Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael Steele: Right on Rationing, Wrong on Reasoning
Townhall.com ^ | July 31, 2009 | Bobby Schindler

Posted on 08/01/2009 4:58:12 AM PDT by Kaslin

Recently in a Washington Times radio interview, RNC Chairman Michael Steele was expressing his concerns regarding health care reform. He commented that the GOP’s handling of my sister Terri Schiavo is an example of what he fears, stating, “It is inserting itself into the very fabric of the decisions that you make, have to make every single day. It’ll make the Terri Schiavo case look like a walk in the park.”

I understand the point that Michael Steele was trying to make. He was using Terri as an example of what it would mean if the government was to get involved in the decisions of healthcare. However, not only was it a badly chosen comparison, but as a proclaimed pro-lifer, Mr. Steele should be ardently supportive of the actions taken by Congress—Democrats and Republicans—in their attempt to save Terri’s Life.

Perhaps Mr. Steele has fallen victim, along with so many others, to the same media spin that implies Congress was intruding on a “private” matter, rather than applauding them for stepping in to protect a disabled woman who was in the very process of being dehydrated to death.

The act by Congress granted Terri a federal and civil rights claim to be heard in federal court. In fact, these are the same rights we give to those on death row—who die far less brutal and painful deaths. If Ted Bundy or Scott Peterson had a guaranteed federal court review after their cases have been gone through the state courts, then why shouldn’t an innocent disabled woman like Terri be given that same chance?

That is what I find so ironic about Mr. Steele’s remarks and his concern regarding a government-controlled health care system. What happened to Terri is a perfect example of what he and Republicans are now trying to prevent from happening and what so many health care experts are warning us will happen if President Obama gets his way and establishes a system of health care rationing that would inevitable lead to countless premature deaths.

Much has been written warning us about the dangers of Obamacare, but mostly in terms of what it would mean for the elderly and perhaps the chronically ill. Unfortunately, I have not seen any reports of what will happen to those like Terri—the cognitively disabled. However, from what I am reading and what is being proposed for health care reform, I think it is safe to say that those like Terri don’t stand a chance. Especially, if the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) is formed that will put bioethicists in charge of who can and cannot receive treatment.

We are in grave danger any time health care decisions are taken out of the hands of individual patients and their families and placed into the hands of government bureaucrats whose decisions are based on cutting costs rather than valuing the dignity and equal worth of every human life.

In fact, many people are entirely unaware of what we have learned through Terri’s Foundation (the foundation my family formed in Terri’s honor to help protect the cognitively injured). We are regularly contacted by families who are in situations pleading with those in authority for treatment for their family members. And much too often they are forced to sit by and watch helplessly as their loved ones dies.

So yes, I do agree with Mr. Steele’s assessment that, “It’ll make the Terri Schiavo case look like a walk in the park.” My fear is that it will make the killing of the cognitively disabled as ordinary and commonplace as purchasing a loaf of bread.

Surely that is not what “hope and change” should be all about.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: bioethics; michaelsteele; moralabsolutes; prolife; rncchairman; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 08/01/2009 4:58:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I think this will interest you


2 posted on 08/01/2009 4:58:53 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for 0bama: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Poorly written article. So the guy was disagreeing with Steele’s reasoning at the beginning and then goes on to agree with Steele’s reasoning at the end.

However won’t matter to the usual cast of characters on FR that think if Steele said the sky is blue, that he is full of sh** and argue that it is really purple.


3 posted on 08/01/2009 5:07:20 AM PDT by lt.america (Looking for a bailout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lt.america

Well if you think the article is poorly written why don’t you show what you would have written and let others judge


4 posted on 08/01/2009 5:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for 0bama: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Terry Schiavo Act was an abomination. I am so tired of pols thinking they have to “do something”, even if that something is clearly detrimental to the very fabric of our system of law. Legislation for particular individuals — in this case “any parent of Terry Schiavo” — along with the clear interference by the federal government in what was clearly a state matter was one of the major issues that showed that the pubs had lost their legitimacy to govern.

