I think liberals backed the wrong horse in this race. Women I talk to see this as a feminist issue, an ex-husband and a bunch of men in robes coming between a woman and her family. Sure maybe death is the right thing for her, perhaps it is, but it's not her ex-husband's business, nor is it the courts. It should be between the family and the hospital. If they are caring for her, why should anyone else want to intrude?

Mike, I am not arguing against laws that protect people. I am not an anarchist. I am arguing against the public deciding on what I can and can't do on my private property. So, for instance, I am not against fire codes designed to prevent public hazards, but I am against, fire codes designed to protect me from my own stupidity.

And, since you've brought up the issue, I am not against child labor laws, but I am against treating all people under a certain age as irresponsible minors.


The history also tells us that countries with governments that are designed to provide protection for the people (real protection like the military, the police, the court system) and not interefere with the people's private lives generally prosper, while the countries with the governments who run every aspect of people's lives tend to descent to dictatorships.

I agree with the courts on this issue, but I was bewildered when i read this summary on CNN.com just now:

Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected pleas to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo on Thursday, her parents again asked a federal judge in Florida to order the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube restored. Courts have consistently ruled against her parents, who want to keep her alive, and in favor of her husband, who wants her to die with dignity.

Talk about BIAS.

Family? Wait a minute, this is a grown woman. She's married. Isn't her husband family? Shouldn't he know more than anyone else what her wishes were and what she would want?

I have a very strong suspicion that if the parents were the ones asking for the machine to be turned off and the husband was against it that you would be screaming that it's a decision for the "family" and that the husband would be best suited to make that decision.

To me, this issue is so personal and so tied in to personal religious beliefs (just like abortion) that neither I nor anyone else should be telling these people how to make their own choices. It happens every day all over the world and the only reason you are hearing about this case is because a bunch of right wing fanatics have decided to make it a political issue.

Name one.

That's what he freaking said! It's a quote!

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ.

Name one what? Exmaple in history of either?

There is a difference between running something as a quote and running it as a fact.

Well, you seem to be implying that the US is not one of your ideal countries that leaves us alone in our private lives, so therefore it has not prospered (ignoring of course how the US went from a backwards laughing stock of a country 200 years ago to the world's greatest power).

So I ask you: name a country that has prospered using your dream world analysis.

Well, I dont' think the U.S. is perfect, but it's certainly one of the examples of how a country can prosper with the government off the people's backs. I mean, for all its faults, the political system in the U.S. is still designed to protect people's freedoms as opposed to "granting" them. Another example would be England.

A house is different from a public place of business. As in not the same thing. All kinds of different rules apply to businesses than they do to private homes. Some of them favor the private home and some of them favor business. I don't have to have a license to allow people into my home. But then, I don't get to deduct my full rent on my house the way I would a business property.



You cannot be discriminated against by a public business. You CAN be discriminated against by private individuals. I believe the former is a fundamental right as an American. You do not have such a right when it pertains to individuals. I don't know if that's the tyranny of the majority any more than any other civil right is a tyranny.

But that's presuming you have some sort of problem with majority rule. Weren't you just recently espousing the democratic process and claimed that you'd defend it no matter what the issue? What makes this majority decision different? Do you WANT to discriminate against blacks or women for some reason?

Wait a second here... While I'm definately aware of the liberal slant of CNN, this is not what this headline says:



So either you didn't quote them correctly, got the quote from another place or they fixed it. But the fix needs to be acknowledged. It says "who says he wants her to die with dignity". Which, while not a quote, is the general gist of what he is trying to say.

He's not her ex-husband. He's her husband. That makes him her most immediate family. As her spouse, his decision is final and supercedes everyone else's including her parents. So if it's TRULY your position that it should be between her family (ie her husband) and the hospital, and that it's no one's else's business, then YOU are the one who has backed the wrong horse unless you support the husband and the decision he's made.

These are all technicalities that are set by the law. With a sympathetic legislature I can change the law to make it possible to enter your home without your consent. After all, you're kind of well off, why shouldn't you be forced to offer your home as a shelter to homeless? The fundamental issue is this: there exists a possibility of the majority deciding what a property can and cannot do on his/her property.

There is no "right" to be discriminated against. You are basically forcing someone to do business with you, even if they do not want to. That's tyranny of the majority.


I don't see the dmocratic process as a virtue in and of itself. I see it as a means to an end, with the end being a free society. There is no better way to ensure a free society over a long term than it being a democracy. But I am not for mob rule. There have to be limits on the democratic process in order to ensure that individual rights cannot be taken away. Such limits are defined in the U.S. Constitution, for example.

They fixed it later on. When I pasted it, it was definitely not a quote. I can only assume that someone else pointed out the glaring bias to CNN.

