Trial for Republican sex offender starts

[pocketfullofshells]

All I can say is this: Do the words; White stains on a blue dress, Playing with Cigars inside a vagina in the Oval Office ring the bell?

of course you ignore the fact they never did anything in the oval office. but that's just a fact, no need to use facts.

 

[Pandora]

Not that it really matters where they did it, the actual oral sex was in the bathroom adjacent to the oval office, though the cigar bit did happen in the oval office. At least that is how it was reported.

 

[top gun]

I actually agree with you.

When republicans spout family values then don’t exhibit them it seems far more hypocritical than a Lib who spouts there is no such thing as values doing the same. At least the Lib is not being hypocritical when doing it.

But let’s see if we can also agree on this?

You of course as usual are pushing the standard "false" Conservative "Con job" premise!

The fact is Americans across Party lines love their families. Americans across Party lines want to protect their families.

You know there's the old saying that when the devil comes back he'll be wrapped in an American flag waving a bible... that's what makes the hypocritical holy rolling of some Conservatives particularly worrisome.

When some liberal freak from hell goes on about the planet, waist and conserving energy... preaching to us that we have to change our ways like they are some damn pastor......then they themselves use more energy than anyone around them, doesn’t that make them pretty damn hypocritical?

AlGore and his private jets, his massive home and using more energy for it than a damn small city does while he preaches to us to conserve is really hypocritical in my opinion. If you were honest with yourself and fair minded you would say the same.

No actually it doesn't. People with money and power will always consume more of just about everything... they have the money to do so. The issue is shouldn't there be wide ranging initiatives to make the environment cleaner, safer as well as finding alternative fuel sources that will be absolutely critical at some point. I say yes.

Leaders don't have to live in a tent to be concerned about the environment. And there's going to be a lot of traveling around explaining the science behind things and trying to build support for various initiatives.

At some point it's crazy not to understand why certain things are done the way they are. It's like saying... You know we'd save a lot of money if the President of the United States flew commercial. You have to understand why things are done a certain way not just that they are.

Your messiah complaining to us that we can’t have a comfortable thermostat or eat what ever we want and expect the world to accept it, while he keeps the whole damn white house hot enough to grow orchids (according to his own senior staff member David Axelrod) and he has dinner party’s serving 100 dollar a pound steak.

Every single freak of nature liberal who spouts off this global warming conserve energy crap uses more energy in a month than I or probably even you will ever use in a lifetime. They are massive hypocrites. Would you agree?

Not surprisingly... I would not agree with you!

Blowing things completely out of proportion just to have something to rant & torment about is a Druggie Limbaugh thing... don't be a Druggie Limbaugh!

 

[top gun]

Not that it really matters where they did it, the actual oral sex was in the bathroom adjacent to the oval office, though the cigar bit did happen in the oval office. At least that is how it was reported.

But once again you regress... we all know Clinton had a consensual adult affair... with a woman.

It's that last part that keeps tripping up the ultra-Conservatives it appears!

Let's watch...

 

[PLC1]

It’s scary to me when we let our government decide who are persons and who are not. Some judge who never met her decided Terri was not a person because a doctor who spent 15 minutes with her said she was not. No one cared to listen to the other doctors who did spend hours with her and said she was and she could be helped if only her husband would get her therapy. I can understand the government not wanting to pay for her care but that was not the problem, there was a healthy settlement from her first injury to take care of her and give her therapy and her parents were willing to take the burden on

It’s also scary to think the government let her die a long hard torturous death and did nothing. Had that been a dog or cat PETA would have been protesting and had it stopped. We don’t even kill our unwanted animals in such a ghoulish manner. Kind of funny (in a sick way not ha ha) right after Terri was forced to die over days of being denied food or water there were some people tube feeding dolphins in Florida.

Again, it wasn't the government's decision. It was a decision made by the family and doctors who did know her. Since the family did not agree, a state court settled the matter. That should have been the end of it.

I hope if I'm ever in the situation Shaivo was in, they unplug me and set my spirit free. Can you imagine being trapped inside a body that no longer functions? But, in the final analysis, whatever decision you or I would make, it is not a decision that the government should be making.

how silly, we impose our values every single day. Murder is a crime. It’s against our value and moral system. Beating your kids is a crime for the same reasons. You never replied to me about when its ok to kill your kids. You personally think abortion is wrong you said… at what point is it a choice for you and not something the state should get involved with? The 9th month? Till birth? Till right after birth like Obama? When do we start protecting the children, at what point do you deem them worthy of protection?

I would not abort a fetus unless said fetus was not viable, or unless the life of the mother were threatened. That is my value, which I'm not willing to impose on the rest of society. Just when it's OK is not my decision, nor is it the decision of the government. It is the decision of the mother, the father (if known), and the doctor.

There is a little difference. Smoking a cigarette does not alter your state of mind. You can smoke a cigarette and then drive or run machinery and it does not effect you. This can not be said for pot or any other drug out there.

Smoking cigarettes will kill you, eventually, and sets a lousy example for kids. Smoking pot won't, but is also a lousy example for kids and makes the smoker a little goofy (if he wasn't already). Let the smoker decide what to smoke, but keep the kids out of it.

My philosophy is that you, or anyone else, should be allowed to smoke whatever you want, just so long as it is outdoors and downwind.

You can do it without asking because those city, county and state laws are probably not implemented yet. But they are more good examples of what the left keeps taking away from me. I am wondering what rights the right takes away from me?

Is it the "left" that passes laws against cutting down trees? Maybe so, I'm not sure. The definition of "left" is pretty murky, it seems to me. As for the right, that's murky, too. Are "social conservatives", i.e. authoritarians, part of the "right"? How about the Patriot Act? Was that "right" or "left"? Asset forfeiture laws? Right, or left?

If someone is injured and the other guy does not have insurance ours does pick up the bill and if we don’t have insurance then oh well. A few cases of people not getting government help will make the others be more careful to take care of themselves. I have faith in Americans though. If a person were in this state and there were no programs from the government to help them. There are Americans would and churches who would and doctors who would help for free exc. But it would also wake people up to their own responsibility.

Oh, I don't think people are going to fasten seat belts because the government won't pick up their health care costs if they don't. Responsible people wear seat belts, and don't expect the government to pay their bills. Irresponsible people do neither. Anyway, it's not necessarily the government that helps them, but the hospitals.

For the organ donor idea, no I do not think it’s a good idea at all. The government has no right to force us in seatbelts in the first place and now to give them more rights in telling us they will cut us a deal if we give them our body parts we can get out of the law that was wrong to implement in the first place.

But here is something I do think is a good idea.

If we made a new program in conjunction with the hospitals that anyone who signs a donor card now has a sort of life insurance. GOVERNEMENT DOES NOT PAY THE MONEY!!!! Hospitals do or the person needing the organ or the insurance of the person needing the organ…

By this I mean….

I am not a current donor but if the scenario I am about to lay out were true, I would be a donor in a heart beat.


Upon the death of a donor their body is checked for useable organs. There would be a list of what each organ was worth. A person with a rare blood type would have organs worth more; common blood types would get less. If enough people were doing this the value of the organs would go down over time because it would not be that long before there was a surplus of organs.


If lets say at my death both kidneys were useable and my liver and that was all, my beneficiary would receive 10 thousand per kidney and liver. So now it’s become a life insurance for my family and I was able to do something good for mankind too.

In the beginning of the program the organs would be worth more like 60 thousand because of supply and demand, but over time it would probably be more like 5-10 thousand after more where doing the program.

Everybody wins

The person who died can know they were able to leave a little something to their kids or family

The person who gets the organ gets to live

The doctor gets to work and the hospital gets to charge an arm and leg for the patients stay

I don’t see any losers and the frakin government need not be involved except to make sure that the donor’s family did get the money

Now, that's a workable idea. of course, it doesn't have the secondary benefit of thinning out the stupid people, but it would help increase the number of donor organs, plus provide a form of life insurance. Write your congressman. You have a good idea there.

 

[Pandora]

But once again you regress... we all know Clinton had a consensual adult affair... with a woman.

It's that last part that keeps tripping up the ultra-Conservatives it appears!

Let's watch...

