Posted on 05/02/2005 5:06:09 AM PDT by Quaker
Judge Greer would have been right at home with Rev. Jim Jones.
Whenever Eternal Vig has no argument, he skirts around calling someone a nazi, but if you press him on it, he chickens out and won't call you a nazi, per se, just make snide remarks about it.
Thankfully, he is ineffective at all he has done, just ask "Senator" Keyes! LOL
Which makes you the irrational ideologue who has a minimal understanding of Florida law.
My whole essay avoids judgment of the family members.
Right, which is a tacit admission that you neither understand the issues in general or the Florida statutes in particular. Which necessarily means you wrote from ignorance.
The focus is on the involvement--inappropriate involvement, in my estimation--of groups with agendas, turning Terry Schiavo into an ideological football.
LOL, everybody has an agenda. You obviously have an agenda but you simply think your agenda trumps everybody elses agenda. A pluralist country encourages "agendas' in the public square so discourse can follow. That's how America works, comprende?
You obviously have no problem with that misuse of a family tragedy.
Ad hominem doesn't bother me, it simply means you've got nothing to offer. Such is life.
If I were anywhere near this place, I'd FReep the heck out of them.
You: "You're denying it? LOL
That's what I thought. Not even one example...
I know it doesn't matter to you, but FR custom is that you ping those you are talking about in a post.
I love you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1395091/posts?page=247#247
Accusing someone of supporting suppressing the memory of the Holocaust would go in that column.
Face it, you and others lie enthusiastically and often about what other posters of good will have said here on this site on this matter.
You cannot deny it and it speaks volumes about your purported allegiance to the Lord.
My arguments have remained the same throughout this debate.
'Your side' has yet to address the core constitutional principles that have been trampled on in the case of Terri Schiavo.
Talk about 'skirting the issues'...
Weak.
You know nothing about anyone's "purported allegiance to the Lord".
Perhaps you should get your priorities straight regarding your condemnation.
No, you go around throwing Nazi words around, and making terrible allusions to one's character if they don't believe exactly what you believe. And whenever someone points it out to you, you get all bitchy and stamp your feet around and threaten to opus, again.
Guess what? Some very good and nice people are on Michael's side on this issue, but since everything is black and white in your little world, you'd never know it.
But you do offer unintentional humor. Have a great day (first name deleted).
2. Death is nothing to us; for that which has been dissolved into its elements experiences no sensations, and that which has no sensation is nothing to us.Curious. Although I applied the "epicurean" label in the negative sense of a fatalistic pursuit of pleasure -- in Terri's case, Epi's princible of pleasure would have had her kept alive -- for "Diseases of long duration allow an excess of bodily pleasure over pain."3. The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When such pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both together.
4. Continuous bodily pain does not last long; instead, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which slightly exceeds bodily pleasure does not last for many days at once. Diseases of long duration allow an excess of bodily pleasure over pain.
5. It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.
(http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html)
As an epicurean what would you say?
Like I said, he will go all around the bend to almost call you a nazi, he will make all kind of cute statements. Its the usual cowardly way he argues when he is losing and just wants to be nasty. Would Allan approve?
All that is required for evil to triumph is for 'good men' to do nothing.
Rhetorically speaking, do they then remain 'good men'? Always wondered that...
This may stun you, but I have other things going on and haven't been around to jump when you snap your fingers.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1395091/posts?page=208#208
Here is another post where you wail about posters hanging out at a conservative site, the implication being they aren't conservatives.
And as I also pointed out, standing by while others are slandered in the outrageous fashion that has been allowed and then posting approval to that person for their foul comments was part of my observation.
Of course we can't call bestowing the Nazi name upon a person bearing false witness.
That would be just wrong.
/s
Still doesn't even come close to 'bearing false witness'.
It is hardly a lie to wonder why those who run interference for the Felos agenda would want to hang with a bunch of pro-lifers.
You have got to be kidding.
Probably.
I've always been in the "Allen did call Bush evil in that speech" camp.
;)
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.