hippies wife let me address your points: 1. Sorry the Judiciary is the weakest, see distiguished colleauge Daniel's comment. You quote Thomas Jefferson. Bad example. Thomas Jefferson argued strongly that there should be no judiciary and correctly predicted that if there were it would become an oligarchy of black robed depots.
2. Sorry, they are curbing judicial activism as is their right in the checks and balances set in the constitution. I think you misunderstand separation of powers. The separation is there to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful.
3. Once again, sorry to disappoint you but the Legislature has power over the judiciary. According to article three of the constitution the legislature has established every court in the country below the Supreme Court and can appoint any courts they see fit. They can also pull the feeding tube on a court if you will. It also can tell the courts what they can rule on and what they can't. You really should go read the Constitution and quit relying on what Al Franken and Garafalo's propaganda tell you.
4. The state is most definately taking her life. Judge George Greer in 2000 appointed himself avocate for Terri Schaivo as well as Judge of the case. A huge conflict of interest. HE is the one that ordered her tube to be removed Friday, not Schaivo. As a government official he ordered her execution without due process and habeus Corpus that every mass murderer is entitled to.
5. There are some nice big words in this post like "spurious" and "ad-hominem". Let me explain the meaning of these words for you. A spurious comment would be one that is untrue. My comment was not untrue, the Nazi's did in fact start their eugenics and the holocaust with the killing of the old and handicapped. An ad-homimem attack would be one where I called you stupid of something without giving a reason why you are stupid. No straw man, the comparason is valid.
For your imformation I mearly said that the Nazi's did this sort of thing so perhaps this is something that is not a good thing to do. If the Nazi's thought it was a good idea that's a pretty reason not to do it!
Now perhaps, you like to answer my questions rather than change the subject. How is it people on the left will have a hissy if a convicted murderer is sentenced to death and would certainly call starvation a cruel and unusual punishment but will fight with all of their might to have a woman who has committed no crime to be starved to death without a trial by a jury of her peers like the murderer? If a starved a dog, you would have me thrown in jail. Why do you consider a dog's life more valuable than Terri's?
You on the left, like the Nazi's, claim to be the smartest, most well educated people around. However, you, like the people of Germany, don't think of what your beliefs really lead to. You are for killing babies, the old and the handicapped for mearly having the audacity to be inconvienent. You are willing to promote the goulish frankenstein-like practice of cloning other humans for spare parts.
Now, you tell me, what is so scary about my defending others right to live (including yours I might add)? Why do you think your philosophy of selective killing of your fellow man becuase you have determined they are too much trouble or you have determined thier life isn't worth living is better? That my friends is scary!
Come on, be a true free-thinker don't just think you are.
1. I'll concede the point regarding the judiciary's weakness, upon having read Daniel's post and finding my mistake. However, I wasn't directly quoting Thomas Jefferson. I was quoting Federalist Paper No. 48 which quoted Thomas Jefferson. So you can tell Mr. Madison that it was a bad example. Additionally, Jefferson also wrote: "The judiciary... is a body which, if rendered independent and kept strictly to their own department, merits great confidence for their learning and integrity" (to James Madison, letter 1789). There are many other instances in which Jefferson and other founding fathers talk about the importance of an independent judiciary. Therefore, I believe that it is important to ensure the judiciary's independence. And this action encroaches on that independence. 2. I think YOU misunderstand the effect this legislation will have on the judiciary. The legislation states that it will not be a precedent and only applies in this circumstance, but it's not feasible to say that. It's the same slippery slope argument that I've heard Republicans use on a plethora of other issues. If we do it in this instance, it just opens up for more and more interferences in the judiciary, which is supposed to be independent. 3. I really don't appreciate your tone of voice throughout your entire post. But particularly in this point and point 5. I have read the Constitution, and I understand Congress' power. I don't get a chance to even listen to Al Franken or Janeane Garofolo, because I'm too busy with LAW school. So I think I understand the law. All I was saying is that Congress made an unwise decision in intervening in this case to provide special federal court jurisdiction. Jurisdiction rules exist for a reason and overturning them for such a special case, whose cause quite frankly was only taken up because it looks good politically, just isn't appropriate. Sure Congress has the power over the judicial system, but having the power does not mean it should be abused. And we need to keep the branches of government as independent as is workable. Intervening in a single case like this is an inappropriate show of power. PERIOD. 4. If things had gone as they SHOULD have, this case never would have been brought at all. It is not up to Terri Shiavo's parents what happens to her, because she is MARRIED. Upon her marriage, her husband had the authority for such decisions, as she would have had authority for decisions regarding him had the situation been reversed. Again, the situation is unfortunate and somewhat distressing because of the nature of the life support she requires. But again, it is my belief that she is already dead, her upper-level brain functions having ceased. As to the Due Process argument, typically it is only held to apply in criminal situations. Also, in this case, the court was only assenting to allow her husband to make the decision, as he is authorized to do. The state will not be the ones to remove the feeding tube. Additionally, even if due process WERE a concern, I would think that the state court's adjudication on the subject would be sufficient. 5. I am extremely offended by the tone you take here. By calling my language "big words" and offering to provide me with a definition, you are essentially implying that I am stupid. Which I assure you, I AM NOT. I don't consider those to be "big" words; in fact, I use them in everyday conversations. Your implication, in and of itself, is an ad hoominem attack -- which is an attack that appeals to personal consideration rather than logic or reason. It is not, as you state, calling someone stupid without giving reasons why they are stupid. It's rather attacking someone's character rather than their underlying argument. Comparing this situation to the Holocaust or the Nazis is just inflamatory. It's only meant to be derogatory and adds nothing to your argument. If you had read the things that the Oklahoma Hippy said in other posts, or that I said in my own post, you would see that we are both uneasy about the removal of the feeding tube. We DO NOT want to kill babies, the old, or the handicapped. In fact, my mother is a teacher in the Learning Disabilities department. I understand the issues surrounding the handicapped better than most, and I know that the Nazis would liked to have killed practically ALL of her students. They practiced an almost radical form of Social Darwinism, declaring themselves superior and killing ANYONE who didn't fit their ideal. To compare anyone in this situation of anything similar is RIDICULOUS for the reasons stated herein. You were quite right in your summary of the Nazi regime, but it was your analogy that was spurious. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I said the COMPARISON was spurious, not the statements about the Nazis. I could easily turn your own argument against you. The Nazis hauled off anyone who disagreed with their point of view. "Where the Nazi regime could not obtain its desired results through the official judicial system, it simply created special courts not subject even on paper to the minimal constraints of due process." (from http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/book.html). There's a strong correlation here to the current legisltion (creating jurisdiction where the outcome of another court is not liked). However, I want to specifically state that I AM NOT making such a comparison. I do not feel it is an appropriate comparison. I only bring this up to show that the pendulum swings both ways. Let me state again: I DO NOT THINK a comparison should be made here and I AM NOT CALLING comparing the current legislation to any of that under the Nazi regime. Such comparisons are not appropriate because of the extreme nature of the Nazi regime. By making such a comparison, you trivialize the horrible events of World War II. I do not think it appropriate for anyone to make light of that period, and by comparing people with whom you happen to disagree to those who committed those horrible acts you are making an appeal to emotions rather than a solid logical argument. Nothing said by those opposing the legislation even comes close to implying that we want to kill every (or even any) person that is inconvenient. All your comparison does is take people's focus away from the real issues and makes them focus on their gut reactions to Nazis (which is obviously a very negative reaction). As such, it's also a red herring. Finally, to respond to your questions. Your first question starts off with an extremely negative tone and doesn't really ask as much as it states. And if you thoroughly read what I wrote (or what the Oklahoma Hippy has written), you would understand that we don't really like what this end for Terri Schiavo. As I've stated, I would not want to be in this position, because it's a tough choice to make. MY problem (and I think the Oklahoma Hippy's problem) is with Congress' involvement. It is inappropriate to create jurisdiction for one isolated case simply because you disagree with the state court's outcome. Additionally, I feel it is her husband's choice to make. Further, I (and the Oklahoma Hippy) take issue with the fact that the Republicans only seem interested in this one case, because it is politically charged. If they truly cared about a culture of life, they could have extended such jurisdiction to all in Terri Schiavo's situation. Further, they are hypocrits as evidence by George W. Bush's signing of legislation in Texas that permits such removal of life support (in fact, mandates it in some situations). (See the other posts in this blog for more details.) Next question: This isn't really a question either. It's like saying Why do you hate children? However, I will answer it in saying this -- I do not value a dog's life higher than Mrs. Schiavo's. As I've said before, I have some problems with starving her to death. The thing is, I'm married, and I put faith in my husband to do what's best for me. I've told him my wishes in regard to situations like this, and I hope that he would carry them out. I do not have an advanced directive because I want my husband to evaluate the situation, if it arises, and base his decision on the specific facts that the doctors tell him. I also hope that my parents or some other organization would not be able to negate my husband's decision because they didn't agree. THAT is the issue we're dealing with here. Next, you go into more unnecessary attacks - comparing "the left" to Nazis, saying we're for the killing of babies, the elderly, and the handicapped, saying we support "Frankenstein-like" attempts to clone. Again, these are simply unnecessary appeals to emotion and generalizations that are better left out of a truly high-minded debate. You know nothing about me or my beliefs on ANY of these topics. I choose not to include here my own emotionally-charged generalizations about the right because they add nothing to the debate. Finally, to your last paragraph: you have every right to believe what you wish and I'm glad that you say you believe in a right to life. What I find scary is your tone and attitude in what could be a perfectly reasonable debate. There are lots of issues to be considered here. Not the least of which is Michael Schiavo's right, as Terri's husband, to make such medical decisions absent a controlling advance directive. I don't subscribe to the philosophy you describe. I subscribe to the philosophy that Michael Schiavo has the right to make that decision and not you or me or anyone else. To characterize me as believing the things you state I believe is unfounded. If you continue to resort to these types of irrational attacks, I really don't want anything further to do with this conversation. I am a free-thinker, because I don't succumb to the party line. I explore, challenge, and come to my own conclusions. I hope you do the same.
Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Or another example would be:
Hippy: I don't think Congress should be interfering with the process of state courts. Doing so for political reason is bad.
Mike: You on the left, like the Nazi's, claim to be the smartest, most well educated people around. However, you, like the people of Germany, don't think of what your beliefs really lead to. You are for killing babies, the old and the handicapped for merely having the audacity to be inconvenient. You are willing to promote the goulash Frankenstein-like practice of cloning other humans for spare parts.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Didn't King James say that?
I've never claimed to be the smartest. I have never wished for this woman's demise. I have done quite the opposite. I did find fault in the use of this poor woman's family for political posturing.
I find fault in the way Congress is acting without regard to the Constitution.
If congress wanted to pass a law preventing the removal of feeding tubes in cases like this, I would be all for it. That is not what they did.
They passed a law changing the jurisdiction of the courts in relation to this case.
I am not a fascist.
Since I do not wished to be accused of using big words, let me define it.
Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state.
Democrats are bad, anti-Christian, baby killing, pro-terrorist, non-patriots, who want to take away all of our guns.
I think that pretty much covers the general idea that the Republican Party's media machine attempts to put out into the public.
That is coming pretty close to fascism.
Reactionary: makes policy based upon current circumstances rather than creating policies to prevent problems; piles lies and misnomers on top of more lies until the truth becomes indistinguishable, revised or forgotten.
Chauvinistic: Two or more tiered legal systems, varying rights based upon superficial characteristics such as race, creed and origin.
Imperialist elements of finance capital: Extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political domination of one state over its allies.
We had two, and as of Sunday night we are batting 100%.
How is it that Republican Party rails about the specter of Trial Lawyers, yet wants to extend this case out?
How is it when Sun Hudson was removed from life support last week in Houston, I didn't hear a peep of outrage?
Facts get in the way of rhetoric is why.
The 7 conditions (Warning signs) that foster & fuel fascism are:
Instability of capitalist relationships or markets
The existence of considerable declassed social elements
The stripping of rights and wealth focused upon a specific segment of the population, specifically the middle class and intellectuals within urban areas as this the group with the means, intelligence and ability to stop fascism if given the opportunity.
Discontent among the rural lower middle class (clerks, secretaries, white collar labor). Consistent discontent among the general middle and lower middle classes against the oppressing upper-classes (haves vs. have-nots).
Hate: Pronounced, perpetuated and accepted public disdain of a specific group defined by race, origin, theology or association.
Greed: The motivator of fascism, which is generally associated with land, space or scarce resources in the possession of those being oppressed.
Organized Propaganda:
a) The creation of social mythology that venerates (creates saints of) one element of society while concurrently vilifying (dehumanizing) another element of the population through misinformation, misdirection and the obscuring of factual matter through removal, destruction or social humiliation, (name-calling, false accusations, belittling and threats).
b) The squelching of public debate not agreeing with the popular agenda via slander, libel, threats, theft, destruction, historical revisionism and social humiliation. Journalists in particular are terrorized if they attempt to publish stories contrary to the agenda.
3. Fascism dovetails business & government sectors into a single economic unit, while concurrently increasing in-fighting and distrust between the units fostering advancement towards war. TOP
4. A) Fascism promotes chauvinist demagogy, (appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the populace) by fostering selective persecution and accepted public vilification of the target group. It then promotes this a "patriotic", "supportive" or "the party line" and disagreement with such as "anti-government", "anti-faith" or "anti-nation".
b) Fascism creates confusion through "facts". It relies on junk science, revisionism, the elimination of cultural records/treasures and obfuscations to create its case and gain acceptance. Fascism can also combine Marxist critiques of capitalism or faith based critics of the same to re-define middle class perceptions of democracy and to force its issues, confuse logic and create majority consensus between targeted groups. This is also referred to as creating a state of Cognitive Dissonance, the mental state most human beings are easily manipulated within. TOP
5. Both middle and upper-middle-class dictated democracy and fascism are class dictatorships that use organized violence (verbal or physical) to maintain the class rule of the oppressors over the oppressed.
The difference between the two is demonstrated by the policies towards non-lower-working class classes. Fascism attains power through the substitution of one state's form of class domination with another form, generally a middle class based republic segues into an open terrorist dictatorship, run by a few elite
Your reaction to what has happened with this case over the last week is exactly what the Republican Leadership wanted.
You are being played for a pawn as if you were stupid. But you are not stupid. You are a sincere man with the conviction of unshakable beliefs.
The Republican leadership has studied those beliefs and is using them to manipulate you.
Why don't you organize a movement to ask the Republicans who control every branch of our federal government to actually act on the issues you most care about?
Why don't you demand that they actually pass a bill to protect life rather than trying to manipulate the jurisdictions of courts?
Why don't you ask them to make sure that no one ever has the right to stop feeding people when those who love them believe there may be a chance that they may recover?
The Republicans in Congress will not do it. Because they have the math worked out.
The Republicans have vilified the Democratic Party so thoroughly using half truths, ad hominem attacks, and outright deceptions, that they have worked themselves into a perfect position.
The can put corporate interests over those of their constituents. When insurance companies and hospitals want to use a patient’s ability to pay as a factor in deciding whether to continue life support, they know the Republicans will be there for them.
Because no matter how arrogant and greedy they become; they do not have to serve the wishes of the Christian Right. Because they know something. They know that Christian Conservatives will never vote for Democrats. And they are proud of themselves for that. It started with Nixon, gained momentum with Reagan, and has seen its ultimate fruition with Bush 43.
Republicans have only to maintain Christian Conservatives' outrage at "Liberals," and keep them coming to the ballot box, keep them writing checks, keep them coming to the rallies, keep their children fighting wars, and keep them believing that their faith in God is under attack.
If that fails, and the President’s popularity or approval polls start to dip, they need only remind people that Terrorist are going to kill them. It happened so often as to be blatant. Poll numbers dip and out come the Terror Alerts.
There is an entire segment of honest, god fearing, decent people being manipulated by a propaganda machine in this country.
Clearly, Mr. Bennett you are an intelligent man. You have the power of convictions and I faith that I admire. You represent the genuine. You are the kind of man that the Republicans need on a grand scale to maintain their power.
Okay, Its 2am and I have a class early in the morn but I felt obliged to comment. There’s been a lot of discussion regarding personal attacks who is and is not a fascist. The Republican Party was not manipulating their base with the legislation that extended the court’s jurisdiction but representing their base with the law:
At one vantage point you criticize Congress for what is relatively a minor interference by extending the federal court’s jurisdiction and then the next criticism is that they didn’t go far enough? Congress intervened as much as they could save sending troops into the hospice. Also the comparisons to the party who currently holds the majority in the government once again to Fascist Germany are slightly redundant and odd since one of the focal points of the discussion was to get away from Ad Hominem attacks and frivolous claims that those with whom we disagree are somehow Nazis. If this current administration and congress were the brooding fascists your argument eludes to GW could simply use his power as commander and chief to wipe out his political opposition and set up a dictatorship. That is typically what happens in those types of situations, but there is always a power struggle as it was for Julius Cesar, Napoleon, and even Hitler. All three had to remove their opposition militaristically. However just because a political party has the majority in the three branches of government does not mean they’re likely to hold a coup and set up a fascist dictatorship. You pin the blame on the Republican Party for gaining all this control and power but these men and women were put in their offices by fair elections. Indeed it is your fellow citizens who are responsible for the political flavor of our government and so it seems your complaints are better suited for them
“Democrats are bad, anti-Christian, baby killing, pro-terrorist, non-patriots, who want to take away all of our guns.
