Jason R. Cox, riding on a very high horse, stumbled upon the Grounds and apparently had a burr in his saddle. He left a comment that is emblematic of all that is wrong with liberalism; a fixation on death, an ideology that is completely out of touch with the American mainstream, a total aversion to all things factual and a set of beliefs doomed to be discarded in any serious discourse. Rather than allow Mr. Cox's comments to be buried on an old page on this site, let's celebrate them and, in so doing, enlighten him.
Cox writes:
Ah, you reactionary conservatives are so, so simple - and you are right about one thing.
The tell-tale sign that a liberal is about to make a point -- he begins by calling conservatives stupid. If you want to disagree with me, feel free. But can't you come up with something else? Can't you contribute something to the debate without automatically degenerating to name calling. Welcome to the post-3rd grade world, Jason. Calling people "dummy" doesn't cut it anymore. And we're right on a lot of things. The American people seem to agree. Check some election results.
The majority of our elected officials in D.C. are anti-abortion, not to be miscontrued with pro-life
I say to tomato, you say tahmahtoe. I call myself pro-life but if you want to call me anti-abortion, I'm fine with that. I am against this.
And if that makes me anti-abortion, I'll wear the shoe because it fits.
My wife is 12 weeks pregnant. We heard the heartbeat this week. I see no difference between that child and my two-year old daughter. So, yes, I'm against killing the child presently in my wife's womb. If you have children, Jason, I hope you see it the same way. But if name-calling makes you feel better, by all means, go ahead.
as a true "pro-lifer" would not send their kids off to fight an
unnecessary war (and no matter how you try to spin the Iraq war and
whether it was right or wrong, it WAS NOT NECESSARY).
So it might have been right, but was it really necessary? If you see someone in need of medical attention, would you call for help? It's the right thing to do, but is it really necessary for YOUR safety or security? I tend to think it was necessary for our security. I also think it was right. And, yes, if my children (note the use of the plural even though one of my children has yet to be born) volunteered to liberate 25 million people from a despot, I would support them.
A true "pro-lifer" would never tolerate proposed cuts to Medicare that will put countless lives at risk.
"Medicare spending is increasing at twice the rate of gross domestic product." Didn't we just add a prescription drug benefit that will cost $800 billion over the next 10 years? Which cuts are you talking about?
A true "pro-lifer" would never sign a bill that would cut off life
support to people whose families cannot afford the treatment (Bush in
Texas)
I assume you mean Chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. It does no such thing. Rather, it sets up a procedure for making end of life decisions and the family's ability to pay has nothing to do with it. Spare all of us your MoveOn.org talking points and stick to the facts.
or cut off kidney dialysis to one's own father (Tom DeLay).
Tom DeLay's father was in a coma, unlike Terri Schiavo. He was not deprived of food and water as Terri Schiavo was. Doctors performed scans of his head, face, neck and abdomen to assess the severity of his injuries and prospects for improvement.. Michael Schiavo would not allow such tests to prove that his wife was, in fact, in a persistent vegitative state.
This was not the case of an "activist judiciary," but instead of a
judiciary that followed the law to the letter. Florida law considers a
feeding tube to be life support,
Florida law also makes it illegal to permit any "affirmative or deliberate act or omission (like removing a feeding tube) to end the life other than to permit the natural process of dying." Starvation is not by any definition a natural process of dying. A fact conveniently ignored by liberals...and activist judges.
For the sake of argument, let's say that a feeding tube is life support. Why did a judge refuse to allow Terri to have ice chips? And why did her loving husband balk at allowing his wife, a lifelong Catholic, to receive communion?
and the courts ascertained to the best of its ability (in fact, finding
"clear and convincing" evidence) that Mrs. Schiavo did not want her
body to be kept alive using outside means on a permanent basis.
Read Judge Greer's February 2000 order. He relied on three things to find "clear and convincing" evidence. 1) Michael Schiavo's testimony 2) His brother, Scott's testimony. 3) Scott's wife's testimony. You'll forgive me if I and millions of other people don't believe a man who stands to gain a lot of money from his wife's death after he's started another family...or the testimony of others who have a clear bias in the issue.
So if you don't like the laws, change them through the legislative process.
Then why don't liberals try that route with gay marriage?
Your example proves that your ilk are full of Sh*t about what you
really want from the judiciary process. You don't want a judge that
follows the letter of the law, you want a judge that will make the
decisions you want them to make, regardless of whether they are legally
or constitutionally correct.
Still name calling...and no facts. We would love to have judges that follow "the letter of the law" and "legally and constitutionally" sound rulings. I'll ask you to please find the "right to privacy" in the United States Constitution and then talk to me about constitutional soundness. It just so happens that when Judges do make legally and constitutionally strong rulings, we agree with them.
This case has been reviewed more than just about any legal case in U.S. history,
Uhhh, TennCare.
and EVERY SINGLE JUDGEMENT HAS COME OUT THE SAME WAY. NO MATTER WHERE
THE JUDGE WAS COMING FROM POLITICALLY, THEY ALL AGREED WITH THE
LEGALITY OF JUDGE GREER'S ORIGINAL DECISION.
No, they didn't agree with it. They refused to hear it. Hardly a tacit sign of agreement.
So on one side: The Schiavos,
We've already dealt with their conflict of interest, so please forgive me if I don't give them much credence.
the overwhelming majority of doctors who examined Mrs. Schiavo in person
Because Michael would only allow his doctors to examine her. The court-appointed doctor spent 30 minutes with Terri. Do you really think that's enough time to make a diagnosis that is tantamount to a death sentence? Furthermore, one of Michael's doctors testified that he was surprised to see Terri's level of awareness on the now famous videotapes. He spent 10 minutes with her, three times a year. Perhaps while Terri was alseep.
(unlike that toady Bill Frist, a heart surgeon who is apparently
familiar enough with neurology that he was able to dispel all these
doctors' diagnoses by watching a video tape),
More name calling that is so cogent to the liberal debate. It sounds like the tape was convincing to one neurologist as well.
the Supreme Court and conservative, liberal and non-political judges at the state and federal level,
They didn't agree with Greer. They just refused to listen. Further sign and signal that we have an imperial Judiciary.
not to mention at least 60 percent of the public, depending on which
poll you subscribe to (I'm using the numbers with the smallest margins,
which came from Fox News. And if Fox says it, it must be true, right?)
You haven't read this poll. When the question is framed with a basis in fact the results are astounding. People say that a "disabled person who is not terminally ill, not in a coma and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written will or directive, [should not] be denied food or water." By a margin of 79-9. And please spare me the FoxNews pablam. You've got CNN. We've got Fox. What's the difference?
On the other side: The Schindlers (and the only sympathetic characters
on this side), President Bush, Jesse Jackson and the U.S. Congress.
You can take Michael's side. I'll stick with those mentioned here. I'm in good company.
The last time Congress did anything this late at night was give itself
a pay raise., and the last time Bush stayed up past midnight involved a
spoon, a razor blade and the K Street Ladies of the Night.
And we close as we began, with more cheap and demeaning rhetoric that benefits no one, least of all your cause. You don't want facts to get in the way of your argument, Jason. So you just spray venomous bile and pray it convinces someone. Good thing for us "simple conservatives," it doesn't.
Jason, the next time you venture onto my comments page, please leave your DNC talking points at home, spare me the juvenile names and present something that halfway resembles the truth. I'd love to have a thoughtful debate on the issues with you, but you seem to be interested in other things.
