NoCalMike Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Turns out not so many Christians support either Bush brother in this matter afterall.......... http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050324/ap_on_re_us/schiavo_polls Poll: Evangelicals Oppose Gov't on Schiavo 2 hours, 45 minutes ago U.S. National - AP By The Associated Press More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by Congress and President Bush (news - web sites) in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate. A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting the GOP almost that high. Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down from 49 percent last month. Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through emergency legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was signed by the president early Monday. Most Americans say they feel sympathy for family members on both sides of the dispute over the 41-year-old Schiavo, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll. More than eight in 10 in that poll said they feel sympathy for Bob and Mary Schindler, parents of Schiavo, who want to keep her alive. And seven in 10 said they're sympathetic for Michael Schiavo, the husband of Schiavo who says she should be allowed to die. The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 620 adults was taken Tuesday. Both have margins of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 "not at the expense of our system of checks and balances" Unfortunately the checks and and balances of the Judicial system is lacking and is why Judges are crafting law instead of applying constitutional rigor to determine if laws are just. However, I'm not stating that this is the case here. I think the courts acted appropriately if they believe that she did in fact tell her husband she wouldn't want any type of life support. This isn't a case where the executive branch has any business in. It has turned into a political fiasco instead of the private matter it should be. It is a disgrace and a dishonor to Terry that it has taken this course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Like I said in a previous thread...this single situation could have dramatic effect on political elections in coming years...especially since we all know the PR people are going to be using sound clips from all the speeches the people are giving...also there will probably be a back lash by non-religious conservatives who view this as trampeling upon their states rights and personal rights.....all in the name of religion....this should shift some more toward the Libertarian Party because they realize that in a way the evangelical christians have bought the soul of the Republican Party... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Its also not a simple fact of he said she said.....Terry also stated that she didn't want to be kept alive in front of people other than her husband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 Sorry I didn't get back until now, been busy packing up the telescope at work. . . Well, here's how I see it, an why I think this is utterly revolting. Just because the legslature does not agree with the law, does not give them the right to completely ignore it. There was a reason for the seperation on powers in our constitution, and it appears as if the Bush Bros. are about to completely ignore it. If it does turn out as the websites are saying, then we all need to look long and hard directly at the top, there is no room for this in America. They would be basically taking a crap on the constitution and wiping their a$$ with the Bill of Rights, that's how I feel about this. It is not up the the leglislative branch of the federal government to interceede into state issues when they don't like the outcome. I mean what is next? The federal government forcing protective custody on a woman about to have an abortion? Seriously, if this happens, how far off is this situation? This is all about politicking, and pandering to the christian coillition, the people who firmly feel they are responsible for putting Bush into power. If you don't believe me, just look at some of the tapes and conversaitons DeLay has had over the past couple of days. They have single handedly managed to circumvent the constitution of the United States, to satisfy one of their large supporters. It is completely mind boggling, and so un-American it is disgusting. And yes, I do consider this FAR worse then Clnton, he lied about getting a blow job, when there was a witch hunt against him. He paid the price, but he did not try to circumvent the constitution, and abuse his power to pander to his political benifactors. Furthermore, he did not use the suffering of one family to promote fampant fantacism from his extreme supporters. Com on now, how do you guys think Terri Schiavo would like to be seen in this condition? Seriously, which one of you can honestly say "Yep, that's how I want to live"? Seriously folks, this is some pretty screwd up legislation that has passed, and if it gets down to the end, and the Bushivecks pull a PC officer in to "rescue" her, It will be one of the saddest days seen in this federal government since I've been alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by Funkyalligator Like I said in a previous thread...this single situation could have dramatic effect on political elections in coming years...especially since we all know the PR people are going to be using sound clips from all the speeches the people are giving...also there will probably be a back lash by non-religious conservatives who view this as trampeling upon their states rights and personal rights.....all in the name of religion....this should shift some more toward the Libertarian Party because they realize that in a way the evangelical christians have bought the soul of the Republican Party... I disagree that this will have any implications. The next national election is in 2006. I believe by then this issue will be long over (I think in the next week when she passes away it will be over) and honestly bigger things will creep back up and draw our attention in 2006. Bring this back up in fall of '06. I will put it here, I will be absolutley stunned if this has any effect on that election at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Com on now, how do you guys think Terri Schiavo would like to be seen in this condition? Seriously, which one of you can honestly say "Yep, that's how I want to live"? Seriously folks, this is some pretty screwd up legislation that has passed, and if it gets down to the end, and the Bushivecks pull a PC officer in to "rescue" her, It will be one of the saddest days seen in this federal government since I've been alive. When you use terms like Bushlevics, it really shows your vitrol and lack of character when discussing this stuff. Tone it down, stop with this "the sky is falling" crap and maybe people will take you seriously. Your posts are better suited for DU then the tailgate here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Com on now, how do you guys think Terri Schiavo would like to be seen in this condition? Seriously, which one of you can honestly say "Yep, that's how I want to live"? Seriously folks, this is some pretty screwd up legislation that has passed, and if it gets down to the end, and the Bushivecks pull a PC officer in to "rescue" her, It will be one of the saddest days seen in this federal government since I've been alive. If they really wanted to rescue her all they have to do is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsNut73 If they really wanted to rescue her all they have to do is... I forgot about poor Elian, and that did hurt Gore being within 6 months of an election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 ...and if one guy can't handle the job maybe we should pull a Waco... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsNut73 If they really wanted to rescue her all they have to do is... That particular incident was the government enforcing a court order, not resisting one. That's a pretty big difference in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Compared to Janet Reno, this administration just doesnt "GET ER DONE!" Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian... That women waited for nobody.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by Henry That particular incident was the government enforcing a court order, not resisting one. That's a pretty big difference in my opinion. A court order that violated a federal law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan I disagree that this will have any implications. The next national election is in 2006. I believe by then this issue will be long over (I think in the next week when she passes away it will be over) and honestly bigger things will creep back up and draw our attention in 2006. Bring this back up in fall of '06. I will put it here, I will be absolutley stunned if this has any effect on that election at all. I'm with you about the political "fallout" In '06, the religous right will remember that they didn't have enough power, and will turn out to try to get more. And everybody else will be thinking about Iraq, cas prices, Social Security, more tax cuts, and the still-falling dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 IMO, the whole power of the evangelicals is false anyway. Right after the election it was THE TOPIC to talk about on cable news, but a month later they did a poll showing roughly the same amount of evangelicals turned out in 2004, as in 2000, and that the youth actually did have a much higher % then in 2000. The difference was the fact that so many people that didn't necessarily agree with Bush, still voted for him because Kerry was an overall weak canidate that didn't have a clear plan on anything. All you have to do is look at Ohio where state-wide polls on the eve of the election and post-election showed the people did not even agree with his domestic policies, and foreign policy was split about evenly. The influence of the media and how all they wanted to do was do stories on "morality in america" is what gave all these evangelicals the false sense of power right after the election in the first place. I mean when you bring Fauwell, Dobson, and Robertson onto cable news shows as credible guests with something rational to say, WITHOUT bringing on someone to counter their opinion, you are basically saying the extreme-whacko-right is a mainstream opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by Johnny Punani A court order that violated a federal law? Which federal law .. and for that matter, which court order are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan When you use terms like Bushlevics, it really shows your vitrol and lack of character when discussing this stuff. Tone it down, stop with this "the sky is falling" crap and maybe people will take you seriously. Your posts are better suited for DU then the tailgate here SHF, because I use the term Bushlevics, I am suited for DU, yet anyone else can use a number of terms to call democrats whatever they feel like? Seriously, what is the difference between this comment, and someone else calling me a pinko libral commie? Or how about the numberous posters here who have called me an un-American traitor who hates my country and deserves to live in Europe, Or how about the posts which have called her husband pond scum, a murderer, a vile and dispicable man and various other names? Where were you with the PC badge then? If it offends you I will stop, a simple comment would suffice, but to say this comment is somehow wrong for the tailgate, and to ignore any other comment which promotes your view but is just as vitriolic or derogatory, is well . . . just a bit hypocritical, don't ya think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics SHF, because I use the term Bushlevics, I am suited for DU, yet anyone else can use a number of terms to call democrats whatever they feel like? Seriously, what is the difference between this comment, and someone else calling me a pinko libral commie? Or how about the numberous posters here who have called me an un-American traitor who hates my country and deserves to live in Europe, Or how about the posts which have called her husband pond scum, a murderer, a vile and dispicable man and various other names? Where were you with the PC badge then? If it offends you I will stop, a simple comment would suffice, but to say this comment is somehow wrong for the tailgate, and to ignore any other comment which promotes your view but is just as vitriolic or derogatory, is well . . . just a bit hypocritical, don't ya think? A lot of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING.... :cuss: orbetter yet :soapbox: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan I forgot about poor Elian, and that did hurt Gore being within 6 months of an election Gee, it lost the election for him, so I guess it did have a difference in the outcome of the race.. What was the hispanic vote for democrats before and after the Gonzalez incident? I'll give you a hint, the difference is much greater then the 1000 or so votes he lost the election by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Gee, it lost the election for him, so I guess it did have a difference in the outcome of the race.. What was the hispanic vote for democrats before and after the Gonzalez incident? I'll give you a hint, the difference is much greater then the 1000 or so votes he lost the election by. Thank the lucky stars...:point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by portisizzle A lot of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING.... :cuss: orbetter yet :soapbox: Why don't you try to add to the discussion instead of trying to troll If you want to get your two cents in, then you are more then welcome to do so, but to try and call me out, and to get me pissed at you will get you nowhere. So your opinion is? Let me guess, Congress and the legislative branch has every right to intervine, am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I wasn't necessarily talking about national elections....as a lot of political scientists say...all politics is local.....perhaps broader based support for the economic conservative principles of the Libertarian party and its very big emphasis on STATES rights and individual rights, will lead to more Libertarian candidates being elected for lesser positions and then slowly it can change the corrupt nature of our government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I was too lazy to read everyone else's post but Ill post what I believe on the matter. I think it should be up to the parents, dont trust the husband. I mean the guy admits to having children outside his marriage, and you know the parents still love their daughter. It should be their choice. I dont believe govt should be involved, but I dont think the court should either. If one gets involved so should the other, and Id rather have elected officials making the decision than some 80 year old judge who was appointed during WWII. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear Compared to Janet Reno, this administration just doesnt "GET ER DONE!" Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian... That women waited for nobody.... Yes, in all those cases - same as with Schiavo - the guvvamint just rushed right in, without warning, without givin' anybody a chance to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Let me guess, Congress and the legislative branch has every right to intervine, am I right? The legislative branch creates laws that the judicial branch enforces. The judicial branch is not a law creating body. As much as you would like not to admit it. For example, please find me the "law" that our Congress (read the people)has passed to legalize Abortion.. Sounds like to me we have some pretty activist judges playing the role of the Congress. Including this matter. Remember, we the people do NOT elect federal judges. Agreed? BTW, my point stands about your rhetoric. If you would spend half the time debating subject matter instead of calling someone out who has "wronged" your manhood, or womanhood, you might have a better reputation on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.