I think that pretty much covers the general idea that the Republican Party's media machine attempts to put out into the public.”
Here are some of the actual things that were said on the most recent campaign trail:
“And our party is at its best when it makes certain that we have a powerful national defense in a still very dangerous world. I don't believe we're right about everything and Democrats are wrong about everything. Neither party has a monopoly on virtue.” Rudy Giuliani
“My friends in the Democratic Party and I'm fortunate to call many of them my friends assure us they share the conviction that winning the war against terrorism is our government's most important obligation…My friends, we are again met on the field of political competition with our fellow countrymen. It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis we have these contests, and engage in spirited disagreement over the shape and course of our government. We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, and promote the general welfare. But it should remain an argument among friends who share an unshaken belief in our great cause, and in the goodness of each other.” Sen. John McCain ~ http://www.2004nycgop.org/
This is certainly not the inflammatory speech of Sith-like conspirators (okay I’ve been watching the new Star Wars trailers a lot) whose sole purpose is to drive from our shores all registered Democrats. Even Sen. Zel Miller with his fiery criticisms of Sen. Kerry never resorted to the Ad Hominem tactics of grouping all democrats into some wacky category of ‘pro-terrorist’ nut jobs as you describe.
Simply put Democrats have not been winning elections. Whether their ideas on the economy and homeland security are right or wrong a majority of the populous (the ones who vote anyways) chose differently for their leadership this time and that is simply the situation we have today. The Christian Right is typically more loyal to the Republicans because Republicans tend to represent their values, which now days has tended to centralize on the issues of gay marriage and abortion. The Democratic Party and or ‘The Left’ have a different view, for the most part, on those issues and thus they forfeit the Christian Right’s vote. Also the Exec and Legislative branches can do little to curve the current abortion situation save a constitutional amendment which is unlikely to happen in the near, and so many pro-life voters, which I am one of, are left with merely supporting pro-life candidates in hopes that someday a measure like that would be available.
Also the current administration has been standing up for more of our Rights than they’re accredited with.
For instance the current administration and congress have refused to ratify specific treaties presented to them from the United Nations. Both treaties have flowery titles which make them attractive to the ear but each has truly horrific affects on states’ rights as well as individual rights, and even the democratic process. For instance the UN attempted to force upon the US the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treatise which in its Article 4 & 5 mandates an ‘Affirmative Action’ of elections where the elected legislature MUST represent the percentages of men and women in the country, i.e. if it is 49/51% split between the sexes congress would have to represent that. This is regardless of the voter’s choice. Thus if the majority were to elect a man, lets say, he would not be permitted to take office and a woman (or vice versa depending upon the population percentage) would be put in his place against the wishes of the people and for the purpose of complying with this treaty! I’m currently taking this UN based course on women’s rights for a credit and this seasoned, Yale-trained scholar stands before me and the class suggesting that this is somehow a good course of action! Perhaps I found the insinuation more outrageous than my fellow students and my suspicion is that the majority of countries signed onto the treaty for popularity within the UN and do not follow its precepts as I cannot imagine any sovereign body that would welcome such an intrusion. A friend of mine was complaining about the current administration not ratifying the “Children’s Right’s Treaty” presented by the UN. I thought it odd as well until I took the class and read the treaty which bestowed in Articles 12-16 freedom of expression and religion upon children! Both treaties invade both the personal and public lives of parents who wish to raise their children in any type of religious or non-religious view point they want and counteract the democratic process by enforcing gender quotas. Perhaps this is off issue slightly but I know I sleep more soundly at night thinking that a common sense president and congress are wholeheartedly rejecting such foolish and invasive measures disguised in pleasant buzz words.
you must be seriously misinformed if you think that Michael Schiavo is the good guy here.
ReplyDeleteDem. Senators Harkin and HARRY REID (!) supported this bill.
Also, all congress did was extend the federal court's jurisdiction over Terri's case. (see Art III)
"I am pleased Senator Frist and I were able to pass the bill that protects the life of Terri Schiavo by allowing her parents to go to federal court.
ReplyDeleteIf the House Republicans refuse to pass our bipartisan bill, they bear responsibility for the consequences.”
-Harry Reid
“I have long been an advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. Many in that community are keenly aware of the risk of incapacitation. In such cases, I believe that every precaution should be taken to learn and respect their desires regarding the removal of life supports.
ReplyDeleteI would have preferred to address the underlying issue and not just this case. However, I think that the merits of this case warrant further review, and believe that it is important -- in some limited circumstances -- to err on the side of caution and allow extra federal review to ensure a patient’s true wishes are honored.”
-Tom Harkin (Senate, D-IA), press release re: Terri Schiavo bill
You are right, this is a country of laws and the Judicial branch is the one flouting them. The legislative branch is the one given the power to make laws not the judicial branch. A ruling by a judge and the law are not the same thing.
ReplyDeleteThe constitution gives the judicial branch very few and limited powers. It was set up to be the weakest of the three branches. Some such as Thomas Jefferson argued strongly that there should be no judicial branch precisely because he feared they would become the tyrants they have become.
Now, go find a copy of the constitution and read it. You will find that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and a trial by a JURY OF ONE's PEERS. Tell me, when has Terri been given this same right that Criminals have?
Further, the Constitution gives the Congress oversite over the Courts. It states they may establish courts at their whim and may determine what the courts may have jurisdiction over and what they may not.
Now let me guess, youa re one of those types that think we should abolish the death penalty for mass murderers and that if someone fails to feed and take care of a horse or a dog they deserve to be prosecuted but you think someone who is not quite as human as you are because of a handicap should be put to death because they wouldn't have a quality of life. Tell me, what kind of quality of life do you have if you are dead?
The Nazi's used the same arguments, the same types of court cases and the same type of movie propaganda as "Million Dollar Baby" to excuse the same euthanasia policies that you propose. You know if the Nazi's did it perhaps it's not a good idea.
