Right to Life holding convention here

[bustertheboa]

Jan wrote:

Buster, your response to Tali was great. I think you're right that the whole argument was based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of words. YOu and I were both referring to life in the strict sense, while Tali was including broader lifestyle ideas as well. A person who needs life support could be "dead" to most of the activities that we commonly associate with life, depending on how sick they are and what sort of life support they need.

I'm not sure that Tali made the error of definitions innocently, though. I suspect she was deliberately obfuscating the discussion.

I'm guessing that it was a mutual misunderstanding, Jan. Going through premed and medical school, taking licensing exams, getting board certification and recertification, etc. has inundated me with thousands upon thousands of multiple choice, SAT-like questions.

One of the things you develop as a test taking skill is to hone in on EXACTLY how a question is phrased. You assume that what was said was also what was meant, but that does not always apply to real life. People can say one thing, and what they mean is another.

TT's assertion that a being requiring life support is dead without it (or for all practical purposes will soon be) is medically correct and I agree with it. Stop the life support and the being is dead.

But saying that a being who is alive would not require life support is a very different statement -- as different IMHO as a previable fetus and a neonate are.

Obviously the reason life support is needed is because the being is still alive. It would be dead without life support, but in order for it to die, it had to be alive in the first place while on life support. Needing life support does not in any way preclude being alive.

I suspect that I confused what TT said for what she meant. And I also suspect you are correct, Jan, that there was general confusion as to what is meant by "alive."

[Jan]

Buster, I think you're right when you say the misunderstanding was mutual. I assumed that Tali was referring to life in the biological sense, and her posts therefore made no sense to me.

[Peppermint Patti]

Jan wrote:

Buster, I think you're right when you say the misunderstanding was mutual. I assumed that Tali was referring to life in the biological sense, and her posts therefore made no sense to me.

Reminds me of the joke about assuming.

Making an ASS out of U and ME :-)

ASSUME :-)

[TalibangelistThu gs]

Peppermint Patti wrote:

<quoted text>
Reminds me of the joke about assuming.
Making an ASS out of U and ME :-)
ASSUME :-)

Jan is the only one that consistently looks like as ASS!

I will have to address that later.

[Life Coach]

Sotomayor was very EVASIVE when questioned about abortion

As you know, she is Catholic

She will double-cross OBAMA and Roe v Wade will be overturned

Religious makeup of Supreme Court with Sotomayor

6 Catholics
2 Jews
1 Protestant

[TalibangelistThu gs]

Life Coach wrote:

Sotomayor was very EVASIVE when questioned about abortion
As you know, she is Catholic
She will double-cross OBAMA and Roe v Wade will be overturned
Religious makeup of Supreme Court with Sotomayor
6 Catholics
2 Jews
1 Protestant

Total bullshit. I watched it, she was not the least bit evasive. Stop lying.

She said Roe v Wade was decided law. She considers abortion to be a "fundamnetal right" under the Constitutions 14th amendment. Those were HER WORDS.

What planet do YOU live on? Do you have an alternate confirmation hearing going on in YOUR universe where you get to make things up?

[TalibangelistThu gs]

Life Coach wrote:

Sotomayor was very EVASIVE when questioned about abortion
As you know, she is Catholic
She will double-cross OBAMA and Roe v Wade will be overturned
Religious makeup of Supreme Court with Sotomayor
6 Catholics
2 Jews
1 Protestant

Even your own biased religious sources say she was NOT evasive!

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5218.html

Now, stop making a fool of yourself!

[Amazed]

Life Coach wrote:

Sotomayor was very EVASIVE when questioned about abortion
As you know, she is Catholic
She will double-cross OBAMA and Roe v Wade will be overturned
Religious makeup of Supreme Court with Sotomayor
6 Catholics
2 Jews
1 Protestant

You really are delusional.

She was very direct in her answers and IF she is confirmed she has made it clear that she doesn't mix religion with law.

It seems she understands the importance of separation of church and state- not surprising given her experience as a judge and considering that she is well educated.

Seems that separation of church and state, fundamental to the founding fathers, is a lesson lost on the ignorant members of the terrorist criminal pro life gang.

It appears Sotomayor understands that a judge doesn't belong in the pulpit any more than a priest belongs as a supreme court justice.

[Amazed]

TalibangelistThugs wrote:

<quoted text>
Even your own biased religious sources say she was NOT evasive!
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5218.html
Now, stop making a fool of yourself!

She made it crystal clear she feels the matter is settled and not worthy of any more of the courts time.

From the article linked above:

The nominee also said the Supreme Court upheld the Roe decision in the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

"Casey reaffirmed the holding in Roe," she said, responding to questions from pro-abortion Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. "That is the Supreme Court's settled interpretation of what the court holding is and it's reaffirmance of it."

She told the panel "there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution."

[Life Coach]

Amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
She made it crystal clear she feels the matter is settled and not worthy of any more of the courts time.
From the article linked above:
The nominee also said the Supreme Court upheld the Roe decision in the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
"Casey reaffirmed the holding in Roe," she said, responding to questions from pro-abortion Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. "That is the Supreme Court's settled interpretation of what the court holding is and it's reaffirmance of it."
She told the panel "there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution."

Yes, she was evasive

She was also evasive when she denied that a legal decision was "...like a marathon. The first 25 miles are based on the law and the last mile comes from the heart..."

I think she was talking about the heart of a fetus

[Life Coach]

And a president does not always get what he ordered when he appoints a justice. Nixon appointed Chief Justice Warren Burger, but Burger turned on him.

I can't recall which one now, and I don't have time to research, but FDR appointed someone he thought was a liberal, but he turned on him too

Sotomayor will do the same thing to Obama and the RTL's will rejoice

[Amazed]

Seems that IF Sotomayor is confirmed it won't matter whether she agrees with Roe V. Wade, whether her church agrees with it or who else might agree or disagree with the Roe V. Wade decision.

If Sotomayor is a "true believer" in anything it appears she is a true believer in stare decisis: "to stand by that which is decided."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/14/pol...

Sotomayor: Abortion Law Is "Settled"

Supreme Court Nominee Called Roe vs. Wade a Settled Precedent, But Did Not Say If She Agrees With Ruling

[Amazed]

Life Coach wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, she was evasive
She was also evasive when she denied that a legal decision was "...like a marathon. The first 25 miles are based on the law and the last mile comes from the heart..."
I think she was talking about the heart of a fetus

Not giving the answers you wanted to hear doesn't make her evasive in the least.

And you refusing to accept the reality of her words doesn't make her evasive in the least.

She was very clear on the point that she embraces and will abide by the fundamental legal concept of stare decisis ("to stand by that which is decided.")

No amount of wishful thinking on your part will change the facts of what she stated:

"The court's decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey reaffirmed the court holding of Roe. That is the precedent of the court and settled in terms of the holding of the court." - Sotomayor

"As I said Casey reaffirmed the holding in Roe. That is the supreme court's settled interpretation of what the core holding is and its reaffirmance of it." - Sotomayor

and if her statements aren't enough how about her actions or her associations?

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/on-abor...
____
Excerpt from the article:

From 1980 to 1992, Sotomayor was a governing board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), an ardently pro-choice operation. The group has been involved in several court cases and could be counted on to take the most rigid position in support of a woman’s absolute right to an abortion.

The Chicago-based Americans United for Life has examined PRLDEF positions on abortion and found this is the group’s view relating to parental involvement in a child’s decision to have an abortion:

Based on her view that abortion is a fundamental right, Judge Sotomayor would likely vote to strike down both parental-consent and parental-notice laws, failing to protect both children and parental rights.
____

And also from the article:

"...The point can be made that while this was the organization’s view, it’s not necessarily hers, although she appears never to have distanced herself from it. If she did disagree with the group’s extreme views, one can ask why did she continue her active affiliation with it for so many years."

[Life Coach]

Amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
Not giving the answers you wanted to hear doesn't make her evasive in the least.
And you refusing to accept the reality of her words doesn't make her evasive in the least.
She was very clear on the point that she embraces and will abide by the fundamental legal concept of stare decisis ("to stand by that which is decided.")
No amount of wishful thinking on your part will change the facts of what she stated:
"The court's decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey reaffirmed the court holding of Roe. That is the precedent of the court and settled in terms of the holding of the court." - Sotomayor
"As I said Casey reaffirmed the holding in Roe. That is the supreme court's settled interpretation of what the core holding is and its reaffirmance of it." - Sotomayor
and if her statements aren't enough how about her actions or her associations?
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/on-abor...
____
Excerpt from the article:
From 1980 to 1992, Sotomayor was a governing board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), an ardently pro-choice operation. The group has been involved in several court cases and could be counted on to take the most rigid position in support of a woman’s absolute right to an abortion.
The Chicago-based Americans United for Life has examined PRLDEF positions on abortion and found this is the group’s view relating to parental involvement in a child’s decision to have an abortion:
Based on her view that abortion is a fundamental right, Judge Sotomayor would likely vote to strike down both parental-consent and parental-notice laws, failing to protect both children and parental rights.
____
And also from the article:
"...The point can be made that while this was the organization’s view, it’s not necessarily hers, although she appears never to have distanced herself from it. If she did disagree with the group’s extreme views, one can ask why did she continue her active affiliation with it for so many years."

Well, that's the "first 25 miles". Her "heart" will be the last mile.

She had to play the game to get there, but once she is appointed, she will do what she wants.

With her diabetes and years of heavy smoking, she is not a healthy woman. She had lead a sinful life in her youth. She knows she will have to get right with God before she dies and outlawing abortion will the ticket

[Amazed]

Life Coach wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, that's the "first 25 miles". Her "heart" will be the last mile.
She had to play the game to get there, but once she is appointed, she will do what she wants.
With her diabetes and years of heavy smoking, she is not a healthy woman. She had lead a sinful life in her youth. She knows she will have to get right with God before she dies and outlawing abortion will the ticket

Abortion isn't a "sin" that she committed as far as anyone knows and I'm pretty sure if she had one it would have been in all the tabloids if not a screaming headline.

Not sure how you come to the conclusion that she owes anyone or any deity a debt due repayment on the abortion issue.

Not sure how you reach the conclusion that YOUR God (or anyone elses for that matter...) would be "satisfied" if Supreme Court Justices could just be persuaded to even slightly change course after upholding the core of the Roe V. Wade decision accross more than 38 cases over all the time that has passed since Roe V. Wade was first decided.

She has made it clear abortion isn't a legal issue she feels is due any more time in front of the Supreme Court.

Seems a little delusional to think she was just "playing the game" all her life on the off chance (1 in a million? 1 in 100 million?) that she might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

Seems delusional to believe that after living her life as a duty bound lawyer and a judge well and faithfully serving the law all these years that she would suddenly look upon her life as a successful lawyer and successful judge as a "broken" life that would compell her to abandon the law and become the avenging priest of the Supreme Court.

Seems delusional to believe that after living her life as a duty bound lawyer and a judge well and faithfully serving the law all these years that she would suddenly start feeling unworthy and that her life was demanding of some sort of redemption and purification.

Apparently she doesn't feel that Roe V. Wade is broken or in need of any further attention.

EVen if she thought it was broken she has no reason to feel guilty about law that was settled and in use long before she was ever nominated and will be standing and in use long after she is gone.

It is the law of the land. The rights recognized and acknowledged by it have been affirmed endlessly accross many cases. Pretty much exactly what she has stated.

[TalibangelistThu gs]

Life Coach wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, that's the "first 25 miles". Her "heart" will be the last mile.
She had to play the game to get there, but once she is appointed, she will do what she wants.
With her diabetes and years of heavy smoking, she is not a healthy woman. She had lead a sinful life in her youth. She knows she will have to get right with God before she dies and outlawing abortion will the ticket

LOLOLOLOLOL.

Again, what planet are you living on? Do they allow you to just make schyt up as you go along?

What "sinful" youth are you blabbering about? She has been a goal driven, education seeking, person. Where do YOU get off calling anyone "sinful"?

See, here on earth, that just makes you look like a delusional fool.

[TalibangelistThu gs]

Amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
She made it crystal clear she feels the matter is settled and not worthy of any more of the courts time.
From the article linked above:
The nominee also said the Supreme Court upheld the Roe decision in the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
"Casey reaffirmed the holding in Roe," she said, responding to questions from pro-abortion Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. "That is the Supreme Court's settled interpretation of what the court holding is and it's reaffirmance of it."
She told the panel "there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution."

Yeah, I am thinking that "Life Coach" is a few doughnuts short of a dozen!

[Life Coach]

Amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
Abortion isn't a "sin" that she committed as far as anyone knows and I'm pretty sure if she had one it would have been in all the tabloids if not a screaming headline.
Not sure how you come to the conclusion that she owes anyone or any deity a debt due repayment on the abortion issue.
Not sure how you reach the conclusion that YOUR God (or anyone elses for that matter...) would be "satisfied" if Supreme Court Justices could just be persuaded to even slightly change course after upholding the core of the Roe V. Wade decision accross more than 38 cases over all the time that has passed since Roe V. Wade was first decided.
She has made it clear abortion isn't a legal issue she feels is due any more time in front of the Supreme Court.
Seems a little delusional to think she was just "playing the game" all her life on the off chance (1 in a million? 1 in 100 million?) that she might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.
Seems delusional to believe that after living her life as a duty bound lawyer and a judge well and faithfully serving the law all these years that she would suddenly look upon her life as a successful lawyer and successful judge as a "broken" life that would compell her to abandon the law and become the avenging priest of the Supreme Court.
Seems delusional to believe that after living her life as a duty bound lawyer and a judge well and faithfully serving the law all these years that she would suddenly start feeling unworthy and that her life was demanding of some sort of redemption and purification.
Apparently she doesn't feel that Roe V. Wade is broken or in need of any further attention.
EVen if she thought it was broken she has no reason to feel guilty about law that was settled and in use long before she was ever nominated and will be standing and in use long after she is gone.
It is the law of the land. The rights recognized and acknowledged by it have been affirmed endlessly accross many cases. Pretty much exactly what she has stated.

"MY" God ?????

90% of this song is in line with Roman Catholic belief and my personal beliefs. If they cut out the part about denying the resurrection, it could be a Catholic hymn

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Lucy in the Sky]

TalibangelistThugs wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, I am thinking that "Life Coach" is a few doughnuts short of a dozen!

Life Coach a few doughnuts short of a dozen. ROTFL
Life Coach is
a few peas short of a casserole
not the brightest bulb in the box
not the sharpest knife in the drawer

[Life Coach]

Lucy in the Sky wrote:

<quoted text>
Life Coach a few doughnuts short of a dozen. ROTFL
Life Coach is
a few peas short of a casserole
not the brightest bulb in the box
not the sharpest knife in the drawer

Those are some pretty clever internet chat room insults you have learned.

Don't forget

"Sharp as a bowling ball"
and

"He is playing with a full duck, but somebody left in the jokers"

Have an original thought once in a while