My personal opinion is that Michael Schiavo is a world class slime, that there is at least some evidence that he caused Terry’s injuries, and that he was attempting to rush her death so he could cash in on her estate and then marry his girlfriend. But so clearly not a federal matter.


5 posted on 08/01/2009 5:17:58 AM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lt.america
Some of us have listened to steele sub for bill bennett on Morning in America and have for several years. Some of us know what steele really thinks and believes and what a pure POS that he truly is. The man is liberal... for reparations... says the "era of Reagan is dead and over"... that we need to moderate and become more inclusive to those that want to murder babies in the womb and he is for gay marriage. These are all things that many of us have heard professed from his very own mouth... the one that shucks and jives trying to be some relevant pop toad from the hip hop community.

LLS

6 posted on 08/01/2009 5:19:45 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Can you not see how the guy contradicts himself throughout the article? His opening notes is a bash on Michael Steele and as he goes on stating his points, he utlimately agrees with the assertion that Steele, made but he fails to recalibrate his opening remarks.

Not a bash on you so don't take it personal, but I think the guy should have “recalibrated” his premise given to the conclusion he comes to in the end.

7 posted on 08/01/2009 5:23:45 AM PDT by lt.america (Looking for a bailout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Well if you think the article is poorly written why don’t you show what you would have written and let others judge

why? it was poorly written but made a good point in spite of it. Why do you take personal umbrage at the criticism of an awkward read?

are you secretly Teri Shivo’s brother?

8 posted on 08/01/2009 5:28:58 AM PDT by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lt.america
However won’t matter to the usual cast of characters on FR that think if Steele said the sky is blue, that he is full of sh** and argue that it is really purple.

Huh?

The issue many have with Steele is the sound of crickets that follow him....

Where is he? We want him out front constantly....hammer, punch, protest, yell, be there....just get some facetime before the American people.... Take advantage of the insanity of the left... RESPOND for goodness sakes!

9 posted on 08/01/2009 5:43:50 AM PDT by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

And he is also for gun control.


10 posted on 08/01/2009 5:45:19 AM PDT by lbama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange

“that showed that the pubs had lost their legitimacy to govern.”

It’s been my experience that mostly liberals call Republicans the slang term “pubs”. Are you from the Huffpo?

You forget that thousands of Americans were concerned and cared about Terri, not just her nuclear family. They flooded the switchboards in DC with petitions to save her life from an evil husband who wanted to kill her while he had a shack up honey and two children with another woman. When legislators are contacted like that they have to listen to the people and act. That’s what they are there for.

The situation could easily have been solved if Michael Schiavo had given over Terri to her father and mother and brother who were dedicated to caring for her. Michael was not. He had dubious motivations all along and liberals across this country ignored that and actually exulted when the Republicans lost their spine and pulled away from saving Terri’s life for political expediency.

Terri was not dying, she was simply disabled. Remember: Hitler started killing the disabled (he gassed them) before he even started on the Jews. National Socialism always targets the weakest citizens first. It’s government’s RESPONSIBILITY to protect these citizens.

As a spiritual person I have always sensed that the Terri Schiavo case turned the hand of God against the Bush brothers George and Jeb, for failing to act to save a helpless non-dying woman’s life. It was no coincidence to me that Bush’s presidency took a nosedive after Terri was killed. And no surprise to me that Jeb lost any chance he had at the White House for failing to act to save Terri. God does not look on kindly when the powerful abuse the weak.


11 posted on 08/01/2009 5:47:22 AM PDT by deannadurbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I really do not care for Michael Steele.

He is not enough of a Conservative to be speaking for what Conservative Republicans want.

12 posted on 08/01/2009 5:59:44 AM PDT by Dustbunny ("Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. " Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange
[Terri Schiavo's case was]...so clearly not a federal matter.

Right, and flood waters pouring into your basement is no reason to climb on the roof. Later on, that turns out to be the only place you have left.

