Log In · Register

 

Debate Rules

Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.

Debate.

19 Pages V  « < 17 18 19  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
George W. Bush= dead?, is it possible?
The Voice
post Aug 16 2005, 03:51 PM
Post #451


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Aug 2005
Member No: 193,097



QUOTE(Retrogressive @ Aug 16 2005, 3:46 PM)
I think d**k Cheney is dead. You never really see a good shot of him on TV, I think they are just using a robot in his place (not like Bush would notice) haha.
*


I've alwas thought that we don't see cheney much because he's hiding behind bush…with his hand up his a$$. After all, we all know bush is just cheney's hand puppet.
 
technicolour
post Aug 17 2005, 10:58 AM
Post #452


show me a garden thats bursting to life
********

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 12,303
Joined: Mar 2005
Member No: 115,987



QUOTE(headphones @ Aug 16 2005, 3:10 PM)
And Terri Schaivo's parents' case wasn't too popular? They just wanted people to feel bad for their daughter.

And look at that. I'm 15 too.

*



That was a completely different case... Their daughter was braindead and it became a controversy to either pull her life support or not...Completely different
 
*disco infiltrator*
post Aug 17 2005, 11:15 AM
Post #453





Guest






And this woman's son died. What about the other soldiers? Isn't Cindy Sheehan's case about keeping those soldiers alive or letting them die?

It's really pretty similar.

And don't be like "well war happens all the time". People are put on life support all the time. Why was Terri Schaivo special? How was she different from all the rest of the braindead people? She wasn't. So how is her case not too popular?
 
technicolour
post Aug 17 2005, 11:19 AM
Post #454


show me a garden thats bursting to life
********

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 12,303
Joined: Mar 2005
Member No: 115,987



They wanted justice for her daughter. Her husband put her in the state that she was, there was speculation behind that. Her husband just wanted her dead for the insurance money, and her parents wanted to keep her alive cause a few doctors were saying there was a very small chance of her coming out of her state.

Her son died because he went to war. Her son died because he made a CHOICE to go to war. You're a legal adult when you sign up for the army and adults can make their own decisions. He made his.


War doesn't happen all the time. I wasn't even going to go there.
 
The Voice
post Aug 17 2005, 11:23 AM
Post #455


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Aug 2005
Member No: 193,097



QUOTE(sprinkle-the-stars @ Aug 17 2005, 11:19 AM)
Her husband just wanted her dead for the insurance money


Speculation. The same sort of speculation that dictates that a grieving mother doesn't have a right to express her grief in a fashion that she, not you, deems fit.

Edit: Addition: Cindy Sheehan just wants justice for her son, the same way that the Schiavo's wanted justice for their daughter…the similiarity is very much there. Whether you agree with Cindy's motives or not…she just wants to see justice done. Whether or not you agree with her opinion of justice.
 
*disco infiltrator*
post Aug 17 2005, 11:29 AM
Post #456





Guest






Terri Schaivo's husband had been paying for her to stay on life support for 15 years. Don't give me that he just wanted the insurance money. He visited her in the hospital a lot, but when she's gone for 15 years, what are you supposed to do? It's a lot of money. If the parents wanted to keep her on it, maybe they should have been paying for it. If it's such a strong issue of life and death, perhaps he shouldn't have had to pay for life.

It may be selfish of him, but NEWSFLASH. It happens all the time. Terri Schaivo is not special. In all cases, the spouse makes that decision, whether other people agree or not.

It was selfish for the parents to keep her alive in such a state for so long. I feel bad for Terri Schaivo, not because she died, but because she was kept alive like that for so long. I know if I ever ended up like that, I would not want to be kept alive.

Why should we keep miserable people alive just for the sake of life? God, with all these people that should apparently be kept alive, we'll end up like China where we have to kill our babies if we have more than two of them.
 
The Voice
post Aug 17 2005, 12:12 PM
Post #457


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Aug 2005
Member No: 193,097



Good call, headphones…but not only that. The christians were the main one's opposed to her being taken off of life support. And not just the standard christians, but the fanatics especially. The same people that believe that condoms should not be used, and that god should decide whether or not a person gets pregnant...felt that it was necessary to be kept alive by machinery...when there is absolutely no chance of recovery. It baffles me. I am always confused when it comes to Pro-Lifers of any type..because their opinions on 'Pro' Life seem to change from circumstance to circumstance. I believe that circumstances dictate how life should be viewed...I'm Pro-Choice...but that is a topic for a different discussion...i also believe that Terri Shiavo's life was sacred...but the preciousness of that life ended when she was no longer able to function as a living person. I also believe in the death penalty...which i've discussed elsewhere. Anyway, enough about my beliefs...my point is this...The relation between the Terri Schiavo case, and the case of Casey Sheehan...do certainly have a correlation to eachother. In both cases it came down to the opinion of the mother...on how the situation should be handled...and what the emotional reprocussions are. Schiavo's parents fought against the husband chosing her time of death...and though i do disagree with their take on that...i do respect it as their decision...it was their daughter that died, if anyone has a right to make a decision, it's them. Cindy Sheehan has the same right...she also feels that her son died when he didn't have to. I feel that her motivations are a bit more justified...but once again, that's just my opinion. However, to deny that she, as a grieving mother, should have a right to mourn their childs death and seek answers to it's cause...is horrendous. It's like say a mother of a child who's hit by a drunk driver...should have been prepared for that...because driving is dangerous...and these things happen. Ok, that's a lose anology...but you get the point. She supported her son's decision...but does not support the decision to go to war. Let her decide what she wants...it's her son that died...so leave her the f*ck alone!
 
*mipadi*
post Aug 17 2005, 12:47 PM
Post #458





Guest






QUOTE(sprinkle-the-stars @ Aug 17 2005, 12:19 PM)
Her son died because he went to war. Her son died because he made a CHOICE to go to war. You're a legal adult when you sign up for the army and adults can make their own decisions. He made his.
*

I think her issue is whether he should have died. People don't join the military to die; they join the military to serve their country. Death might be a part of that, but no one in the military wants to die for an unjust or dishonorable cause. The issue is whether the war in Iraq is something that people should be dying for. The issue is whether lives should be lost because our government (deliberately) misled the public, and has since changed reasons for the war multiple times, once their original justification--weapons of mass destruction--turned out to be in error.
 
technicolour
post Aug 17 2005, 03:21 PM
Post #459


show me a garden thats bursting to life
********

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 12,303
Joined: Mar 2005
Member No: 115,987



Why, if she is wanting someone to blame something on, then why is she just purely going after Bush? It was the faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq isn't it?


Voice- I am not one of those stupid fanaticals. Those people need to just...die.
And I am not denying her right to mourn over the death of her son. It's just the fact that she's doing it in such a public, over dramatic way that bugs me.

Headphones- If it happens everyday, then why did we only hear about this incident on the news?
 
*mipadi*
post Aug 17 2005, 03:41 PM
Post #460





Guest






QUOTE(sprinkle-the-stars @ Aug 17 2005, 4:21 PM)
Why, if she is wanting someone to blame something on, then why is she just purely going after Bush? It was the faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq isn't it?
*

Bush is Commander in Chief of the military. The military only moves on his command.
 
The Voice
post Aug 17 2005, 03:49 PM
Post #461


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Aug 2005
Member No: 193,097



QUOTE(sprinkle-the-stars @ Aug 17 2005, 3:21 PM)
Voice- I am not one of those stupid fanaticals. Those people need to just...die.
And I am not denying her right to mourn over the death of her son. It's just the fact that she's doing it in such a public, over dramatic way that bugs me.
*


Hey Stars, I know you aren't part of the fanatical right…I was just making a point in reference to the Terri Schiavo incident…I apologize that it seemed like I was branding you with the conservative label. It's not necessarily an overdramatic way…she's trying to get answers...she's trying to raise it as an issue because it is a valid issue. Was Rosa Parks overly dramatic? Or how about Ghandi? In order to make a change, any issue has to be brought infront of the public in a rampant stampede of attention. People must have the image pounded into their head...otherwise the media gets sucked into the next Micheal Jackson or OJ Simpson whirlpool...and the attention is quickly diverted. There's no shaking Cindy and her message, and that's what she intended. She has done a great job, and she's doing it peacefully...this is exactly how american protests were meant to be performed.
 
*disco infiltrator*
post Aug 17 2005, 08:51 PM
Post #462





Guest






QUOTE
Headphones- If it happens everyday, then why did we only hear about this incident on the news?


Because Terri Schaivo's parents took it all the way to the Supreme Court because they couldn't deal with the law that the spouse decides, and not them.
 
haleakala1
post Aug 28 2005, 03:06 AM
Post #463


live.love.surf.
****

Group: Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Feb 2005
Member No: 103,920



I wish....Oh well... not comming true right now sad.gif
 
*disco infiltrator*
post Aug 28 2005, 09:52 AM
Post #464





Guest






^ Can you please read the debate forum rules and actually contribute to the thread?
 
HoodieObsessed
post Aug 28 2005, 12:35 PM
Post #465


^-^
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,676
Joined: Feb 2005
Member No: 107,668



" George W. Bush= dead?, is it possible?"

No. stubborn.gif

EDIT//

QUOTE(headphones @ Aug 28 2005, 6:52 AM)
^ Can you please read the debate forum rules and actually contribute to the thread?
*


uhh, I guess that kinda goes for me too. soo, jsut ignore this post.
 

19 Pages V  « < 17 18 19
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: