 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
who's that lion heart
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:18
|
|
What are you people talking about in those early discussions of euthanasia?
That debate had little or nothing to do with Euthanasia per se - and was resolved to the Liberal viewpoint, not the conservative.
It was primarily - at the heart of the matter - about whether the husband or the parents of the woman had power of attorney over her. No-vegetable statements are legally allowed, and none of the parties to the case objected (meaningfully) to that aspect of it.
Abortions, just like any other medical procedure, are both expensive (they take several trained doctors/techs to do properly and safely) and highly regulated. You can't just get a liver transplant, either, any time you feel like it. And do you really think a socialist (or anything significantly further left than us) government would regulate them LESS? Along with free health care comes a substantial loss of control over when such things are allowed... and don't forget that a significant portion of the united states believes that abortion is murder. Regardless of your opinion on the matter - or mine - you cannot simply say that 'they're all idiots and they must be evil right wing conservative theocrats because they believe something different than I do.' That's horribly egotistical. I disagree with a lot of things, but I don't think people stupid or evil for believing what they do, and if they win in the elections and/or in the courts, I don't decide it's unfair. It's quite fair - unless the elections are rigged, both ideas came to the forefront, and theirs won out.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Patroklos - yes Bush is. As in stretching them too thin. Want all the statements from Shinseki, you know the general who had the guts to publically predict everything that has happened in Iraq post-end of hostilities? You know, Bush's statement about Iraq over a year ago. More Americans have died in combat since that statement.
We cannot secure the borders with Syria, or Iran. We cannot garrison many of the cities we conduct military ops in, letting the militants back in as soon as the combat ops are over. We are pulling troops from deployments all of the world, to serve in Iraq, and recruitment is falling short of expectations, and we are having to refuse military personnel scheduled retirements and leaving after terms of enlistment due to these personnel shortages. Oh, and we are deploying National Guard troops with inadequate training and lead in time.
The Secretary of Defense is driven to state "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Not stretched thin my a**.
But Patroklos is right. We should have an income tax surcharge for the troops, to pay for the equipment they should have, to give them realistic good salaries in combat zones, and to pay decent and realistic compensation to the widow(er)s and children who have lost parents.  That would be real sacrifice for our troops, but then Bush would have to abandon his dream of so crippling the federal governmet via future deficits that he can "...starve the beast" (neocon mantra). You starve the beast, you starve the military. Just look at the Soviet Union/Russia. Fools.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-07-2005 01:05
Sounds like Bush2 is being verrrry hypocritical if you ask me. 
|