The Schindlers didn't set out to make it a federal matter, that was a last resort after a long series of legal battles.

13 posted on 08/01/2009 6:01:46 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast ("Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lt.america

You are right. Steele is confused... and so is the writer of this article.

Personally, I think the whole issue of Terry should be argued in some other context. It was a legal issue — her rights as a human — not an issue of how to “fix” the American medical establishment.

I’d like to keep those two issues separate.

Let’s concentrated on this solid fact:

The rats will destroy medicare to build obamacare which will rival UK-care for inefficiency and waste and uselessness and which THEY (congress and all federal workers) will be exempt from since they’ll get premium platinum care provide by we-the-slaves (the taxpayers) who will get shit on our deathbeds in return.

THAT’S the issue here. Not Terry S.


14 posted on 08/01/2009 6:07:33 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: deannadurbin
It’s been my experience that mostly liberals call Republicans the slang term “pubs”. Are you from the Huffpo?

Why don't you take a look at my Freep start date and my posts before you engage in idiotic ad hominems. Disgusted conservatives also call them "pubs". For that matter, so do republicans.

Thousands of Americans caring about Terri Schiavo is irrelevant to the question of whether the federal government of the United States should have passed a piece of legislation designed to affect only a single case. They changed the law not because it was a good idea, but because they caved to political pressure.

There are many things I want the federal government to do. I want them to mandate by law that I can carry a concealed gun in NY. I want them to outlaw abortion everywhere. I want them to do away with stupid state regulations that burden real taxpayers and businesses everywhere. But that's not the federal government's job.

Legitimate state matters must be preserved for the states if federalism is to mean anything. Otherwise, you're as bad as the democrats and their invasion of every right you hold dear. Limits on government mean something, or at least should mean something. If you're willing to throw them away the first time you find an issue that's more important to you than federalism and limited government, don't come crying to me when the other side does the same thing.

And if you had bothered to read the concluding paragraph of my post, you'd see that I was enormously sympathetic to Terri's plight. The only people who had a legal right to do anything about it were the people of Florida.

15 posted on 08/01/2009 6:46:06 AM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
The Schindlers didn't set out to make it a federal matter, that was a last resort after a long series of legal battles.

And that somehow makes it a federal matter? That deserves the federal government legislating on behalf of particular individuals in a discrete and singular legal case? Heartstrings and desperation, at least in my book, are not a good justification for eroding what little remained of federalist principles and the rule of law.

16 posted on 08/01/2009 6:48:20 AM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


17 posted on 08/01/2009 8:20:17 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange; 668 - Neighbor of the Beast; Kaslin; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; Lesforlife; ...
And that somehow makes it a federal matter? That deserves the federal government legislating on behalf of particular individuals in a discrete and singular legal case? Heartstrings and desperation, at least in my book, are not a good justification for eroding what little remained of federalist principles and the rule of law.

Your obvious ignorance of the events surrounding Terri's murder are glaring.

When a state government is unwilling to provide a person the protections that are provided under the state's constitution, the federal government clearly has the option of intervening, and this was clearly the case with Terri.

When a person's constitutional rights are blatantly ignored, the federal government clearly has the option of intervening, and this was clearly the case with Terri.

The United States Congress has the right to subpoena a person to appear before the full Congress or a committee to testify, if that person fails to appear they have the right to enforce the subpoena. They SHOULD have done this with Terri, but failed.

Terri Schindler Schiavo is the ONLY person in American history who was sentenced to death and executed without an indictment or a trial by jury both of which are ABSOLUTE constitutional rights.

18 posted on 08/01/2009 8:34:44 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lbama
Yes indeed... I left that out by accident. Thanks!

LLS

19 posted on 08/01/2009 8:51:44 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Your obvious ignorance of the events surrounding Terri's murder are glaring.

When a state government is unwilling to provide a person the protections that are provided under the state's constitution, the federal government clearly has the option of intervening, and this was clearly the case with Terri.

When a state government is unwilling to provide a person the protections provided under the state constitution, there is a constitutional remedy -- habeus corpus. You, and thousands like you, however, were totally willing to throw the constitution and the proper relation between the federal government and the states to the wind just to satisfy your urge for justice. The urge was good, but your means was yet another bomb thrown at the foundations of limited government.

The vitriol in your post is similar to that shown by leftist sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. You hate the fact that Michael Schiavo murdered Terri so much that you were willing to use every tool in your arsenal even if it meant undermining our cultural notions of limited government and the rule of law. It also conclusively demonstrated to independents that the so-called conservative / republican commitment to limited government was a complete farce and that the dems might be right when they shill that the republicans want to turn this into a theocracy to control every aspect of our lives.

Moreover, as your post shows, you are quite happy to transfer irrationally that hate onto anyone who dares to suggest that using the federal government to craft special legislation to benefit only a single person was detrimental to the republic. Federalism and limited government are great concepts until you want the federal government to impose your personal ideals on the states.

This mindset is indistinguishable from that employed by the leftists. Law (and by extension the constitution) is just a tool for you to achieve your personal ends. When the history of the Decline and Fall of the American Republic is written, that positivist attitude will be worth an entire chapter or even an entire volume in itself as one of the chief causes of the slide into fascism.

20 posted on 08/01/2009 9:10:40 AM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thank you, wagglebee! I didn’t respond further because I knew you’d jump in and do a better job than I would have. :)


21 posted on 08/01/2009 9:11:40 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast ("Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: All; wagglebee
> #18 - Good Terri legal summary!

"When a state government is unwilling to provide a person the protections that are provided under the state's constitution, the federal government clearly has the option of intervening, and this was clearly the case with Terri." - AND more... #18 - by wagglebee

22 posted on 08/01/2009 9:21:32 AM PDT by Golden Gate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

> #3 = Poorly written article.

~ poorly written article / well written article... ? ~

GO Bobby Schindler!


23 posted on 08/01/2009 9:28:36 AM PDT by Golden Gate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange; 668 - Neighbor of the Beast; Kaslin; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; Lesforlife; ...
When a state government is unwilling to provide a person the protections provided under the state constitution, there is a constitutional remedy -- habeus corpus.

This was done, the Florida governor, courts and legislature FAILED to provide Terri her rights under the Florida Constitution.

You, and thousands like you, however, were totally willing to throw the constitution and the proper relation between the federal government and the states to the wind just to satisfy your urge for justice.

How, be specific, what part of the Constitution was ignored?

The vitriol in your post is similar to that shown by leftist sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. You hate the fact that Michael Schiavo murdered Terri so much that you were willing to use every tool in your arsenal even if it meant undermining our cultural notions of limited government and the rule of law.

That's where you are wrong. This WAS NOT a case of a person being murdered by a spouse, this was a case of a person being put to death by court order WITHOUT an indictment or trial by jury. NO OTHER PERSON in American history has been put to death by a government body without even being accused of a crime.

It also conclusively demonstrated to independents that the so-called conservative / republican commitment to limited government was a complete farce and that the dems might be right when they shill that the republicans want to turn this into a theocracy to control every aspect of our lives.

The PURPOSE of government is to secure and protect a person's God-given rights, a government that will not do this isn't worth having.

Moreover, as your post shows, you are quite happy to transfer irrationally that hate onto anyone who dares to suggest that using the federal government to craft special legislation to benefit only a single person was detrimental to the republic.

Got it, you think this is just about Terri. I'm sure a century and a half ago you would have been saying the same thing about Dred Scott, after all he was a single person.

Federalism and limited government are great concepts until you want the federal government to impose your personal ideals on the states.

The right to life is not a "personal ideal" it is what our Republic was founded on.

This mindset is indistinguishable from that employed by the leftists. Law (and by extension the constitution) is just a tool for you to achieve your personal ends.

Now, the left wants to empower government to restrict freedom, I want to employ government to protect freedom.

When the history of the Decline and Fall of the American Republic is written, that positivist attitude will be worth an entire chapter or even an entire volume in itself as one of the chief causes of the slide into fascism.

