Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Reaping what we sow

Bush Teri Shiavo Opinion

  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

Poll: Given the Way Bush has stepped in with the Schiavo case, would you still vote for Bush? (36 member(s) have cast votes)

Given the Way Bush has stepped in with the Schiavo case, would you still vote for Bush?

  1. Yes (10 votes [27.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.78%

  2. No (26 votes [72.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 72.22%

  3. Not sure (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#81 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 27 March 2005 - 05:56 AM

G, do me a favor, please.  Most of your posts I've read led me to believe you categorize yourself as a racist and a homophobe.  Just recently I discovered you call yourself that because you believe someone else has labeled you thusly.  I've apparently missed that whole thing.  To not be misleading, please do not refer to yourself as a racist and a homophobe, unless you are and you are proud of it.  Thanks.

#82 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 27 March 2005 - 11:19 AM

Well Waterpather labeled all Republicans racists and homophobes then to avoid being punished for labeling people here said. "All other Republicans."

  I am a Republican. I also support the right for a woman to choose to have children or not or to carry a child to term. I support a level field for all races but wish the law makers to make the laws rather than the courts. I support the death penalty for 1st degree murder or treason. I also support reasonable delays in people gettng to lawfully own a firearm.

But because I am a republican I am labled a racist and a homophobe. I had time and again mods bend over backwards to tell me to not label Democrats or Liberals, but the same attitude seems lacking when someone else does it to Republicans and Conservatives.


So if this is the only way to get action taken so be it.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#83 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 27 March 2005 - 11:41 AM

Quote

Well Waterpather labeled all Republicans racists and homophobes then to avoid being punished for labeling people here said. "All other Republicans."

Ho-kay.  Time to deal with this bull$hit.

What I said, and it's available for anyone who wants to read to read, is that the Republican Party, as an institution, is homophobic, racist, miogynist and corrupt.  Those attitudes are obvious in its homophobic, racist, misogynist and corrupt policies--the DOMA, the complete lack of Republican African Americans in Congress, the attempts to reopen Roe v. Wade, the lack of any significant prosecution of Ken Lay and other Bush cronies, etc. .

Now, unless G1223 is a high-ranking member of his party, responsible for policy, this does not necessarily apply to him, or to any other Republican not responsible for setting policy.  

I don't mind having to defend what I actually say.  See above.   I just  wish G1223 would be either honest enough, or attentive enough, to take issue with what I actually do say instead of some fictional version thereof.

Edited by waterpanther, 27 March 2005 - 11:43 AM.

Posted Image

#84 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 27 March 2005 - 12:57 PM

^ We already went through all of this.  Please both of you stop with the labels, we have all agreed here that kind of argument style is unproductive and falls into generalizations that cause hurt feelings and misunderstandings.

I am not the mod of this forum, but as a poster in this forum I am really tired of this type of conversation.

WaterPanther, I am a liberal Democrat and I object to you calling the Republican party homophobic, racist and misogynist.  Some of my best friends are Republicans an in no way any of the words you describe.  THat is the error in generalizing about any institution.  I don't care how you say it, it is wrong and the very reason we have made a guideline against this type of generalizations.  If you know of certain members of the Republican party who are racist etc, talk about them as individuals and what your issues with them are.  Otherwise, I ask you, again, as a fellow poster to stop making such claims.

G1223... what Eloisel said, you are not helping matters by fanning the flames, please stop.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#85 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 27 March 2005 - 01:24 PM

Quote

I am a liberal Democrat and I object to you calling the Republican party homophobic, racist and misogynist

I will welcome any evidence you can produce to the contrary.
Posted Image

#86 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 27 March 2005 - 02:54 PM

^Evidence is not the issue, generalizations on this board are.  Liberals were very upset when conservatives did this to them.  We clamped down on it.  That is not an invitation for now the liberals to do the same thing that the conservatives were told not to do.

Painting all of the Republican party with the same brush, that DOES include members of this board is not allowed.  That is the issue.

I see you edited your post to include the members of the party that are guilty of your charges.  That is a good start.  Focus on the individuals, because an institution is made up of individuals some of whom post here and who are not guilty of being racist, misogynist or homophobes.

Edited by GiGi, 27 March 2005 - 02:59 PM.

"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#87 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 27 March 2005 - 03:07 PM

Quote

Painting all of the Republican party with the same brush, that DOES include members of this board is not allowed. That is the issue.

And that is precisely what I am not doing.  Please read what I actually wrote.
There is a difference between the Republican Party as an institution and the members of the Republican Party at large.  As an analogy, it is possible to say that the Catholic Church as an institution covered up for and protected pedophile priests without saying that all Catholics either covered up for--or are--pedophiles.

And just for the record, I, too, know some Republicans who are not homophobic, racist, misogynist or corrupt. Some of them are mad as all  hell at their Party.  One, an elected official, was almost thrown out of the Texas Republican Party because she supports a woman's right to choose.  Q. E. D.
Posted Image

#88 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 27 March 2005 - 07:04 PM

I did reread after you edited.  

I did see that you changed some of your remarks.  So I edited my post in response.

Just know this has been a sensitive issue, clarifying your position is very helpful.  

It is all too easy to make sweeping remarks even while qualifying them.  I do believe the better approach as you illustrated in the above post is to bring up specific issues, with specific examples, it really helps in creating conversation as opposed to reactionary flames.  (I am talking in general  here, not necessarily to you specifically)
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#89 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 28 March 2005 - 03:43 PM

G1223, on Mar 27 2005, 04:19 PM, said:

Well Waterpather labeled all Republicans racists and homophobes then to avoid being punished for labeling people here said. "All other Republicans."

  I am a Republican. I also support the right for a woman to choose to have children or not or to carry a child to term. I support a level field for all races but wish the law makers to make the laws rather than the courts. I support the death penalty for 1st degree murder or treason. I also support reasonable delays in people gettng to lawfully own a firearm.

But because I am a republican I am labled a racist and a homophobe. I had time and again mods bend over backwards to tell me to not label Democrats or Liberals, but the same attitude seems lacking when someone else does it to Republicans and Conservatives.


So if this is the only way to get action taken so be it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


G,

I've been patient and waited for the staff; but enough whining already.

Get over it. Suck it up and move on.  Because you are the problem now.  Somehow, I don't think you wanted to be the problem.  But carrying this issue from thread to thread and using it as an excuse to behave like a child to every member here reflects poorly on you.  

Waterpanther hadn't said boo in this thread when you started your unprovoked "reactionary" attack on the people who had posted on this issue.  Moreover, you proceeded to attack Waterpanther in this thread though he hadn't posted here yet.  You are the agressor here and you are in the wrong.  I hope the staff does take "action" regarding your posts in this thread.

Waterpanther,
You said

Quote

What I said, and it's available for anyone who wants to read to read, is that the Republican Party, as an institution, is homophobic, racist, miogynist and corrupt. Those attitudes are obvious in its homophobic, racist, misogynist and corrupt policies--the DOMA, the complete lack of Republican African Americans in Congress, the attempts to reopen Roe v. Wade, the lack of any significant prosecution of Ken Lay and other Bush cronies, etc. .

Now, unless G1223 is a high-ranking member of his party, responsible for policy, this does not necessarily apply to him, or to any other Republican not responsible for setting policy.

What you fail to understand is that your very words prove that your argument is false here.  As you point out, the Republican Party is an institution.  Homophobia, racism, misogyny and corruption are words that describe humans.  Humans can have fears and feelings; humans can act.  The institution of the Republican Party is an abstract concept.  It has no actual physical existence or form.  It cannot fear; thus it cannot fear gays.  It cannot hate or discriminate; those are the actions of people.

When you attribute the feelings and actions of humans to an institution, any human belonging to that institution may rightly feel attacked by you.

If you must resort to generalizations to make your points about institutions or about humans, I suggest phrases like "some republicans" or "several democrats." And even then, I may find myself wondering why you felt the need to stereotype a group of people rather than focus on the issue at hand.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#90 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 28 March 2005 - 05:51 PM

Connie I will do just what you have asked and when it happens again I will simply assume that either Republicans are valid to be bashed and bad mouthed or that the mods have trouble pouring water out of a cup with instructions written on the bottom.

Would that be fair or am I suppose to just sit there and be attacked?
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#91 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 28 March 2005 - 08:02 PM

Quote

Would that be fair or am I suppose to just sit there and be attacked?

No, you don't have to sit there, but there was minimal amounts of vitriol in this specific thread until you brought up wp.  It goes both ways, G.  Even though the mods haven't been active in these threads lately, a modicum of civility can still be kept up.  And as you see above, wp and Gigi both talked rationally and wp changed his/her remarks to clarify positions.
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#92 tvbuff

tvbuff
  • Islander
  • 89 posts

Posted 28 March 2005 - 10:11 PM

I will be voting Democratic in the next election because from what I've seen of the Republican party over the last four years and this year so far, to go any further in this direction will be truly frightening for this nation (or what's left of our Constitution in another 3 years).  

So, in an indirect way, my answer to this question is NO (to voting for Bush).  American has indeed reaped what she has sown with this crew in power.  War, stagnant economy, culture wars, loss of standing in the international community, increasing security threats from other nations, etc...

I will be voting Democratic for FAR more reasons than this.

Edited to try and clarify; I'm tired and don't know if I am making much sense.

Edited by tvbuff, 28 March 2005 - 10:18 PM.


#93 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 28 March 2005 - 10:14 PM

What it feels like to me is that the religious right is taking over the conservative party. Obviously I have my issues with this but this would only be somewhat worrying if they weren't using their moral code to try and dictate policy.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#94 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 28 March 2005 - 10:50 PM

Quote

"Would that be fair or am I suppose to just sit there and be attacked?"

******** Speaking for myself, I would much rather you retaliate head-on if you've really been attacked, rather than wait and whine about it later.  I haven't seen where you've been attacked -you're always complaining about it in some other thread, and I so I don't know if you have  something legit to complain about, or if you're pulling some empowerment-through-faux-victimization dealie.  When the complaints are done later and elsewhere, I'm not sure if somebody was legitimately being hateful and deserve to be called on it, or if the "Bush-bashing" in question is something like a statement like, "We went from a surplus to a massive deficit under Bush" or "under Bush, worldwide anti-American sentiment has greatly increased."  That ain't bashin' - that's fact-based criticism.  Bush fans may not like hearing it, but holding somebody accountable for the results of their actions isn't "bashing" them.  We're under no obligation to cheerlead.   Everybody has their own sensitivity level, but nobody should be expect to be treated like a Fabrige egg on a political board, either.   If somebody's saying that all Republicans are racist or homophobic, then I strongly disagree with that because I know plenty who aren't.  But you should call them when it happens.  

I don't think it's okay for Republicans to be attacked en mass, nor do I think the mods are biased or incompetent.  

If you feel like you've been really been attacked to a degree that it demands a confrontation, then please confront that person with it promptly, in the same thread.   If I feel I've been slammed, then I'm either going to (A) good-naturedly shrug it off and move on, or I'm going to (B)  load up with heavy verbal ordinance, roll in hard with everything smoking, and stack that person into the wall so fast they'll think I did that s#%*  with mirrors when they're telling their grandbabies about the mean-mean-man decades from now. :)   What I'm not gonna do is not confront them and then poor-mouth about it later.   I don't respect that passive-aggressive stuff.   And, I'm sorry, but it's becoming your whole shtick.  I liked you when I first got here ‘cuz I pegged you for a stand-up guy, and I want to respect you, but all this crybaby stuff is making that pretty tough lately.  I have no problem with you personally, and I have no problem with your political views (I don't agree with many of ‘em, but, eh, that doesn't mean I resent you for having them), but I am waaaaaaaay over this whole "I'm so victimized" deal.   If you have a legit case and stand up, I may even stand up with you.  Store it all up so you can seek empowerment through martyr-status later, though, and sympathy goes out the window.  

