Jeb Bush, do you have balls, or not?

This is where we find out if Jeb Bush has the kind of stones that Judge Roy Moore had. Sometimes, the law, and/or the government, does something so obscene, so repulsive, that resistance to it by those with the power and will to do so is their moral and ethical obligation. The Supreme Court’s ruling that Terri Schiavo may be removed from her feeding tube is such an action.

Judge Roy Moore stood up in this kind of situation in the Ten Commandments monument incident. He knew WRONG when he saw it. In that case, the Ten Commandments–the base for ALL our law–to say you can’t display them in a courthouse? Bullshit. He stood up for what was right. And he paid the price for doing so.

Personally, I would hope that Jeb Bush would have the stones to order Terri Schiavo protected by Florida state troopers, or the National Guard if necessary, to prevent her murder. For that is what it iwould be, in a case where there IS doubt about her intentions.

I doubt Jeb Bush has the kind of stones Judge Roy Moore had. But I’d love to see it.

No I think you’re confused. The object of trolling is to not be so ridiculous that nobody thinks you’re serious.

I had no idea the Ten Commandments served as the base for the gambling laws in states like Nevada.


You get that her brain is literally mush, right? She’s already dead, they’re just using machines to keep her meat going through the motions of life so it doesn’t rot. (Harder for the parents to get all weepy over a rotting daughter, dontchaknow) The law is explicit and clear on the issue, and the fact that her parents “know she wants to go to the mall, and look she’s almost smiling” doesn’t change the fact that she didn’t want to be kept alive in a medical situation like this, nor does it change the fact that HER BRAIN IS FUCKING LIQUID. There is no situation concievable in which she will ever be anything even vaguely resembling a person again. She’s a piss and shit machine, and that’s all she’ll ever be. Why would you want to keep someone you loved in that grim parody of life? What kind of love is it to disgrace the memory of your child like that?

And why do assholes like you get such an incredible hardon for interfering with her private medical decisions? Particularly when you’re supposed to be the “keep government out of our private lives” people?

Not to mention all those anti-adultery laws that Roy and Jeb have sworn to uphold, and the ones that say no god shall be worshipped before Yahweh.

You also have to decide which ten commandments you’re going to use.

I miss ExecutionerFour. It was a shame we had to put him down.

Sure, let’s compound stupid unconstitutional pandering legislation with ignoring the Separation of Powers. :oops:

“We”? Two months of membership makes you some kind of an incumbent?

Some day you too can have your medical wishes overriden by the governor.

Yeah, I love how some conservative judges are so keen on having a stone tablet of the ten commandments in their court room, but convienently leave out the punishments for breaking these commandments.

A few of my favorites from that site…

Malachi 2:1-4: And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, … behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.

I would love to see a judge dole out that punishment.

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.

So much for equal rights for gays…

It irritates me to no end how people selectively interpret the bible, a book of fiction, in an attempt to run their lives and force their beliefs upon our nation at large; while “forgetting” to mention parts like these.

To stay on topic, I firmly hold that these parents are horribly self centered bastards. To imprison your own child in such a horrible condition is beyond reprehensible.

Your daughter is braindead. Let her pass on.

While I support the decision to withdraw care from this patient, it should be noted that Terry is not, in fact, braindead.

Braindeath = death. Period. Doctors will refuse to keep someone on life support who is braindead, just like they refuse to put a dead person on life support. Those resources are for the living. The exception is for potential organ donors, who can stay on life support until after the organ harvest. Since braindead people are dead, it is legal to operate on them in order to extract their organs.

It would be illegal to do anything like that to Terry, who is in a persistent vegetative state. She has some brain activity, as evidenced by her ability to breathe on her own. That is a function of the brainstem (heart activity, in contrast, does not require brain function). She probably has a few primitive reflexes left. This might include eye motion, which hopeful loved ones might confuse for willed behavior. In reality, though, she is very unlikely to have any of the higher cortical function we associate with being human. And her condition is very unlikely to improve. For many people in that situation, the most humane option is to stop any treatment intended to extend lifespan, and let nature take its course.

For some reason, we’re obsessed with increasing the quantity of life, but not the quality. :?

Didn’t you hear? We’re living in a culture of life

Yes, magnet is correct, of course - I was being imprecise. She does, in fact, have a functioning brain stem - it’s only her higher cognitave functions - well, all cognitave functions - well, just about everything in her skull, frankly - that’s turned to mush. Frankly, I’d support keeping her on life support, with the caveat that her family had to spend the rest of their fucking lives feeding, wiping, changing, and bating her, in their own homes. And, of course, paying for any further care out of their own pockets. It’s awfully fucking easy for them to concoct ridiculous fucking fantasies about how she “just wants to go to the mall” and “is going to get better” when they’re several steps removed from the heart-destroying reality of her daily care, and not paying for this mockery of life themselves. If I sound bitter, it’s because I think these people are dispicable. This battle isn’t about their desire to protect the life of their daughter; it’s about their hatred for her former husband, and an absolute refusal to value their daughter’s wishes or dignity above their own selfish sentimentality. The interviews conducted with these people are absolutely fucking staggering examples of utter denial of reality.

Yeah I was mistaken of the term as well. However I still stand with quatoria on this one. The battle her parents are fighting is horrible.

Well, that shut him up right quick.

And here I thought we’d hear the pitter-patter of thumping Bibles in rhythm with our flames :(

He’s loaning his stones to Jeb. I don’t think Jesus had a problem with loaning stones, just casting them. Or rather, the first one. I’m not sure if the second stone required sinlessness or not, you’d need to talk to a theologian on that matter.

But anyway, loaning them is A-OK. As long as you don’t loan them with usury.

He’s loaning his stones to Jeb. I don’t think Jesus had a problem with loaning stones, just casting them. Or rather, the first one. I’m not sure if the second stone required sinlessness or not, you’d need to talk to a theologian on that matter.

But anyway, loaning them is A-OK. As long as you don’t loan them with usury.[/quote]

I thought you went to hell for letting another man use your stones. No?

Hadn’t thought of that. Theology’s tricky; no wonder we have judges.

I think a case could be made that it’s okay as long as you don’t lie down in the process of stone-sharing. As a tangent, an even flimsier defense could be mounted that, strictly speaking, even man laying down with man is okay so long as no man is currently laying down with woman at the same time. And I’m pretty sure that general relativity shows that “same time” is an impossibility. If I were a theologian, I’d probably see if one of my paralegals could research for any precedents along that line.

That all depends on whether or not the Ten Commandments specifies a Euclidian framework only, though, so it might be moot.

Edit: Great. A misplaced closing quote tag made me bear false witness as to who said what. Nolo contendre.