Actually, if followed to its logical end, the principles of people like you would inevitably lead to anarchy.

Here is what people like you always seem to miss (added emphasis is mine):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

24 posted on 08/01/2009 9:34:46 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Golden Gate

Thanks GG.


25 posted on 08/01/2009 9:36:07 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Kaslin; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; Lesforlife

> #20 “...every tool...”

wagglebee & others, what do you think? Post #20, good post / bad post?

Also, “...every tool...”

I would say that the family, the people and the government (local, state, federal) should have used “every tool” to save Terri’s life. Yes, or no?


26 posted on 08/01/2009 9:38:32 AM PDT by Golden Gate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange

fyi - My # 26, a brief response to your #20 “...every tool...”


27 posted on 08/01/2009 9:45:52 AM PDT by Golden Gate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Golden Gate

Congress has the right to subpoena a person, they subpoenaed Terri and she failed to appear. At that point they had the right to send federal agents to enforce the subpoena and if necessary arrest any who tried to interfere. This is what they SHOULD have done when it became clear that Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist were unwilling to execute their constitutional duties.


28 posted on 08/01/2009 9:46:20 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange
The only people who had a legal right to do anything about it were the people of Florida.

That's mighty legalistic of you. So...how do you feel about oxen in ditches on the Sabbath?

29 posted on 08/01/2009 10:01:27 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast ("Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“Subpoenaed Terri.” I remember that. And many of us were expecting immediate action, that would save Terri’s life.

At the time, while we were expecting immediate action, I read some obscure post that ...? gave all the reality details, & said it could take ?? six months to enforce the subpoena...?

I don’t know if it was a disruptor post, or just to condition us to expect and tolerate inaction... Or, maybe someone was giving us a glimpse into the reality of how Congressional subpoenas really work. Or, was the inaction because someone “Way Up at the TOP” made a phone call to stop everything?

Anyway, time to leave this thread, - Go Bobby Schindler!


30 posted on 08/01/2009 10:01:28 AM PDT by Golden Gate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I’m sorry you cannot see the inconsistency inherent in your postings.

You appear to misunderstand the difference between perfect rights and imperfect rights. Legally, Terri’s rights were protected. That does not mean the proper or just result was reached. The law cannot enforce every moral right. In fact, I guarantee that there will be many cases even in the best human systems where the state will achieve a patently unjust or wrong result. I agree that this happened in Terri’s case. The best we can do is create a legal system and a culture that is set up so that it will produce justice more often than in other situations. Such a system, however, requires general laws that are consistently applied. Statutes aimed to benefit or apply to only a specific individual are anathema to maintaining a system that generates just outcomes as often as possible under a human government.

If you bothered to read my postings, you’ll see I never said that the Terri Schiavo act was unconstitutional. Tort claims against the federal government used to be settled in exactly this manner through individual relief acts which in themselves were constitutionally valid. Despite that constitutional validity, it was corrosive and detrimental policy back then and it remains corrosive and detrimental even when done for the best of reasons as with the Terri Schiavo Act. Many things that are constitutional are nonetheless detrimental to the continuation of the republic and to the continued vitality of the constitution itself. This is one of them.

Your all caps shouting in the next paragraph isn’t even worth considering. Court appointed guardians make these decisions all the time.

You’re absolutely right that the purpose of a government is to secure the natural rights given to us by God. A government that has lost all legitimacy with its members and a government that recognizes no limits on its authority to make positive law is incapable of protecting those natural rights. The Terri Schiavo Act was a gigantic step down that positivist road. That road, like another one, is paved with good intentions.

