Moderateman Moderateman

Starve a LIBERAL instead of Terry Schiavo

▼

Starve a LIBERAL instead of Terry Schiavo

Starve a Liberal for a better America

from JoeUser Forums
In the spirit of fair play I have decided that any LIBERAL that thinks it is ok to starve Terry Schiavo to death should have to take her place.

Since the liberals say they are in touch with the common man they should have no problem starving themselves to death for the betterment of man.

This simple plan will eliminate much of the “waste” of oxygen and precious resources.

So be a better person, Liberals, a few here,need to starve yourselves to death for a real progressive movement.

Starve a Liberal for a better America.com My newest sight.

So all you fathead liberals do america A FAVOR... starve slowly to death, then tell me how starving terry schiavo is better for her because she can't feel it. JERKS!
politics
74,644 views 315 replies
Reply #251 from JoeUser Forums Top
#257 by drmiler
Friday, March 25, 2005


#250 by drmiler
Friday, March 25, 2005


Starving children in third world countries, including USA, and those who are in the final episode of life, due to illness and/or injury, are not equatable. I would never advocate starving healthy people.


So from what your say is that you "could" advocate it for someone who is *not* healthy?


I am sure if dabe had her way because of my illness {hep C}
she would have no problem murdering me, because I fall in the unhealthy catagory.


Or me since I have MS.


so does my best friend in REAL life, she blogs here as gimpyone, she is a treasure to me from GOD doc, I pray for your illness to leave! Get out! go away!
Reply #252 from JoeUser Forums Top
259 by joeKnowledge
Friday, March 25, 2005


here is the link... I know its a blog but I want to know if anyone here knows of this? witnesses that Terri said she did not want to live like that?


I have not heard or read anything about that. I have no problem with letting her "go" just the kind, painless method
of STARVEATION,{SIC}
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #253 from JoeUser Forums Top
" .... has anyone heard that there were witnesses to Terri saying that she would rather die? I just read that a few minutes ago."


Anna Nicole Smith's husband expressed that he wanted her to have the share of his money she was seeking. That wasn't enough for the courts.

How much less important should this kind of hearsay be when someone's life is on the line? Do we really want a legal environment where a "husband" can get a couple of people to nod and have his wife killed? You'll have people "put out of their misery" left and right...
Reply #254 from JoeUser Forums Top
Starving children in third world countries, including USA, and those who are in the final episode of life, due to illness and/or injury, are not equatable. I would never advocate starving healthy people.


Better than your response Doc.

Dabe, that means you support starving children in third world countries since they are not healthy, and the quality of their life is going to be very bad?

Is this a liberal position?
Reply #255 from JoeUser Forums Top
I realize that her husband is a shit who pretty much took himself out of the picture years ago.
Yet, I keep seeing this stuff about him refusing money. If he stood to gain something, then I could understand why he wants her dead and stays involved. If he's not getting any money or anything out of it, then why is he even concerning himself with it? They say he "moved on". It doesn't look like it to me. Why is he still around?
Sadism? Masochism, maybe? What are HIS motives for even peripherally staying involved when he's so clearly not even in this woman's orbit anymore?
Reply #256 from JoeUser Forums Top
I realize that her husband is a shit who pretty much took himself out of the picture years ago.
Yet, I keep seeing this stuff about him refusing money. If he stood to gain something, then I could understand why he wants her dead and stays involved. If he's not getting any money or anything out of it, then why is he even concerning himself with it? They say he "moved on". It doesn't look like it to me. Why is he still around?
Sadism? Masochism, maybe? What are HIS motives for even peripherally staying involved when he's so clearly not even in this woman's orbit anymore?


It's called money. He stands to gain quite a bit if Terri dies. Remember the money he got for her upkeep? What is left upon her death is his.
Reply #257 from JoeUser Forums Top
257 by drmiler
Friday, March 25, 2005


#250 by drmiler
Friday, March 25, 2005


Starving children in third world countries, including USA, and those who are in the final episode of life, due to illness and/or injury, are not equatable. I would never advocate starving healthy people.


So from what your say is that you "could" advocate it for someone who is *not* healthy?


I am sure if dabe had her way because of my illness {hep C}
she would have no problem murdering me, because I fall in the unhealthy catagory.


Or me since I have MS.


so does my best friend in REAL life, she blogs here as gimpyone, she is a treasure to me from GOD doc, I pray for your illness to leave! Get out! go away!