One final thing, this is not a right to die case. Terri is not dying anymore than you or I. Like us she needs food and water to live. No, Terri is not being allowed to die, she is being brutally killed without compassion.
People like you scare me. When would you prefer we start up the gas chambers.
In response to Mike:
ReplyDelete1. The Constitution set up the EXECUTIVE as the weakest branch of government to ensure that we would not open the door to a dictatorship.
2. The Conservative Congress doesn't mind judicial activism as long as the judges agree with them. Why else would they pass a law providing ADDITIONAL judicial jurisdiction for ANOTHER court to practice judicial activism?
3. If we want to talk about founding fathers perspectives, look at The Federalist Papers. In Federalist Paper No. 48, James Madison discusses the importance of keeping the three branches of government "so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other." The Congress' actions in meddling in a judiciary outcome simply because they don't like the outcome is absolutely contrary to the concept the founding fathers had as evidenced in the Federal Papers. Federalist Paper No. 48 even quotes Thomas Jefferson complaining about the LACK of separation between all three branches in Virginia. Jefferson had said that when the legislative branch takes over the powers of the executive or judiciary, then we no longer have a democracy but rather an "elective despotism."
4. The State will not be taking her life, therefore the due process clause does not apply here. Additionally, on a personal level, I don't like the idea of stopping someone's food very much, but I also believe that she died a long time ago, when her upper level brain functions ceased. Regardless, these decisions should be left up to her husband. I hope to God that I'm never put in the kind of position that he is in: unable to move on but believing that she is gone.
5. I find your comparisons to the Holocaust and Nazis shocking, spurious, and an unnecessary ad hominem attack. If you are unable to debate an issue without pulling out straw-man arguments that are designed only to attack your opponent on a personal level, comparing him (or her) to the Nazis on ridculous bases, then you have no pace in a civilized debate.
People like YOU scare ME. Talk to us again when you have stopped comparing ANYONE to Nazis.
on a side note, I think it's completely wrong that the Founders set up the executive as the weakest branch. In their own words, the judiciary was the weakest branch.
ReplyDeleteIn Federalist #78, Hamilton writes: "the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power".
Federalist 78:
ReplyDelete"It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; "
OK Hippies wife let me address your points:
ReplyDelete1. Sorry the Judiciary is the weakest, see distiguished colleauge Daniel's comment. You quote Thomas Jefferson. Bad example. Thomas Jefferson argued strongly that there should be no judiciary and correctly predicted that if there were it would become an oligarchy of black robed depots.
2. Sorry, they are curbing judicial activism as is their right in the checks and balances set in the constitution. I think you misunderstand separation of powers. The separation is there to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful.
3. Once again, sorry to disappoint you but the Legislature has power over the judiciary. According to article three of the constitution the legislature has established every court in the country below the Supreme Court and can appoint any courts they see fit. They can also pull the feeding tube on a court if you will. It also can tell the courts what they can rule on and what they can't. You really should go read the Constitution and quit relying on what Al Franken and Garafalo's propaganda tell you.
4. The state is most definately taking her life. Judge George Greer in 2000 appointed himself avocate for Terri Schaivo as well as Judge of the case. A huge conflict of interest. HE is the one that ordered her tube to be removed Friday, not Schaivo. As a government official he ordered her execution without due process and habeus Corpus that every mass murderer is entitled to.
5. There are some nice big words in this post like "spurious" and "ad-hominem". Let me explain the meaning of these words for you. A spurious comment would be one that is untrue. My comment was not untrue, the Nazi's did in fact start their eugenics and the holocaust with the killing of the old and handicapped. An ad-homimem attack would be one where I called you stupid of something without giving a reason why you are stupid. No straw man, the comparason is valid.
For your imformation I mearly said that the Nazi's did this sort of thing so perhaps this is something that is not a good thing to do. If the Nazi's thought it was a good idea that's a pretty reason not to do it!
Now perhaps, you like to answer my questions rather than change the subject. How is it people on the left will have a hissy if a convicted murderer is sentenced to death and would certainly call starvation a cruel and unusual punishment but will fight with all of their might to have a woman who has committed no crime to be starved to death without a trial by a jury of her peers like the murderer? If a starved a dog, you would have me thrown in jail. Why do you consider a dog's life more valuable than Terri's?
You on the left, like the Nazi's, claim to be the smartest, most well educated people around. However, you, like the people of Germany, don't think of what your beliefs really lead to. You are for killing babies, the old and the handicapped for mearly having the audacity to be inconvienent. You are willing to promote the goulish frankenstein-like practice of cloning other humans for spare parts.
Now, you tell me, what is so scary about my defending others right to live (including yours I might add)? Why do you think your philosophy of selective killing of your fellow man becuase you have determined they are too much trouble or you have determined thier life isn't worth living is better? That my friends is scary!
Come on, be a true free-thinker don't just think you are.
1. I'll concede the point regarding the judiciary's weakness, upon having read Daniel's post and finding my mistake.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I wasn't directly quoting Thomas Jefferson. I was quoting Federalist Paper No. 48 which quoted Thomas Jefferson. So you can tell Mr. Madison that it was a bad example. Additionally, Jefferson also wrote:
"The judiciary... is a body which, if rendered independent and kept strictly to their own department, merits great confidence for their learning and integrity" (to James Madison, letter 1789). There are many other instances in which Jefferson and other founding fathers talk about the importance of an independent judiciary. Therefore, I believe that it is important to ensure the judiciary's independence. And this action encroaches on that independence.
2. I think YOU misunderstand the effect this legislation will have on the judiciary. The legislation states that it will not be a precedent and only applies in this circumstance, but it's not feasible to say that. It's the same slippery slope argument that I've heard Republicans use on a plethora of other issues. If we do it in this instance, it just opens up for more and more interferences in the judiciary, which is supposed to be independent.
