Tweet
DinoDoc - they have a very definite agenda, which they published. While they are focused on international factors, they have both domestic aims, i.e. smaller government - plans to achieve it - "Starve the beast" - and compromises they have had to make to achieve it. The Moral Majority.
Note I don't believe they are trying to deliberatelyl down democratic institutions or processes in this country. They, and many of those leading them, are determined to win whatever the cost. They are too short-sighted to see the cost. Note that certain liberal constituencies are just as bad, i.e. I don't want PETA running my life any more than the Moral Majority. The difference is that the Moral Majority exercises de facto veto power in non-incumbent primaries in most Republican primaries - I am a registered Republican, by the way who votes in the primaries - while PETA is at most on the far fringes of the Democratic party, and does not get to write over half the party platform (did you read the last two Republican Party Platforms)?
If I'm wrong - then why on earth did the Republicans in Congress, and President Bush, stick their damn nose into this while ignoring established legal procedures, as helpfully posted by Imran - you know, the man who defends Scalia (not exactly what I would call liberal). However, Imran tries very hard to be consistant, and realizes how far reaching and dangerous this is. Why won't you acknowledge that this shows the true colors of the current Republican powers at the national level, and it is just as dangerous as some of the liberals in the 1960's, IMHO more so, but I will admit I have not closely stuided the latter as I was a mite bit too young to watch politics then.
BTW, I have to go to bed, so I'll check the posts later. I work graveyard shifts.
Note I don't believe they are trying to deliberatelyl down democratic institutions or processes in this country. They, and many of those leading them, are determined to win whatever the cost. They are too short-sighted to see the cost. Note that certain liberal constituencies are just as bad, i.e. I don't want PETA running my life any more than the Moral Majority. The difference is that the Moral Majority exercises de facto veto power in non-incumbent primaries in most Republican primaries - I am a registered Republican, by the way who votes in the primaries - while PETA is at most on the far fringes of the Democratic party, and does not get to write over half the party platform (did you read the last two Republican Party Platforms)?
If I'm wrong - then why on earth did the Republicans in Congress, and President Bush, stick their damn nose into this while ignoring established legal procedures, as helpfully posted by Imran - you know, the man who defends Scalia (not exactly what I would call liberal). However, Imran tries very hard to be consistant, and realizes how far reaching and dangerous this is. Why won't you acknowledge that this shows the true colors of the current Republican powers at the national level, and it is just as dangerous as some of the liberals in the 1960's, IMHO more so, but I will admit I have not closely stuided the latter as I was a mite bit too young to watch politics then.
BTW, I have to go to bed, so I'll check the posts later. I work graveyard shifts.
I think the state judgments didnt take into consideration the resultsof their actions i could be in the future. lets forget terry schiavo for a minute. this if not further reviewed could be harmful for situations that may be similiar. For example doctors are not perfect they could be wrong Suppose a person is diagonised like terry, there needs to be ample time to allow this person to recover or try to recover. Under the states decison they have opened the door for a guardian to prematuraily pull the plug. Drs are human and can make a mistake. Im not in any way saying this applies to terry but isnt likely that this could happen?
ACK!
Comment