Dredd Scott was an individual seeking redress under a variety of general statutes. Individuals are allowed to do this and usually it excites no comment. Terri Schiavo was a woman in the process of being murdered by her “husband.” She was fortunate enough personally that she had a family who were willing to go to any lengths to save her life. One of those lengths was to get the United States congress to pass a law that provided “any parent of Terri Schiavo” standing to sue in federal court to overturn the state of florida’s legal conclusions. For your analogy to be apt, Dredd Scott (or even his putative owner, Sanford) would have had to get the United States congress to pass a law stating that “Dredd Scott [and by implication no other person] shall have standing to sue in federal court to overturn legally [but not morally] valid state laws relating to slavery.”

Your personal ideals relate to the means by which you are willing to achieve the benefits of government. Apparently you do not value the rule of law as a mechanism for creating justice and would instead prefer to have the federal government legislate a new solution for every instance of injustice that comes down the pike. Actually, that last was reductio ad absurdem, and I acknowledge and apologize for the absurdity. But I will say that you, like all of us, have blind spots in which you are willing to sacrifice long term benefits (i.e., the continuation and maintenance of a system of justice) in favor of your short term preferences (i.e., preserving Terri Schiavo’s life).

Everyone pretends that they want to protect freedom. The leftist literature is full of claims that they need to protect the freedom of workers to work, of patients to get medical care, of blah, blah, blah. In reality, the only means of protecting freedom is to limit the power of collectivists to use the state to impose their will on individuals. The Terri Schiavo Act was an example of collectivist thinking by concerned individuals on the right that justified them imposing their will on the people and state of Florida. If that’s where you want to go, fine, but you have lost the legitimacy of your complaints when the left does it back.

Anarchy. Hadn’t expected that non sequitur, but more power to you.

Although this hasn’t been fun or enjoyable, I’ll ask that you continue your pattern of taking my responses made directly to you and instead send them to many other people. But if you’re going to do that, in fairness you probably should just keep my original paragraphs in full and interlineate your responses. Feel free to have the last word, though.


31 posted on 08/01/2009 10:19:52 AM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

Gosh, you’re right. We need to start having the U.S. Congress examine every situation in which a state court might have gotten the law wrong so that the federal government can overturn that state’s legal determination.

Not.

The very real and definite outcome of the Terri Schiavo Act was to show that the Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to principles of limited government. After that act, no republican who voted for it can claim that there is any moral limit on the federal government’s authority to act. You can claim that you were doing the right thing, but you can’t dodge the fact that the act was entirely incompatible with the idea of limited government.

As for your challenge of legalism, you’re just illustrating my point on the breakdown of the rule of law. From your post, you seem entirely willing to ignore the law to achieve your version of justice. So long as you accept the consequences — in this case a corrosion of federalist principles, a well deserved reputation by republicans for hypocrisy in arguing for limited government, and a slide into collectivist fascism — then it’s your right to do so. But when leftists in charge of the federal government start imposing gay marriage on the states or requiring states to maintain appropriate taxpayer-funded abortion clinics or requiring state-licensed physicians and pharmacists to perform abortions you will have to accept that you legitimated the use of federal power to impose those mandates on the states.


32 posted on 08/01/2009 10:34:48 AM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Golden Gate
fyi - My # 26, a brief response to your #20 “...every tool...”

Why? Were you trying to sic a flash mob on me? You did a hit and run on me without bothering to expose yourself. I'm done with this thread, but feel free to continue discussing my comments amongst yourselves.

33 posted on 08/01/2009 10:40:06 AM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Golden Gate

Congress can get an immediate court order of contempt of Congress if a subpoena is ignored, at that point U.S. Marshals can take the person into custody.


34 posted on 08/01/2009 10:50:39 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; Lesforlife; Golden Gate
You appear to misunderstand the difference between perfect rights and imperfect rights. Legally, Terri’s rights were protected.

Then please provide a link to the indictment against Terri and the jury verdict because under the Constitution of the United States and the Florida Constitution these are ABSOLUTE RIGHTS to ANYONE prior to forfeiture of life.

The rest of your post is typical libertarian ignorance and any response would be redundant.