3. I really don't appreciate your tone of voice throughout your entire post. But particularly in this point and point 5. I have read the Constitution, and I understand Congress' power. I don't get a chance to even listen to Al Franken or Janeane Garofolo, because I'm too busy with LAW school. So I think I understand the law. All I was saying is that Congress made an unwise decision in intervening in this case to provide special federal court jurisdiction. Jurisdiction rules exist for a reason and overturning them for such a special case, whose cause quite frankly was only taken up because it looks good politically, just isn't appropriate. Sure Congress has the power over the judicial system, but having the power does not mean it should be abused. And we need to keep the branches of government as independent as is workable. Intervening in a single case like this is an inappropriate show of power. PERIOD.
4. If things had gone as they SHOULD have, this case never would have been brought at all. It is not up to Terri Shiavo's parents what happens to her, because she is MARRIED. Upon her marriage, her husband had the authority for such decisions, as she would have had authority for decisions regarding him had the situation been reversed. Again, the situation is unfortunate and somewhat distressing because of the nature of the life support she requires. But again, it is my belief that she is already dead, her upper-level brain functions having ceased.
As to the Due Process argument, typically it is only held to apply in criminal situations. Also, in this case, the court was only assenting to allow her husband to make the decision, as he is authorized to do. The state will not be the ones to remove the feeding tube. Additionally, even if due process WERE a concern, I would think that the state court's adjudication on the subject would be sufficient.
5. I am extremely offended by the tone you take here. By calling my language "big words" and offering to provide me with a definition, you are essentially implying that I am stupid. Which I assure you, I AM NOT. I don't consider those to be "big" words; in fact, I use them in everyday conversations. Your implication, in and of itself, is an ad hoominem attack -- which is an attack that appeals to personal consideration rather than logic or reason. It is not, as you state, calling someone stupid without giving reasons why they are stupid. It's rather attacking someone's character rather than their underlying argument. Comparing this situation to the Holocaust or the Nazis is just inflamatory. It's only meant to be derogatory and adds nothing to your argument. If you had read the things that the Oklahoma Hippy said in other posts, or that I said in my own post, you would see that we are both uneasy about the removal of the feeding tube. We DO NOT want to kill babies, the old, or the handicapped. In fact, my mother is a teacher in the Learning Disabilities department. I understand the issues surrounding the handicapped better than most, and I know that the Nazis would liked to have killed practically ALL of her students. They practiced an almost radical form of Social Darwinism, declaring themselves superior and killing ANYONE who didn't fit their ideal. To compare anyone in this situation of anything similar is RIDICULOUS for the reasons stated herein. You were quite right in your summary of the Nazi regime, but it was your analogy that was spurious. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I said the COMPARISON was spurious, not the statements about the Nazis.
I could easily turn your own argument against you. The Nazis hauled off anyone who disagreed with their point of view. "Where the Nazi regime could not obtain its desired results through the official judicial system, it simply created special courts not subject even on paper to the minimal constraints of due process." (from http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/book.html). There's a strong correlation here to the current legisltion (creating jurisdiction where the outcome of another court is not liked). However, I want to specifically state that I AM NOT making such a comparison. I do not feel it is an appropriate comparison. I only bring this up to show that the pendulum swings both ways. Let me state again: I DO NOT THINK a comparison should be made here and I AM NOT CALLING comparing the current legislation to any of that under the Nazi regime. Such comparisons are not appropriate because of the extreme nature of the Nazi regime.
By making such a comparison, you trivialize the horrible events of World War II. I do not think it appropriate for anyone to make light of that period, and by comparing people with whom you happen to disagree to those who committed those horrible acts you are making an appeal to emotions rather than a solid logical argument. Nothing said by those opposing the legislation even comes close to implying that we want to kill every (or even any) person that is inconvenient. All your comparison does is take people's focus away from the real issues and makes them focus on their gut reactions to Nazis (which is obviously a very negative reaction). As such, it's also a red herring.
Finally, to respond to your questions.
Your first question starts off with an extremely negative tone and doesn't really ask as much as it states. And if you thoroughly read what I wrote (or what the Oklahoma Hippy has written), you would understand that we don't really like what this end for Terri Schiavo. As I've stated, I would not want to be in this position, because it's a tough choice to make. MY problem (and I think the Oklahoma Hippy's problem) is with Congress' involvement. It is inappropriate to create jurisdiction for one isolated case simply because you disagree with the state court's outcome. Additionally, I feel it is her husband's choice to make. Further, I (and the Oklahoma Hippy) take issue with the fact that the Republicans only seem interested in this one case, because it is politically charged. If they truly cared about a culture of life, they could have extended such jurisdiction to all in Terri Schiavo's situation. Further, they are hypocrits as evidence by George W. Bush's signing of legislation in Texas that permits such removal of life support (in fact, mandates it in some situations). (See the other posts in this blog for more details.)
Next question: This isn't really a question either. It's like saying Why do you hate children? However, I will answer it in saying this -- I do not value a dog's life higher than Mrs. Schiavo's. As I've said before, I have some problems with starving her to death. The thing is, I'm married, and I put faith in my husband to do what's best for me. I've told him my wishes in regard to situations like this, and I hope that he would carry them out. I do not have an advanced directive because I want my husband to evaluate the situation, if it arises, and base his decision on the specific facts that the doctors tell him. I also hope that my parents or some other organization would not be able to negate my husband's decision because they didn't agree. THAT is the issue we're dealing with here.
Next, you go into more unnecessary attacks - comparing "the left" to Nazis, saying we're for the killing of babies, the elderly, and the handicapped, saying we support "Frankenstein-like" attempts to clone. Again, these are simply unnecessary appeals to emotion and generalizations that are better left out of a truly high-minded debate. You know nothing about me or my beliefs on ANY of these topics. I choose not to include here my own emotionally-charged generalizations about the right because they add nothing to the debate.
Finally, to your last paragraph: you have every right to believe what you wish and I'm glad that you say you believe in a right to life. What I find scary is your tone and attitude in what could be a perfectly reasonable debate. There are lots of issues to be considered here. Not the least of which is Michael Schiavo's right, as Terri's husband, to make such medical decisions absent a controlling advance directive. I don't subscribe to the philosophy you describe. I subscribe to the philosophy that Michael Schiavo has the right to make that decision and not you or me or anyone else. To characterize me as believing the things you state I believe is unfounded.
If you continue to resort to these types of irrational attacks, I really don't want anything further to do with this conversation.
I am a free-thinker, because I don't succumb to the party line. I explore, challenge, and come to my own conclusions. I hope you do the same.
Let's see if we can clarify this:
ReplyDeleteDescription of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Or another example would be:
Hippy: I don't think Congress should be interfering with the process of state courts. Doing so for political reason is bad.
Mike: You on the left, like the Nazi's, claim to be the smartest, most well educated people around. However, you, like the people of Germany, don't think of what your beliefs really lead to. You are for killing babies, the old and the handicapped for merely having the audacity to be inconvenient. You are willing to promote the goulash Frankenstein-like practice of cloning other humans for spare parts.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Didn't King James say that?
I've never claimed to be the smartest. I have never wished for this woman's demise. I have done quite the opposite. I did find fault in the use of this poor woman's family for political posturing.
I find fault in the way Congress is acting without regard to the Constitution.
If congress wanted to pass a law preventing the removal of feeding tubes in cases like this, I would be all for it. That is not what they did.
They passed a law changing the jurisdiction of the courts in relation to this case.
I am not a fascist.
Since I do not wished to be accused of using big words, let me define it.
Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state.
Democrats are bad, anti-Christian, baby killing, pro-terrorist, non-patriots, who want to take away all of our guns.
I think that pretty much covers the general idea that the Republican Party's media machine attempts to put out into the public.
That is coming pretty close to fascism.
Reactionary: makes policy based upon current circumstances rather than creating policies to prevent problems; piles lies and misnomers on top of more lies until the truth becomes indistinguishable, revised or forgotten.
Chauvinistic: Two or more tiered legal systems, varying rights based upon superficial characteristics such as race, creed and origin.
Imperialist elements of finance capital: Extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political domination of one state over its allies.
We had two, and as of Sunday night we are batting 100%.
How is it that Republican Party rails about the specter of Trial Lawyers, yet wants to extend this case out?
How is it when Sun Hudson was removed from life support last week in Houston, I didn't hear a peep of outrage?
Facts get in the way of rhetoric is why.
The 7 conditions (Warning signs)
that foster & fuel fascism are:
Instability of capitalist relationships or markets
The existence of considerable declassed social elements
The stripping of rights and wealth focused upon a specific segment of the population, specifically the middle class and intellectuals within urban areas as this the group with the means, intelligence and ability to stop fascism if given the opportunity.
Discontent among the rural lower middle class (clerks, secretaries, white collar labor). Consistent discontent among the general middle and lower middle classes against the oppressing upper-classes (haves vs. have-nots).
Hate: Pronounced, perpetuated and accepted public disdain of a specific group defined by race, origin, theology or association.
Greed: The motivator of fascism, which is generally associated with land, space or scarce resources in the possession of those being oppressed.
Organized Propaganda:
a) The creation of social mythology that venerates (creates saints of) one element of society while concurrently vilifying (dehumanizing) another element of the population through misinformation, misdirection and the obscuring of factual matter through removal, destruction or social humiliation, (name-calling, false accusations, belittling and threats).
b) The squelching of public debate not agreeing with the popular agenda via slander, libel, threats, theft, destruction, historical revisionism and social humiliation. Journalists in particular are terrorized if they attempt to publish stories contrary to the agenda.
3. Fascism dovetails business & government sectors into a single economic unit, while concurrently increasing in-fighting and distrust between the units fostering advancement towards war. TOP
4. A) Fascism promotes chauvinist demagogy, (appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the populace) by fostering selective persecution and accepted public vilification of the target group. It then promotes this a "patriotic", "supportive" or "the party line" and disagreement with such as "anti-government", "anti-faith" or "anti-nation".
b) Fascism creates confusion through "facts". It relies on junk science, revisionism, the elimination of cultural records/treasures and obfuscations to create its case and gain acceptance. Fascism can also combine Marxist critiques of capitalism or faith based critics of the same to re-define middle class perceptions of democracy and to force its issues, confuse logic and create majority consensus between targeted groups. This is also referred to as creating a state of Cognitive Dissonance, the mental state most human beings are easily manipulated within. TOP
5. Both middle and upper-middle-class dictated democracy and fascism are class dictatorships that use organized violence (verbal or physical) to maintain the class rule of the oppressors over the oppressed.
The difference between the two is demonstrated by the policies towards non-lower-working class classes. Fascism attains power through the substitution of one state's form of class domination with another form, generally a middle class based republic segues into an open terrorist dictatorship, run by a few elite
Your reaction to what has happened with this case over the last week is exactly what the Republican Leadership wanted.
You are being played for a pawn as if you were stupid. But you are not stupid. You are a sincere man with the conviction of unshakable beliefs.
The Republican leadership has studied those beliefs and is using them to manipulate you.
Why don't you organize a movement to ask the Republicans who control every branch of our federal government to actually act on the issues you most care about?
Why don't you demand that they actually pass a bill to protect life rather than trying to manipulate the jurisdictions of courts?
Why don't you ask them to make sure that no one ever has the right to stop feeding people when those who love them believe there may be a chance that they may recover?
The Republicans in Congress will not do it. Because they have the math worked out.
The Republicans have vilified the Democratic Party so thoroughly using half truths, ad hominem attacks, and outright deceptions, that they have worked themselves into a perfect position.
The can put corporate interests over those of their constituents. When insurance companies and hospitals want to use a patient’s ability to pay as a factor in deciding whether to continue life support, they know the Republicans will be there for them.
Because no matter how arrogant and greedy they become; they do not have to serve the wishes of the Christian Right. Because they know something. They know that Christian Conservatives will never vote for Democrats. And they are proud of themselves for that. It started with Nixon, gained momentum with Reagan, and has seen its ultimate fruition with Bush 43.
Republicans have only to maintain Christian Conservatives' outrage at "Liberals," and keep them coming to the ballot box, keep them writing checks, keep them coming to the rallies, keep their children fighting wars, and keep them believing that their faith in God is under attack.
If that fails, and the President’s popularity or approval polls start to dip, they need only remind people that Terrorist are going to kill them. It happened so often as to be blatant. Poll numbers dip and out come the Terror Alerts.
There is an entire segment of honest, god fearing, decent people being manipulated by a propaganda machine in this country.
Clearly, Mr. Bennett you are an intelligent man. You have the power of convictions and I faith that I admire. You represent the genuine. You are the kind of man that the Republicans need on a grand scale to maintain their power.
Please do not let them abuse and manipulate you.
-The Oklahoma Hippy
Okay,
ReplyDeleteIts 2am and I have a class early in the morn but I felt obliged to comment. There’s been a lot of discussion regarding personal attacks who is and is not a fascist. The Republican Party was not manipulating their base with the legislation that extended the court’s jurisdiction but representing their base with the law:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/bill31905.html
At one vantage point you criticize Congress for what is relatively a minor interference by extending the federal court’s jurisdiction and then the next criticism is that they didn’t go far enough? Congress intervened as much as they could save sending troops into the hospice. Also the comparisons to the party who currently holds the majority in the government once again to Fascist Germany are slightly redundant and odd since one of the focal points of the discussion was to get away from Ad Hominem attacks and frivolous claims that those with whom we disagree are somehow Nazis. If this current administration and congress were the brooding fascists your argument eludes to GW could simply use his power as commander and chief to wipe out his political opposition and set up a dictatorship. That is typically what happens in those types of situations, but there is always a power struggle as it was for Julius Cesar, Napoleon, and even Hitler. All three had to remove their opposition militaristically. However just because a political party has the majority in the three branches of government does not mean they’re likely to hold a coup and set up a fascist dictatorship. You pin the blame on the Republican Party for gaining all this control and power but these men and women were put in their offices by fair elections. Indeed it is your fellow citizens who are responsible for the political flavor of our government and so it seems your complaints are better suited for them
“Democrats are bad, anti-Christian, baby killing, pro-terrorist, non-patriots, who want to take away all of our guns.
I think that pretty much covers the general idea that the Republican Party's media machine attempts to put out into the public.”
Here are some of the actual things that were said on the most recent campaign trail:
“And our party is at its best when it makes certain that we have a powerful national defense in a still very dangerous world. I don't believe we're right about everything and Democrats are wrong about everything. Neither party has a monopoly on virtue.”
Rudy Giuliani
“My friends in the Democratic Party and I'm fortunate to call many of them my friends assure us they share the conviction that winning the war against terrorism is our government's most important obligation…My friends, we are again met on the field of political competition with our fellow countrymen. It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis we have these contests, and engage in spirited disagreement over the shape and course of our government. We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, and promote the general welfare. But it should remain an argument among friends who share an unshaken belief in our great cause, and in the goodness of each other.” Sen. John McCain
~ http://www.2004nycgop.org/
This is certainly not the inflammatory speech of Sith-like conspirators (okay I’ve been watching the new Star Wars trailers a lot) whose sole purpose is to drive from our shores all registered Democrats. Even Sen. Zel Miller with his fiery criticisms of Sen. Kerry never resorted to the Ad Hominem tactics of grouping all democrats into some wacky category of ‘pro-terrorist’ nut jobs as you describe.
Simply put Democrats have not been winning elections. Whether their ideas on the economy and homeland security are right or wrong a majority of the populous (the ones who vote anyways) chose differently for their leadership this time and that is simply the situation we have today. The Christian Right is typically more loyal to the Republicans because Republicans tend to represent their values, which now days has tended to centralize on the issues of gay marriage and abortion. The Democratic Party and or ‘The Left’ have a different view, for the most part, on those issues and thus they forfeit the Christian Right’s vote. Also the Exec and Legislative branches can do little to curve the current abortion situation save a constitutional amendment which is unlikely to happen in the near, and so many pro-life voters, which I am one of, are left with merely supporting pro-life candidates in hopes that someday a measure like that would be available.
Also the current administration has been standing up for more of our Rights than they’re accredited with.
For instance the current administration and congress have refused to ratify specific treaties presented to them from the United Nations. Both treaties have flowery titles which make them attractive to the ear but each has truly horrific affects on states’ rights as well as individual rights, and even the democratic process. For instance the UN attempted to force upon the US the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treatise which in its Article 4 & 5 mandates an ‘Affirmative Action’ of elections where the elected legislature MUST represent the percentages of men and women in the country, i.e. if it is 49/51% split between the sexes congress would have to represent that. This is regardless of the voter’s choice. Thus if the majority were to elect a man, lets say, he would not be permitted to take office and a woman (or vice versa depending upon the population percentage) would be put in his place against the wishes of the people and for the purpose of complying with this treaty! I’m currently taking this UN based course on women’s rights for a credit and this seasoned, Yale-trained scholar stands before me and the class suggesting that this is somehow a good course of action! Perhaps I found the insinuation more outrageous than my fellow students and my suspicion is that the majority of countries signed onto the treaty for popularity within the UN and do not follow its precepts as I cannot imagine any sovereign body that would welcome such an intrusion. A friend of mine was complaining about the current administration not ratifying the “Children’s Right’s Treaty” presented by the UN. I thought it odd as well until I took the class and read the treaty which bestowed in Articles 12-16 freedom of expression and religion upon children! Both treaties invade both the personal and public lives of parents who wish to raise their children in any type of religious or non-religious view point they want and counteract the democratic process by enforcing gender quotas. Perhaps this is off issue slightly but I know I sleep more soundly at night thinking that a common sense president and congress are wholeheartedly rejecting such foolish and invasive measures disguised in pleasant buzz words.