But not the LA Times... The LA Times HOPES that it alienates GOP voters.
I agree. Although I wish she could be saved, I don't think that congress has the power to legislate on this issue.
Here is the effect it will have. It's already starting.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368338/posts
A misleading statistic at best. I think congressional intervention was inappropriate. What would have been appropriate would have been for the state courts to properly rule that Terri's wishes were not proven by clear and convincing evidence, and therefore there was no cause to starve her to death. That's the way this case should have gone.
I don't like that Congress had to intervene. But Congress had to intervene, because the Florida state courts did not do their job.
This entire article is a tissue of lies.
What worries the LA Times is that supporting Terri's right to life may HELP the Republicans and hurt the Democrats. They are simply trying to muddy the water, confuse their readers, and throw the Republicans a false message.
For years the media have been trying to persuade everyone, especially Republicans, that right-to-life is bad politics. Nonsense. Peddling abortions is bad politics, and it shows at the polls.
Quite the opposite. Bring on the nculear option !
Quite the opposite. Bring on the nuclear option !
Obviously the uncomplicated thing to have done, would have been to turn her back over to her parents.
When a story gets too convoluted and complicated, I start developing reasonable doubts.
Yeah? Well, sometimes in ones life one has to step up to the bar and be counted...no matter the results. You do what you have to do and what you believe in. There is NO WAY anyone should consider one lousey vote for themselves in the midst of this heartbreaking event. It's about Terri Schiavo and her right to live NOT about dem/lib/pubbies worrying about their damned careers!
I think the phrase is:
Bring it on!
But some Republicans gotta get some
intestinal fortitude. I'm getting sick and tired
of hearing Republicans worry about having
to take a stand that requires character and
integrity. You hear 'em ringing their hands
as they speak in quivering voices to Sean
and Rush.
Let's take on the Dems and beat 'em.
ratmedia scum droppings designed to demoralize rank and file GOPers.
One of my bosses came in ranting about how the congress had no business getting involved in this. I explained some of the facts to him and he turned dead white. He had NO idea what the story was behind all this. By the time I was done, he was furious with the media for not telling the truth about what was involved in this case. He's very politically active too. He'll make sure that others are as informed has he is now. I gave him links to articles and when I told him she hasn't had a PET scan he couldn't believe it.
Janet Hook is a bad propgandist.
I don't think it is risky at all. Don't forget that this passed almost unanimously in the Senate and with a healthy number of Democrats in the House. It was a bi-partisan effort. Only a small handful of RINOs joined Democrats in opposition.
While the move does reek of hypocrisy so would somebody who breaks a trespassing law to save a baby drowning in a pool. All that mattered was to save the life of a "drowning" invalid and they sought to do so by whatever legal measure they could.
I think woe is to those who stood in opposition for they exposed themselves as cheerleaders for death. The Democrats complain that "morals" helped Bush win the election and yet they prove, once again, their tin ear to the very morals they claim they too possess.