35 posted on 08/01/2009 10:55:01 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty
The metric I use for a party chairman is can they effectively raise money and win elections for the party. We will see how effective Steele is shortly with the upcoming gubernatorial races.
36 posted on 08/01/2009 10:55:41 AM PDT by lt.america (Looking for a bailout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: deannadurbin

Actually most liberals call Republicans goppers


37 posted on 08/01/2009 11:53:44 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for 0bama: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lt.america; cbkaty
The metric I use for a party chairman is can they effectively raise money and win elections for the party.

So, your main concern is to get Republicans elected whether they are conservative or not?

38 posted on 08/01/2009 12:17:49 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

He scares me — just like Romney and Huckabee.


39 posted on 08/01/2009 12:22:38 PM PDT by Dionysius (Jingoism is no vice in these troubled times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
So, your main concern is to get Republicans elected whether they are conservative or not?

I had hope there would be a cure for Mental gymnastics by now....

Where did I say anything to indicate i wished to get Republicans elected whether they are conservative or not?

40 posted on 08/01/2009 12:38:51 PM PDT by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty; lt.america
I had hope there would be a cure for Mental gymnastics by now....

Where did I say anything to indicate i wished to get Republicans elected whether they are conservative or not?

If you PAID ATTENTION you will see that my QUESTION was to this statement from lt.america in post #36:

The metric I use for a party chairman is can they effectively raise money and win elections for the party.

I pinged you as a courtesy since that post was directed to you, nothing you have posted indicates that you share lt.america's apparent belief that winning the election is more important than advancing conservative principles.

41 posted on 08/01/2009 12:48:38 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
If you PAID ATTENTION you will see that my QUESTION was to this statement from lt.america in post #36:

If you aren't ADDRESSING ME then why list my name first? How was I to know it was a cc....? I do pay attention to well constructed and clear posts....

GRIN.........have a great Saturday.

42 posted on 08/01/2009 12:56:44 PM PDT by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty
If you aren't ADDRESSING ME then why list my name first? How was I to know it was a cc....? I do pay attention to well constructed and clear posts....

Perhaps you should go back and take a look (hint: your name is listed SECOND!):

To: lt.america; cbkaty
The metric I use for a party chairman is can they effectively raise money and win elections for the party.

So, your main concern is to get Republicans elected whether they are conservative or not?

38 posted on Saturday, August 01, 2009 3:17:49 PM by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

43 posted on 08/01/2009 1:00:47 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Like I said...have a great Saturday......and please be clear in posts at the same time....I know you can do better.


44 posted on 08/01/2009 1:14:25 PM PDT by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty

I was clear, your name was SECOND! Not only that, my question was in DIRECT RESPONSE to another poster’s statement, if you cannot discern clarity from that it’s not my problem.

Have a great day!


45 posted on 08/01/2009 1:18:46 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I was clear, your name was SECOND! Not only that, my question was in DIRECT RESPONSE to another poster’s statement, if you cannot discern clarity from that it’s not my problem.

Like I said....you can do better....I have faith....after all you are a FREEPER....

46 posted on 08/01/2009 5:11:15 PM PDT by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: lt.america

Steele is an incompetent person and a social liberal.


47 posted on 08/01/2009 10:32:45 PM PDT by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
Steele's position that that we need to moderate and become more inclusive to those that want to murder babies is sufficient reason to oppose him and boot him out of the RNC.
48 posted on 08/01/2009 10:35:45 PM PDT by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

What a well written article. Bobby Schindler did a good job of explaining where he agrees with Michael Steele, and where he disagrees with him.

If Bobby’s intended targets were the advocates of forced euthanasia, he hit a bulls eye. Just look at the responses from sleeper trolls on this thread. They’re squealing like stuck pigs.

Kudos to Bobby, and the whole Schindler family. You’re performing a valuable service to disabled people and their families. You have the death eaters worried.


49 posted on 08/02/2009 7:39:30 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Damn the naysayers. Full speed ahead. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb; lt.america

lt.america seems to disagree. I asked him how he would have written it and he danced around my question like a typical liberal and never answered my question


50 posted on 08/02/2009 9:52:15 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for 0bama: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson