LawTalkers
Page 90 of 334 « First 40808889 90 9192100140190 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=661)

Diane_Keaton 03-25-2005 04:16 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Last I heard, in order to not be married anymore you have to either get divorced or one of the parties has to die. Neither has happened in this case, and in fact that Catholic religion of hers that they keep citing would prevent divorce. There are thousands of marriage arrangements out there and I know a lot of Catholics in holding pattern relationships waiting for a (non persistent vegetative state) spouse to die before tying the knot. There has been NO evidence that the marital bonds in this case have been broken, notwithstanding other relationships.
Who said the marriage had been broken? Who is disputing that the marriage is intact? The point is that not everyone who views the situation as a potential conflict is disrespecting the sanctity of the marriage. After 15 years and two kids with a new woman, how DARE anyone take that into account when voicing their opinion on the issue. No conflict of interest would even be possible here, right, because the marriage wasn't dissolved in a divorce? Anyone who questions whether the new arrangement is unduly coloring the decision is retarded?

ltl/fb 03-25-2005 04:19 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
In fairness, Bilmore, I have never called Tom Delay stupid. I also doubt he's an ass-fucker. (With a rug like that, he could never get a date.)

S_A_M
What the hell is wrong with being an ass-fucker, as long as the ass-fuckee is willing?

You people.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-25-2005 04:22 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
What the hell is wrong with being an ass-fucker, as long as the ass-fuckee is willing?

You people.
I don't think Michael Schiavo was willing.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-25-2005 04:25 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
The point is that not everyone who views the situation as a potential conflict is disrespecting the sanctity of the marriage.
She's brain dead. What's the potential conflict? You could always suggest that he'd just like to pull the plug so he can get on with his life -- the fact that he's found someone else doesn't change this. But the fact that he and Terry Schiavo were married means that if you truly respect the sanctity of their relationship, then you trust him to make the right decision by her. If you want to second-guess him and tell him how to live, you can do that, but don't pretend it's anything other than religious conservatives hijacking the government to foist their own beliefs on the rest of us.

Diane_Keaton 03-25-2005 04:25 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You're in NYC aren't you? Not many cultural conservatives up there of the wing-nut variety.
Besides me? No.

Quote:
I think there are some themes to this debate that you've missed hearing.
No. I've heard them all. I've also heard where everyone was and what they were doing when JFK senior died. And how they learned of the WTC attacks. Fascinating stuff. Only thing better is hearing about people's dreams.

Quote:
Note, for example, that the pleading filed earlier this week by the Schindler family in the M.D. Fla stated Schiavo "abandoned his marriage" in 1995 -- with the subtext that this made him unfit to continue to be her guardian.
The Schindlers were okay with him dating and in fact they met and liked the new woman. Things have blown up now for obvious reasons so I wouldn't read too much subtext. I don't think the Schindler's issue is that Michael is with a new woman. They want him removed as guardian and don't want their daughter's tube removed. Shit. Even the veggie's parents were okay with the guy fucking someone else. Like I said, I'm not going to attack someone for questioning his role as guardian. For some people, like RT - it's really simple: box asks married; box is checked. box asks if courts have decided issue of what she wanted; box is checked. Case over. For anyone who dares to still question these things, I think that's okay and disagree that this case is so easy.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 03-25-2005 04:28 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There comes a time when your "federalist" conservatives and your "mainstream" conservatives need to stop just being "pissed off" about what their elected officials are doing. It's getting tired. I bet the same people are "pissed off" -- or maybe just a little "concerned" -- that Congress sees no need to find a balance between spending and revenue. And yet it just goes on and on. You guys elected these folks -- at some point, you've got to admit that their actions -- and not an occasional letter to the editors of the WSK or the Weekly Standard -- define conservatism.
We learned the lesson of the democratic party in the late 70s/early 80s.

Although maybe the lesson is: southern christian conservatives: can't live with 'em, can't win without 'em.

Diane_Keaton 03-25-2005 04:33 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you want to second-guess him and tell him how to live, you can do that, but don't pretend it's anything other than religious conservatives hijacking the government to foist their own beliefs on the rest of us.
I don't want to tell him how to live. But yes, Ty, I would like to second-guess this crisis and not just check the box. But no, I would not like to hijack the government. Watch it now. A boy could get arrested talking like that on the Internet.

bilmore 03-25-2005 04:36 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You guys elected these folks -- at some point, you've got to admit that their actions -- and not an occasional letter to the editors of the WSK or the Weekly Standard -- define conservatism.
Well, no. I vote for whom I vote for, not because they are part of a party or group or movement, but because their views coincide with mine in areas I consider important. Frankly, in the grand scheme of things, that the people who got Iraq right are fucking up on the Schiavo saga leaves them, still, the best choice. For me.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-25-2005 04:37 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
But yes, Ty, I would like to second-guess this crisis and not just check the box.
Don't pretend that you have any respect for his marriage then, or the institution of marriage. That's all I ask.

bilmore 03-25-2005 04:38 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't pretend that you have any respect for his marriage then, or the institution of marriage. That's all I ask.
I was just curious - do strawmen bounce?

Tyrone Slothrop 03-25-2005 04:38 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Well, no. I vote for whom I vote for, not because they are part of a party or group or movement, but because their views coincide with mine in areas I consider important. Frankly, in the grand scheme of things, that the people who got Iraq right are fucking up on the Schiavo saga leaves them, still, the best choice. For me.
It's like y'all are happy to take credit for putting on a great fireworks show, but don't want any responsibility for the noise.

Replaced_Texan 03-25-2005 04:39 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
For some people, like RT - it's really simple: box asks married; box is checked. box asks if courts have decided issue of what she wanted; box is checked. Case over. For anyone who dares to still question these things, I think that's okay and disagree that this case is so easy.
Anyone who's ever read the FB knows that I like to check the box.

:rolleyes:

Tyrone Slothrop 03-25-2005 04:41 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I was just curious - do strawmen bounce?
This is about who gets to decide what Terry Schiavo would have wanted -- her husband, or a bunch of Republican elected officials. If you're going to use the government's power to intrude on and overrule the relationship that man has with his wife, don't pretend that you think marriage is a special thing. I'm just asking for a little honesty -- it shouldn't be that hard.

And we know that you're with the angels on the gay marriage thing, so it's not even like you're with the people I'm complaining about. So why defend them?

Oh, yeah, it's Friday.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-25-2005 04:45 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
We learned the lesson of the democratic party in the late 70s/early 80s.

Although maybe the lesson is: southern christian conservatives: can't live with 'em, can't win without 'em.
During one term of Jimmy Carter and then during Ronald Reagan?

You learned nothing during the 90s, when Bill Clinton showed y'all how a country should be run?

ltl/fb 03-25-2005 04:48 PM
Shame on You
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Anyone who's ever read the FB knows that I like to check the box.

:rolleyes:
Mmmmm, box-checking. Go over there and post about it, and get more bj posts too. Someone may get lucky tonight.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:31 AM.
Page 90 of 334 « First 40808889 90 9192100140190 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com