And another thing. Just because I am against the anti-discrimination laws does not eman that I am a racist, a misogynist, or whatever other strawman you make me out to be. If I applied the same logic to you, I'd conclude that you encourage pregnant women to get abortions. I think you would object to that claim.

The Constitution defines where majority rule ends in cases of civil liberty. The SCOTUS has, for the most part, upheld the boundary line at the door step of your private home. In other words, I can discriminate against whoever I want in my home, but such a right does not extend to most businesses. If such a law were to pass that applied those restrictions on your private home, then that law would obviously be overturned by the courts, just as the law in Texas outlawing sodomy among consenting adults was overturned.

The problem of course is that those laws have to be challenged in order to be overturned, but that's just the way our system works.



That depends. There certainly IS a right not to be discriminated against by the government on the basis of race, religion, and gender. Again, it's a question of degree. Does that extend to public places of business regulated by the govt? In certain cases, yes. Does that extend to your private home in a way that supercedes your rights as a private citizen? No, I don't believe it does.



But when you were defending the Patriot Act (I believe that was the issue), you defended it as the product of the democratic process, even though it clearly infringes on individual rights. You said that it wasn't the law you supported (although you admitted to having no real problem with it) but you did support the process by which it was created. I asked you if you would defend ANY issue if it were the product of such a process and you said you would.

And yet you are not defending anti-discrimination laws the way you defended the Patriot Act, even though it was the product of the same process.

They also left out the word "says" when describing the parents's position.

Courts have consistently ruled against her parents, who want to keep her alive, and in favor of her husband, who wants her to die with dignity.

Why is that NOT bias?

And if this is a case of "glaring" bias then what does in the hell does that make Fox News Channel?

I was really just trying to find some consistency in what I find to be an incongruous position on which laws you apply the standard of "tyranny of the majority" and which ones you don't really have a problem with despite the same sorts of infringements, like the aforementioned PATRIOT Act or even fire safety laws.

The constitution does not make a distinction between a home and a business. Private property is private property, and it doesn't matter what I use it for. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a law based on morality; it is not at all grounded in Constitution.

That is not a right; it's the responsobility of the U.S. government, as it is defined by the Constitution, to not discriminate. Since private businesses are not chartered by the people of the U.S., but rather by their owners, it is up to the owners to decide what kind of guidelines the business should be operating under, just like it is up to the homeowner to decide who can and can't go into his/her house.

My point is that neither the businesses NOR households should be regulated by the government. If something is not yours, you have no right to run it the way you want to.

You're absolutely wrong on that one. I would not defend any law simply because it was passed democratically, PATRIOT Act included.

I think what you're referring to is the library issue. What I said there was that since it's the public's money being used to operate libraries in Missouri, then it is up to the public to decide which books should be bought. I also said that libraries should not be built using public money, period.


Once again, you're totally misinterpreting my point.

Are you pretending to not know the difference between objective and subjective statements? The parents do want their daughter alive; I don't think there is a sane person anywhere that would say they want Terry Schiavo dead. However, whether or not the husband wants Terry to die with dignity is a subjective matter; it may very well be the case, or it may be that he's just putting up a facade.

Why would I care? I don't watch it, nor do I read foxnews.com.

If you really are trying to find anything in my statements, then stop taking them out of context and stop misinterpreting them.

But a private business, if it is incorporated, is indeed chartered by the govt. I know you don't think that they should be, but they are.



"Shouldn't be" and "aren't" are two different things.



Thanks for clarifying, although I don't really think that was the issue. But we're kind of getting off target here.

I'm wondering what you think of the presence of the religious right, particularly the way they've more or less taken over the Republican party (even though I know you say you're not one). Whatever conservatives USED to be, they are clearly no longer the ideology for smaller, less intrusive govt.

And I'm really wondering what you think of them using the govt and the courts to intercede on both a spousal and state's rights issue in this particular case.

It may be that Terri's parents don't want her kept alive and are just participating in a publicity stunt to energize religious conservatives. What CNN is reporting is what they've said they wanted. The parents want her alive. The husband wants her to die with dignity. While the word "says" would certainly clarify the point somewhat, but it's hardly a case of GLARING BIAS.



Then I'll tell you. It would make them nothing more than a mouth piece for Republican/conservative propaganda masquerading as a news source.

Look, I said time and time again in the past. I am not legally-challenged; I know that the government creates an artificial difference between business and non-business property. I knwo that the government "allow" corporations to exist, even though no government is needed there, etc. What I'm talking about is how things SHOULD be, as opposed to how they are. You believe that the government always should force businesses to not discriminate; I believe that businesses should decide for themselves what to do, and the market will force them to behave a certain way.

I have nothing against the religious right per se, just like I don't have a problem with people who lead a liberal way of life (you could even say that I'm one of those). What I have a problem with is liberals and the religious right conservatives in politics. I think both those groups are trying to impose their morality on me and I am staunchly against that.[/i]