So, please, stand up for yourself when it happens if you're actually attacked.  I know that I, for one, would respect that.   And it's the only way you'd remedy the problem, anyway.  Gotta strike while the iron's hot.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#95 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 29 March 2005 - 01:36 PM

Quote

LORD of the SWORD  Mar 23 2005, 06:46 PM 
That's not all the law said, though. Congress specifically said that the State Courts never happened. That the Federal Judge should NOT consider the previous rulings. As far as I'm aware...that's the Legislature dictating to the Judical, which violates the seperation of powers. Congress had no authority to do that.

http://www.gopusa.co...krd_03281.shtml

Quote

What Congress Giveth, Congress Can Taketh Away

The biggest misconception about the federal judiciary is that it is an all-powerful entity unto itself that can only be reined in by placing strict constructionists or constitutionalists onto the bench and hoping for the best. The truth of the matter is that it is the United States Congress as designated by Article III of the U.S. Constitution that created the lower courts of the federal judiciary.

This seems to be lost not only on the American people, but several members of Congress.

The critical line in Article III, Section 1, states: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress MAY from time to time ordain and establish." The key word is "may." It does not say that Congress "must" or "shall" create these federal courts.

In other words, it is the Congress that may or may not create the lower courts of the federal judiciary. They pay for the buildings, confirm the judges, and pay their salaries. In addition, without a statute from Congress granting jurisdiction, the federal court quite simply has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Congress is in the driver's seat and can expand or limit the scope of their jurisdiction as they see fit. Specifically, in Section 2 of Article III, judicial powers are enumerated in detail.

At the heart of the battle over the Terri Schiavo case is the epic struggle between the legislative and the judicial branches of government. The biggest myth of all in this battle is that Congress overstepped its bounds by allowing federal jurisdiction in the Schiavo case. It was certainly an extraordinary step to take, but it only seems extraordinary because the myth of the untouchable judiciary has not been debunked.

As a matter of law, Congress could convene today and abolish the entire federal judiciary, with the exception of the Supreme Court. It could also create a federal court to hear nothing but Terri Schiavo cases within the bounds of federal legal jurisdiction as enumerated in Article III, Section 2. The Congress has already created specific federal courts on tax law, national security and even maritime issues, so it has been done before.

In the past couple of years, we have seen examples of judicial tyranny in landmark cases about the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and gay marriage, to name but a few. Judicial activism and judicial tyranny has expanded exponentially only because "we the people" and our elected Congressional representatives have allowed it to happen.

Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) and Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) have introduced bills, S-520 in the Senate and HR 1070 in the House entitled the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005" that would limit the power of the federal judiciary specifically in religious liberty cases. These bills were also introduced in 2004, but languished in committee and were reintroduced at the beginning of this current congressional session.

This is not a new idea. In fact, in the 1980s, Senator Jesse Helms and Congressman Henry Hyde introduced bills repeatedly that would limit the federal courts jurisdiction over the specific issue of abortion. And it is not only the "hot button" social issues that bring into focus the power of the federal judiciary. Capping damages in class action cases also limits the federal courts overly broad discretion.

The main point here is that what Congress giveth, Congress can also taketh away. And quite frankly, it should. The grassroots efforts to confirm federal judges who will apply the Constitution as it is written should also include a strong push to limit judicial tyranny by demanding that our elected representatives, sworn to uphold the Constitution, to become cosponsors and move these bills to final passage.


In fact to fulfill the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, our elected representatives have an absolute obligation to reign in our out-of-control activist judiciary. In the last fifty years, it has been activist judges who have single handedly done more damage to our Constitution than the liberal media, pop culture and leftist politicians combined.


#96 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 29 March 2005 - 02:09 PM

Quote

Una Salus Lillius @ Mar 25 2005, 09:38 AM
I have a question.  Does anyone think that if the Democrats were in power, they wouldn't have tried to step in?  I don't actually have a definitive opinion on this but I'm inclined to think they might have and that this incident goes more toward general principles of separation of powers than to issues regarding party lines...

Lil

I think they would have gotten involved.  Why not.  Lets not forget that they have gotten involved before. Remember this issue?


http://opinionjourna...y/?id=110006480

Quote

Selective Restraint
Liberals cheered when Janet Reno defied the courts to seize Elian Gonzalez.


The sad case of Terri Schiavo has raised passions not seen since five years ago. Then another bitterly divided family argued in Florida courts over someone who couldn't speak on his own behalf: Elian Gonzalez.

In both cases, those who were unhappy with the courts' decisions strained to assert the federal government's power to produce a different outcome. The difference is that in Mrs. Schiavo's case, Congress backed off after passing a bill that merely asked a federal court to hear the case from scratch, something that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore declined to do. By contrast, those who wanted the federal government to intervene in Elian Gonzalez's case went all the way, supporting a predawn armed federal raid on the morning before Easter to seize the 6-year-old boy despite a federal appeals court's refusal to order his surrender.

Both cases were marked with hypocrisy and political posturing galore. Both times some conservative Republicans talked about issuing subpoenas to compel the person at the center of the case to appear before Congress; they swiftly backed down when public opinion failed to support their stunt. Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, argued that by opposing Elian's return to his father in communist Cuba, conservatives were abandoning the principle that "the state should not supersede the parents' wishes." In the case of Terri Schiavo, many conservatives who normally support spousal rights decided that Michael Schiavo's decision to abandon his marital vows while at the same time refusing to divorce his wife rendered him unfit to override the wishes of his wife's parents to have her cared for.

But liberals have gotten off easy for some of the somersaulting arguments they have made on behalf of judicial independence and states' rights to justify their position that Terri Schiavo should not be saved. Many made the opposite arguments in the Elian Gonzalez case.


Elian was plucked from the ocean off the coast of Florida on Thanksgiving Day 1999. after his mother died in an ill-fated attempt to bring him to freedom. Before he became a political football and Fidel Castro demanded his return, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted him immigration "parole," which gave him the right to live in the U.S. for one year until his status was determined. Because Elian was underage, his fate would therefore be decided by local family courts. On Dec. 1, the INS issued a statement saying, "Although the INS has no role in the family custody decision process, we have discussed the case with the State of Florida officials who have confirmed that the issue of legal custody must be decided by its state court."

Then the Clinton administration reversed course after protests from the Castro regime reached a fever pitch. On Dec. 9, the INS declared its previous position "a mistake" and said that state courts would not have jurisdiction in Elian's case. They claimed that because Elain was taken directly to a hospital he was therefore never formally paroled into the U.S.--even though he was then turned over to his Miami relatives rather than the INS. "Technically, he was not paroled in the usual sense," said a Justice Department spokesman. But she could come up with no previous case in which a Cuban refugee had had his parole revoked and then had the INS move to return him to Cuba.

But it quickly became clear that was the INS's intent. Over the Christmas holidays the agency dispatched agents to Cuba to interview Elian's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez. After the interview, Mr. Gonzalez told reporters the agents and an accompanying U.S. diplomat had assured him Elian would be returned. The Clinton administration disputed those statements, although one of the government officials later privately acknowledged they had been made. Nonetheless, INS bureaucrats in Washington quickly determined that a man who had abandoned Elian and his mom for another woman was a "fit parent" who could "properly care for the child in Cuba." No public consideration was given to the fact that his father, a member of the Communist Party, might have been coerced.

If a state court had been allowed to hear the custody case, INS officials would not have been able to testify as to what Mr. Gonzalez told them to support his claim because it would have been hearsay. He would have had to come to the U.S. to testify on his own, subject to cross-examination. Even if the state court had granted him custody, it would have had to decide whether it was in the child's best interest to be returned to Cuba.

That's what Judge Rosa Rodriguez of Florida Family Court, complying with the original INS ruling, tried to do when she ruled in early January 2000 that her court had jurisdiction over the boy and gave Elian's great-uncle legal authority to represent him. Her order contravened an INS ruling that only Elian's father could speak for the boy and that he should be immediately returned to Cuba. Attorney General Janet Reno than promptly declared that Judge Rodriguez's ruling had "no force or effect." At the same time, INS officials assured reporters that under no circumstances did they intend to seize Elian by force.

The stalemate continued for another three months. On Thursday, April 20, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals--the same court that rejected the pleas of Terri Schiavo's parents last week--turned down the Justice Department's request to order Elian removed from the home of his Miami relatives. Moreover, the court expressed serious doubts about the Justice Department's reading of both the law and its own regulations, adding that Elian had made a "substantial case on the merits" of his claim. It further established a record that Elain, "although a young child, has expressed a wish that he not be returned to Cuba."

The Reno Justice Department acted the next day to short-circuit a legal process that was clearly going against it. On Good Friday evening, after all courts had closed for the day, the department obtained a "search" warrant from a night-duty magistrate who was not familiar with the case, submitting a supporting affidavit that seriously distorted the facts. Armed with that dubious warrant, the INS's helmeted officers, assault rifles at the ready, burst into the home of Elian's relatives and snatched the screaming boy from a bedroom closet. Many local bystanders were tear-gassed even though they did nothing to block the raid. Elian was quickly returned to Cuba; because he was never able to meet with his lawyers a scheduled May 11 asylum hearing on his case in Atlanta became moot.


Of course, there are differences between the Gonzalez and Schiavo cases. But clearly many of the people who approved of dramatic federal intervention to return Elian to Cuba took a completely different tack when it came to the argument over saving Terri Schiavo. Rep. Frank makes a compelling argument that Congress took an extraordinary step when it met in special session to create a procedure whereby the federal courts could decide whether Ms. Schiavo's rights were being violated. He may have a point when he accuses Republicans of "trying to command judicial activism and dictate outcomes when they don't like" rulings. But where were Mr. Frank and other liberals when the Clinton administration decided to sidestep a federal appeals court and order an armed raid against Elian Gonzalez? While Mr. Frank allowed that the use of assault rifles in the Elian raid was "excessive" and "frightening," he also defended the Justice Department's view that "of course [agents] had to use force."

According to some reports, Gov. Jeb Bush considered seizing Mrs. Schiavo, ŕ la Elian, and taking her to a hospital so she could be fed. But he did not do so. "I've consistently said that I can't go beyond what my powers are, and I'm not going to do it," the governor says. Janet Reno and the Clinton administration showed no such restraint when it came to Elian Gonzalez.


#97 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 29 March 2005 - 03:02 PM

However, I would say in the Gonzalez case, life and death weren't an issue, and neither was religion.

It's comparing appleas and oranges.

On a personal note, I feel that returning Gonzalez to his father was the right thing, but they went about it the wrong way.  nevertheless, other than the issue of the executive oversteeping its boundaries, the situations are entirely different.
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#98 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 29 March 2005 - 11:56 PM

G1223, on Mar 28 2005, 10:51 PM, said:

Connie I will do just what you have asked and when it happens again I will simply assume that either Republicans are valid to be bashed and bad mouthed or that the mods have trouble pouring water out of a cup with instructions written on the bottom.

Would that be fair or am I suppose to just sit there and be attacked?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


G,

You miss the point.  Nothing happened to you in this thread.  No one bashed you or Republicans in this thread.  No one attacked you in this thread.  You are rapidly becomming the Ex Isle version of the boy who cried wolf.  You cry persecution where there is none based on past wrongs.  Past wrongs are the past.  They were either addressed when they happened or they weren't.  This is the present.  Past problems with some members are no excuse for treating other members poorly today.  Perhaps you fail to realize how this behavior hurts your credibility and the effectiveness of your arguments.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#99 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 30 March 2005 - 12:07 AM

Mm--one small difference.  Elian's Florida relatives were refusing to return him to his legal guardian, his father.  JEBush was attempting, or would have attempted had he not gotten cold feet, to remove Teri Schiavo from the custody of her legal guardian, her husband.  The law was on Reno's side.  It wasn't on Jebbie's.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush, Teri Shiavo, Opinion

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users