I dont care that they had sex, If I were a man and my wife was as ugly as Hillary I would cheat on her too.

The point was it did happen where xcalidem said it did.

 

[Pandora]

People with money and power will always consume more of just about everything... they have the money to do so. The issue is shouldn't there be wide ranging initiatives to make the environment cleaner, safer as well as finding alternative fuel sources that will be absolutely critical at some point.

Leaders don't have to live in a tent to be concerned about the environment. And there's going to be a lot of traveling around explaining the science behind things and trying to build support for various initiatives.

If you think people with money and power should be able to waste all the energy they want while nagging us to conserve ours. then bow down and do it, but I sure as hell wont.

If you think our leaders need to live like kings while telling us to watch what we spend and do, then bow down to him and do it, but I sure as hell wont.

 

[Pandora]

Again, it wasn't the government's decision. It was a decision made by the family and doctors who did know her. Since the family did not agree, a state court settled the matter. That should have been the end of it.

I hope if I'm ever in the situation Shaivo was in, they unplug me and set my spirit free. Can you imagine being trapped inside a body that no longer functions? But, in the final analysis, whatever decision you or I would make, it is not a decision that the government should be making.
.

Absolute bull crap! The judge ruled that the tube is removed, and for the first time in known American history the judge ruled that NO FOOD OR WATER WILL PASS HER LIPS.

The family my butt! A judge ruled it to be. You can pretend it was not forced on her all you want but the facts wont change just becaus you dont want to see the ugly truth

 

[Pandora]

I would not abort a fetus unless said fetus was not viable, or unless the life of the mother were threatened. That is my value, which I'm not willing to impose on the rest of society. Just when it's OK is not my decision, nor is it the decision of the government. It is the decision of the mother, the father (if known), and the doctor.

You forgot an important part of my question
When do we start protecting the children, at what point do you deem them worthy of protection?

in the 8th or 9th month? at birth? when they are 3 years old? at what point is it not ok for humans to kill children, at what point does the state need to get involved?

 

[Pandora]

Now, that's a workable idea. of course, it doesn't have the secondary benefit of thinning out the stupid people, but it would help increase the number of donor organs, plus provide a form of life insurance. Write your congressman. You have a good idea there.

The government would have a way to screw it up, it should and could be done without the government I am sure. If they could just say ok its legal and walk away it could work, the minute government gets involved then its an idea that may as well go in the trash.

but I am glad you like the idea

 

[PLC1]

Absolute bull crap! The judge ruled that the tube is removed, and for the first time in known American history the judge ruled that NO FOOD OR WATER WILL PASS HER LIPS.

The family my butt! A judge ruled it to be. You can pretend it was not forced on her all you want but the facts wont change just becaus you dont want to see the ugly truth

No food or water had passed her lips for some time, as she was on a feeding tube and in a persistent vegetative state. Her mind was dead, and her body was being kept alive by artificial means. Keeping her body alive or not was a decision to be made by the family and doctors. Since there was a dispute between the husband and the parents, a court had to settle the case.

You forgot an important part of my question
When do we start protecting the children, at what point do you deem them worthy of protection?

in the 8th or 9th month? at birth? when they are 3 years old? at what point is it not ok for humans to kill children, at what point does the state need to get involved?

Since the state has decided that a human becomes a human at birth, the state gets involved after that time. If you think it should be involved sooner, then by all means continue to speak out against legalized abortion.

What puzzles me about the abortion question is this:

If a human being is nothing but a body, then life does indeed begin at conception. Therefore, one would expect that abortion would be opposed by the atheist community. If, on the other hand, a human being is a soul in possession of a body, then life doesn't begin, as the soul has always been alive and is simply entering a new phase of existence when gaining a body. Therefore, earthly life begins when the soul enters the body. No one really knows when that happens, of course, but if one body is aborted, there will be more, so stopping a pregnancy is not the same as ending a life.

So, religious people should be the ones who have no objection to abortion.

So, why is it the religious who oppose legal abortion, while the agnostics are not opposed?

 

[Pandora]

No food or water had passed her lips for some time, as she was on a feeding tube and in a persistent vegetative state. Her mind was dead, and her body was being kept alive by artificial means. Keeping her body alive or not was a decision to be made by the family and doctors. Since there was a dispute between the husband and the parents, a court had to settle the case.

Very little food or water passed her lips in a while but NOT BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT EAT OR DRINK. It was because it cost more to feed her via mouth than it did to stick the feeding tube in. Her husband controlled her settlement, you know that settlement that she won to have money for rehab but never got it. But Terri could eat and drink. If she could not they would have had to have a tube in her mouth to catch her saliva before she choked on it and they did not have to, also her parents (the few times the husband let them come to visit) gave her things to drink. The judge demanded nothing to her mouth. I think you seem like a reasonable person but I just don’t get how you can think nothing of a government demanding a mother and father can not give food or water to their daughter. We don’t even do this with animals we don’t want or killers. She is the only known case where a judge said no food or water via the mouth. There was a big fight for her to have a last communion and she was able to have that so she did have a drip of grape juice and a cracker before she died. If I remember right it took 15 days to starve her to death. that you could be ok with that really bothers me.

 

[Pandora]

Since the state has decided that a human becomes a human at birth, the state gets involved after that time. If you think it should be involved sooner, then by all means continue to speak out against legalized abortion.

What puzzles me about the abortion question is this:

If a human being is nothing but a body, then life does indeed begin at conception. Therefore, one would expect that abortion would be opposed by the atheist community. If, on the other hand, a human being is a soul in possession of a body, then life doesn't begin, as the soul has always been alive and is simply entering a new phase of existence when gaining a body. Therefore, earthly life begins when the soul enters the body. No one really knows when that happens, of course, but if one body is aborted, there will be more, so stopping a pregnancy is not the same as ending a life.

So, religious people should be the ones who have no objection to abortion.

So, why is it the religious who oppose legal abortion, while the agnostics are not opposed?

I can only speak for myself and my objections to abortion are not religious, you could turn it around also that Christians think innocent people go right to heaven, so then are we not making sure lots of people get to heaven before they have a chance to sin. Or another Christian twist you could put on it to justify abortion is to say well sinners are forgiven so Ill just abort this one and then say sorry. If you twist it enough you can do what ever you want and call it religion or faith, that’s how we got those nut cases in the Unitarian church.

Many Jews are religious but think abortion is ok, though I don’t know any Muslims who think that.

Many people can twist it many ways. Life for me is very valuable, I am as against the murder of Terri as I am the murder babies and I am very bothered by putting prisoners to death.

I am bothered that some people can decide you are not as much of a person as I am so you are not as worthy of the right to live as I am.

 

[PLC1]

Very little food or water passed her lips in a while but NOT BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT EAT OR DRINK. It was because it cost more to feed her via mouth than it did to stick the feeding tube in. Her husband controlled her settlement, you know that settlement that she won to have money for rehab but never got it. But Terri could eat and drink. If she could not they would have had to have a tube in her mouth to catch her saliva before she choked on it and they did not have to, also her parents (the few times the husband let them come to visit) gave her things to drink. The judge demanded nothing to her mouth. I think you seem like a reasonable person but I just don’t get how you can think nothing of a government demanding a mother and father can not give food or water to their daughter. We don’t even do this with animals we don’t want or killers. She is the only known case where a judge said no food or water via the mouth. There was a big fight for her to have a last communion and she was able to have that so she did have a drip of grape juice and a cracker before she died. If I remember right it took 15 days to starve her to death. that you could be ok with that really bothers me.

Looking over the case, I don't see anything at all about her being able to eat, but forbidden to do so. The controversy seems to center around removal of the feeding tube.

If she was, indeed, able to eat, then I'll have to agree that forcing her to starve was inhumane at least and murder at worst.

Do you have a link?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

They did tests after she was dead, her brain was the size of a walnut. She was Dead, had been dead, living on on tubes thanks to right wing hacks who made it a right to life issue...forgetting that we have a right to die with some dignity as well. They spewed out medical mumbo jumbo with no idea what they where talking about. Frist making a medical diagnosis based on video tape, then denied he did it, even though he did it on camera and it had been replayed 1000 times.