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
74,659 views 315 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is why advanced directives ARE THE ONLY WAY TO GO.. they spell out what YOU want done what and if the shit hits the fan.


I agree....or, barring that, sit down with your entire family and let them all know in no uncertain terms how you want it. Also, whether or not you want to be a donor, as I have.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
There should be nothing wrong with this. After all, if somebody consents to killing somebody else, as long as they're close, it will be as if that person who is being killed consented. That's how euthanasia, aka assisted suicide, works in the Netherlands, and the liberals love it!
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
as long as they're close


So, if I get my brother, cousin or best friend to blow my brains out, it's okay. But if I talk somebody from off the street into doing it, it's murder? That's insane.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is too much. I don;t know the facts about this, but a congresional hearing? It just seems funny when there are other things to have congresional hearings about... like american security, labor laws, social security...

I do admit this sounds really fishy. I would think that is she knew how much her family wanted her alive, even if she really couldn't be cognitive for it, she might have said yes.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll admit though, the title of this kinda makes it funny... save this person because of right to life... but kill this one because blah blah so its ok.

I still say right to life people don't sem to get that life without living is worthless. Just being alive is not enough. People in slave ships throw their babies into the ocean for that reason.

Kill a crimanal? Have a war? Have a gun?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Sunday, March 20, 2005Someone who has lved with a new family for ten years and has kids with another woman shouldn't be considered her "husband". There was no wish set down legally, and the hearsay we have has only been verified by him, and only a long time after she fell into this state. Its a bad precedent to set, but since Senate Republicans have "taken a side", those who hate them will have the knee-jerk opposite reaction.


I agree about the scumbag hubby, and yes it seems if the republicans want something, anything no matter what the left is going to fight it.

starve a liberal for a better america.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Sunday, March 20, 2005Reply By: drmilerPosted: Sunday, March 20, 2005Starve them hell, line em up against the wall at dawn!nope since the far left feels "it's ok for terry to starve to death" it is only fair a few of them starve to death too since for the most part they are brain dead just like terryWho said a few? I meant ALL of them! You can have your few..... line up the rest!


geeze doc if we starve em all who we gonna trash talk at? bahahahahahahahahahahah
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Monday, March 21, 2005this is why advanced directives ARE THE ONLY WAY TO GO.. they spell out what YOU want done what and if the shit hits the fan.I agree....or, barring that, sit down with your entire family and let them all know in no uncertain terms how you want it. Also, whether or not you want to be a donor, as I have.


My wife and I do not want our health and life in someones hands, period, no matter how many times you tell someone what you want, without an advanced directive the decision is still up to them.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: messybuuPosted: Monday, March 21, 2005There should be nothing wrong with this. After all, if somebody consents to killing somebody else, as long as they're close, it will be as if that person who is being killed consented. That's how euthanasia, aka assisted suicide, works in the Netherlands, and the liberals love it


good then I can expect total cooperation from liberals in this endevor.

Starve a liberal to death for a better america.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Monday, March 21, 2005as long as they're closeSo, if I get my brother, cousin or best friend to blow my brains out, it's okay. But if I talk somebody from off the street into doing it, it's murder? That's insane.


not insanity..... tis the dreaded DEMOCRATIC DEMENTIA.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Monday, March 21, 2005as long as they're closeSo, if I get my brother, cousin or best friend to blow my brains out, it's okay. But if I talk somebody from off the street into doing it, it's murder? That's insane.


not insanity..... tis the dreaded DEMOCRATIC DEMENTIA.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
the whole "cheating husband" thing bugs me

the guy's wife was a veggie, not him

jesus, let the guy have some love in his life

they shouldn't let her starve, they should give her the biggest shot of morphine ever and be done with it

But I'll answer your challenge with one of my own: Any conservative who wants to keep this chick alive should have to pay her medical bills and provide round-the-clock care for her. Deal?
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
But I'll answer your challenge with one of my own: Any conservative who wants to keep this chick alive should have to pay her medical bills and provide round-the-clock care for her. Deal?


I agree, but only if liberals start paying for things they support and conservatives oppose.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
"the guy's wife was a veggie, not him

jesus, let the guy have some love in his life"


By all means, I don't fault the guy for "moving on". On the other hand I do have a problem with a guy who "moves on", and then retains his supposed "legal guardian" status over his abandoned spouse. If he has moved on, then the guardianship responsibilities should shift to those who are devoting their lives to her, i.e. her parents.

As for the whole "pay up" bullshit, the same people offering millions to him to drop this shit have offered to devote that money to her care. This has never, ever been about financial responsibility. This is a guy, who for some reason is insanely fixated on starving someone he CLAIMS is already dead, and who he, himself, abandoned years ago.

The precedent is why the federal courts should be involved if Florida drops the ball. The repurcutions of this could have far-reaching effects.

Thousands of people are cared for in hospice situations and in homes around America. Many of them are in the same condition as T.S. Before this, allowing one of them to starve to death would have been abusive, negligent homicide at the very least. Now, if the person caring for them is their "guardian", it is somehow "mercy". This is not a precedent that needs to be set.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
But I'll answer your challenge with one of my own: Any conservative who wants to keep this chick alive should have to pay her medical bills and provide round-the-clock care for her. Deal?


We already have. Her scumbag husband won his millions in a lawsuit supposedly just for that purpose! Try again myrr.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

Starving Terry Schiavo and starving a liberal are two different things. Liberals are fully-functioning humans capable of thought (for the most part). Mrs. Schiavo is entirely incapacitated with no chance of recovery. It's not as though she is able to live in the way humans normally do.

That which we do the least of our citizens is the mark by which the society will be judged.

To starve any living animal to death is cruel and unusual punishment.  If you want to kill her, do so.  Do not make her suffer to salve your conscious.

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: MyrranderPosted: Monday, March 21, 2005the whole "cheating husband" thing bugs methe guy's wife was a veggie, not himjesus, let the guy have some love in his life


2 months after terry was damaged? that is how long he waited. 2 months. I think he was having an affair while with terry.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Monday, March 21, 2005"the guy's wife was a veggie, not himjesus, let the guy have some love in his life"By all means, I don't fault the guy for "moving on". On the other hand I do have a problem with a guy who "moves on", and then retains his supposed "legal guardian" status over his abandoned spouse. If he has moved on, then the guardianship responsibilities should shift to those who are devoting their lives to her, i.e. her parents.


boy do I agree with this baker.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will decide whats a good one here not you child.


I see the child censored its self... took out some carp.. smart move hicolinicblast


You sure are an angry asshole. Go get laid.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
jesus, let the guy have some love in his life


Problem is, he wants it both ways. Polygamy's still illegal in this country, right? (Not that it SHOULD be, but that's another article entirely). He wants to be recognized as representing Ms. Schiavo's best interests, when there are SWORN DEPOSITIONS by nurses that have worked closely with Ms. Schiavo that paint a picture far different from the "loving husband" scenario Mr. Schiavo's lawyers and he want you to see. Again, this information is easy to find.

This is NOT a "right to die" case; this is a "right to KILL" case, and that is, frankly, what has many of us up in arms. By withholding food and water, the authorities are effectively bringing an end to Ms. Schiavo's existence that we won't even allow for convicted criminals. In short, we're putting her through hell to prove a point; no painkillers will be administered, because to administer painkillers to Ms. Schiavo would be a de facto admission that what they are doing is murder.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Iconoclast™Posted: Monday, March 21, 2005


You sure are an angry asshole. Go get laid.


you offering? if yer male the answere is no, if female the answere is still no. married here and get all I want or need. angry? well that is on the money, asshole? thats true too, now will you own up to being a petulant child? and angry too?
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
no painkillers will be administered


On CNN this morning, Dr. Sanjay Gupta said they would give her painkillers.

All the doctors who examined her in person, not just on videotape, said she has no chance of recovery. I think she should die in peace with what dignity she has left.

The only reason many people think life is sacred is that they're alive. It's just self-interest. Dead people don't give a damn.

If it was anyone else, maybe, but I think I know him well enough to say no to that one. I think his motivations for writing controversial things are the same as mine...we just disagree on the points that we make.


I disageee with you, Philomedy. His articles and posts are more than just confrontational; they're inflammatory.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
The server messed up.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Iconoclast™Posted: Monday, March 21, 2005no painkillers will be administeredOn CNN this morning, Dr. Sanjay Gupta said they would give her painkillers.All the doctors who examined her in person, not just on videotape, said she has no chance of recovery. I think she should die in peace with what dignity she has left.If it was anyone else, maybe, but I think I know him well enough to say no to that one. I think his motivations for writing controversial things are the same as mine...we just disagree on the points that we make.I disageee with you, Philomedy. His articles and posts are more than just confrontational; they're inflammatory.The only reason many people think that life is sacred is that they're alive. It's just self-interest. Dead people don't give a damn.


if you find my stuff so hurtfull and inflamitory why read them? comment on them? hm??
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Iconoclast™Posted: Monday, March 21, 2005The server messed up.


I deleated 2 of your replies that were duplicates of the one I left. server problems abound.