Thank you for your prayers my friend. I pray everyday for it to leave. It just don't wanna listen to me. If "gimpyone" has MS then you know how hard it is for me to type this. The depression that comes with MS has a tendancy to affect my mood too. Which is why sometimes I'm such a HUGH asshole to people!
Reply #258 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Friday, March 25, 2005" .... has anyone heard that there were witnesses to Terri saying that she would rather die? I just read that a few minutes ago."Anna Nicole Smith's husband expressed that he wanted her to have the share of his money she was seeking. That wasn't enough for the courts. How much less important should this kind of hearsay be when someone's life is on the line? Do we really want a legal environment where a "husband" can get a couple of people to nod and have his wife killed? You'll have people "put out of their misery" left and right...


is not this amazing? the judges are the ones running and ruining this country,, where is there checks and balances? who judges the judges?
Reply #259 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Friday, March 25, 2005I realize that her husband is a shit who pretty much took himself out of the picture years ago.


and his "word" carries so much weight with the court, WHY??I just do not get it. maybe I never will.
Reply #260 from JoeUser Forums Top
"where is there checks and balances? who judges the judges?


For all intents and purposes? No one. "Approval" is their check and balance, but when a judge can sit there until he dies, once he is approved, the only check and balance he has is judges higher up the totem pole.

BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS. Given how Liberals have responded to the bi-partisan efforts in Congress last week, apparently they think we shouldn't even have that balance.
Reply #261 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Friday, March 25, 2005


Thank you for your prayers my friend. I pray everyday for it to leave. It just don't wanna listen to me. If "gimpyone" has MS then you know how hard it is for me to type this. The depression that comes with MS has a tendancy to affect my mood too. Which is why sometimes I'm such a HUGH asshole to people!


anytime and all the time, my friend is raising 3 kids, 15, 13 and 9 and her husband is scum... grrrrrrrrrrr

You have never pointed that "asshole" at me, and thats all that counts in my book.
Reply #262 from JoeUser Forums Top
269 by BakerStreet
Friday, March 25, 2005


For all intents and purposes? No one. "Approval" is their check and balance, but when a judge can sit there until he dies, once he is approved, the only check and balance he has is judges higher up the totem pole.

BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS. Given how Liberals have responded to the bi-partisan efforts in Congress last week, apparently they think we shouldn't even have that balance.


It's not the law, it's how liberal activist judges LEGISLATE from the bench and get away with it.
Reply #263 from JoeUser Forums Top
BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS.

Exactly Bakerstreet.

I am in that process right not (not related to this piticular subject)

Moterateman, it is the law. If there is a spicific law pertaining to this subject, then it would be followed.

There is always a possibility that it can be fought later on (for example Row Vs Wade) but that is the process.
Reply #264 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: joeKnowledgePosted: Friday, March 25, 2005BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS. Exactly Bakerstreet.I am in that process right not (not related to this piticular subject)Moterateman, it is the law. If there is a spicific law pertaining to this subject, then it would be followed.There is always a possibility that it can be fought later on (for example Row Vs Wade) but that is the process.


I live in california and have seen 2 judges overturn newly voted bills that were law,

the first was to deny medical to illegal border jumping lawbreakers, passed by 65% in 1990? maybe 1991 and one judge over turned it. one.


The second one was just this month, One judge overturned the law that spelled out marriage is between one man and one woman and one judge legislating from the bench decided HE did not like it and overturned that one too.

the above 2 examples are what I mean. k?
Reply #265 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: joeKnowledgePosted: Friday, March 25, 2005BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS.


then the judges will still legislate from the bench and mis interpet with impunity.
Reply #266 from JoeUser Forums Top
For all intents and purposes? No one. "Approval" is their check and balance, but when a judge can sit there until he dies, once he is approved, the only check and balance he has is judges higher up the totem pole.

BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS. Given how Liberals have responded to the bi-partisan efforts in Congress last week, apparently they think we shouldn't even have that balance.


It is funny how some of these people demand that we obey the law of the least democratic branch of government, while doing what they can to go against the will of the legislative and executive branches, the two branches that are actually accountable to the people.

I never liked Andrew Jackson, but if there's one thing I wish we'd learn from him, it's that when courts start playing judge, jury, and executioner, we can simply go: "They've made their opinions. Now let them enforce it."
Reply #267 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Enigmatic JesterPosted: Friday, March 25, 2005For all intents and purposes? No one. "Approval" is their check and balance, but when a judge can sit there until he dies, once he is approved, the only check and balance he has is judges higher up the totem pole.BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS. Given how Liberals have responded to the bi-partisan efforts in Congress last week, apparently they think we shouldn't even have that balance.It is funny how some of these people demand that we obey the law of the least democratic branch of government, while doing what they can to go against the will of the legislative and executive branches, the two branches that are actually accountable to the people.I never liked Andrew Jackson, but if there's one thing I wish we'd learn from him, it's that when courts start playing judge, jury, and executioner, we can simply go: "They've made their opinions. Now let them enforce it."


sadly the judges can enforce there will upon all of us.
Reply #268 from PolMach Forums Top
In Reply #224 by im-moder-rant spluttered:

yeh right, you come in MY BLOG insult me, call me names, twist the facts, put words in my mouth {or fingers} and you want me to apoligize??


That's right: You should apologize for your own hypocritical & hate-filled words.

No fact twisting or word putting involved. I'll quote just one example...

In the first post of this thread, im-moder-rant spewed:

all you fathead liberals do america A FAVOR... starve slowly to death


Two wrongs don't make a right. You yourself said starvation is cruel & wrong. And yet you advocate it for millions of Americans.

So which is it? Apologize or admit that you are a hate-filled hypocrite?
Reply #269 from PolMach Forums Top
In reply #236, im-moder-rant seethed:

ironic how the LIBERAL MIND WORKS ISN'T IT? blind to everything that they disagree with, so sure THEY know whats best for everyone.


Um, it's the big government GOP trying to disrupt, usurp & dictate private family decisions here, dude. End-of-life decisions belong to next of kin, not grandstanding politicians. Real conservatives understand that.

Tell us again how many liberals you want to starve, when in fact the position you oppose -- keeping BIG GOVT OUT of PRIVATE DECISIONS -- is a CONSERVATIVE point of view.

And no amount of your hate-filled hypocrisy will change that fact.

Ready to apologize yet?
Reply #270 from JoeUser Forums Top
Some judicial system which turns a deaf ear to emergencies. It seems black laws are more importance to them than life.
Its judicial killing.
Reply #271 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ProgressiveUSAPosted: Saturday, March 26, 2005In reply #236, im-moder-rant seethed:ironic how the LIBERAL MIND WORKS ISN'T IT? blind to everything that they disagree with, so sure THEY know whats best for everyone. Um, it's the big government GOP trying to disrupt, usurp & dictate private family decisions here, dude. End-of-life decisions belong to next of kin, not grandstanding politicians. Real conservatives understand that. Tell us again how many liberals you want to starve, when in fact the position you oppose -- keeping BIG GOVT OUT of PRIVATE DECISIONS -- is a CONSERVATIVE point of view. And no amount of your hate-filled hypocrisy will change that fact.Ready to apologize yet?


all I see when you type with such hate filled venom is.. WAH WAH, BLAH Bleet baa whine waaa cryy piss, moan blah blah wah wah doot doot.

I have nothing to apoligize for. period.

STARVE A LIBERAL FOR A BETTER AMERICA!!
Reply #272 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: riazlongi(Anonymous User)Posted: Saturday, March 26, 2005Some judicial system which turns a deaf ear to emergencies. It seems black laws are more importance to them than life.Its judicial killing.


agreed. totally. This judicial crap happening can be directly linked to LIBERALS and the twisted liberal point of view.
Reply #273 from JoeUser Forums Top
In a blog of greatness and truth RETROGRESSIVE ussr writes blather, hate filled ad hominim attacks filled with hyperbole, fed my unreasoning hatred of the truth.


you should apoligize to everyone that posted here.
Reply #274 from JoeUser Forums Top


No, If any liberal wants to take Terri's place, We'll let them go right ahead. There is a lot of doubt wether she said that she wanted to die if ever on life support. She wasn't on life support anyway, there is also testimony that when an lawyer for her parents went to talk to her, she told terri to end this all you would have to say is "I want to live" and that Terri tried to say it. over 30 doctors have sworn afidavits stating that she was not in a PSV, and some nurses have sworn statements that she communicated with them. Judge Greer ignored this evidence and sided with Michael Schiavo.
Reply #275 from JoeUser Forums Top
In Reply #224 by im-moder-rant spluttered:

yeh right, you come in MY BLOG insult me, call me names, twist the facts, put words in my mouth {or fingers} and you want me to apoligize??


That's right: You should apologize for your own hypocritical & hate-filled words.

No fact twisting or word putting involved. I'll quote just one example...

In the first post of this thread, im-moder-rant spewed:

all you fathead liberals do america A FAVOR... starve slowly to death


Two wrongs don't make a right. You yourself said starvation is cruel & wrong. And yet you advocate it for millions of Americans.

So which is it? Apologize or admit that you are a hate-filled hypocrite?


I think you should be the one to apologize for being a mindless liberal.