It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLI: Caveat Emptor: The Selling of The GOP's Soul To The Religious Right.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 03:24 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again....if that woman and her family were poor or black or hispanic or gay or any other marginialized member of our society, we wouldn't bee hearing a peep from either the congress or the religious wrong...that is the hypocricy....they are using that poor woman's situition to make political hay. Us liberals have strong moral principles too no matter what mush loosebowels and his ilk on Fox one I know is in favor of abortion or approves of it as a form of birth control...BUT what we are in favor of is a person having the freedom to make that decision rightly or wrongly for themselves. It is absolutely nobodies business whatsoever except for the people immediately involved, certianly not a bunch of scantamonious politicans or religious fanatics. As for the Schaivo case has nothing to do with abortion...she is incapable of feeding herself or doing anything for that matter and If it were'nt for that feeding tube, she would have been dead years ago...that is no life and no amount of posturing will change that.

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 04:03 PM
"Are you guys not getting the point of all of this? You're talking about a 'revolution' when it is clear that many of you have gotten what you wanted: A society where human beings are valued based on their 'utility' and 'quality of life' alone. Bush and the 'religious right' lost. The population -- and many on ATS -- seem to think that human beings do not have inherent value. In Florida we have a situation where a woman is being put to death because some people -- other than herself -- have decided that her life is no longer valuable. That, my friends, is a clear triumph for those who hate the religious right. It is a clear triumph for those who think that a human's value is a matter of taste instead of innateness.

So why do you want a 'revolution'? Your side won. The courts, apparently, are filled with people who do not believe in the sanctity of human life. You would only be revolting against them... people whom you apparently agree with. Don't you get it? The american people believe that it's ok to starve someone to death if it is judged that their life is no longer valuable. The american people think that it's ok to create embryos solely for the sake of experimentation. The american people think that anyone who believes in human value is a 'religious nut"

Enough of the rhetoric already.
Terry Schiavo had a heart attack due to Her Bulimic condition. she was intentionally starving herself to death, her body began to cannibalize itself to sustain its requirement for nutrition. This is WHY she had a heart attack, and why it took far longer to bring her back, and why she has permanent brain damage, as 6 days of medical expert testimony witnessed too. Thereis NO cerebral cortex activity. She has not displayed any activity that could be termed brain active. You, and not any of the other rabid people trying to break into her hospital room are in any capacity able to make a decision that myriad experts have already testified too.
The only people claiming she has Brain activity are family, lawyers and seekers of the limelight.

As to the sanctity of life, she is being kept in a state of existance, nothing more. Her "life" ended with the heart attack. SHe was brought back into existance by technology that did not exist 10 years before her cardiac failure.

Which brings us to the point obviously overlooked by the screaming evangelists; technology may come to the point where people are forced to exist contrary to their wishes. Terrys friends and husband were interviewd by the court to determine the state of mind terry had in regards to her being forced into this condition. the court determined she would not have wanted it, and ruled as such. The court is the arbitrator of law in the United States, not the Religious right

Congress had no authority to involve itself, the federal court had no cause, the Supreme Court Wisely excused itself from this issue, as there are NO constitutional grounds for Federal Government to involve itself ( full faith and credit clause).
This will come back to bite the screaming evangelists and the republican party, and rightfully so.

Terry is being forced to exist, by people intent on grabbing political power at any cost. It is Sickening.

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 04:05 PM
Here here toolmaker!

I wish I could state my case as eloquently as you!!!

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 07:17 PM
I 2nd that.

I mean you can hardly say that the supreme court is Liberal, the fact that they refused to intervene should tell you something.

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 07:27 PM
And another thing which is completely off topic.....

Why doesn't congress investigate claims into Abhu Graib, or Enron, or Halliburton, or Bechtel...........or an ILLEGAL WAR, AND OCCUPATION, or the apointing of an US president by the supreme court??????!!!!!

Because that would raise too many questions..........of course!!!!

Can't have that now can we? Of course not!!!

Let's all concern ourselves with insignifigant BS in the meantime to occupy our concern..yes yes yes !

Hell you can't blame them...take one look around this forum, and see what the sheep are concerning themselves with. If I ruled I would do the same.

You can't fool all the people all the time...........but you can (please finish)

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:15 PM

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
You can't fool all the people all the time...........but you can (please finish)

give me money???

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 09:46 PM
As part of my springtime resolution to be positive I am going to continue suggesting ways that people can feel better about their own government. ATS thread on involvement

Citizens often complain that government does things without the citizenry knowing about the actions until after the fact.

    Google-5million + links Open meeting laws:
    does your state/province have them? If not then what are YOU going to do to get them passed?
    were they ever proposed?
    if so, then who opposed them?

Historically Mexico was ruled by one party even though it had a multi-party democracy. For decades violence and discord swirled around political centers. By continuing citizenry involvement the political process changed. New York City (Tweed) changed, Chicago, Soviet Union and the list goes on and is very long.

All these people brought about change by being involved. They got 'into the process' and made their world a different place. Alabama, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Arizona- all have open meeting laws.

As many have seen of late, local political power in some instances is supreme to state power- Terri Schiavo ATS thread

There was a 1970's saying that could again be appropriate:
up the people

Empower yourself, get invloved at the local level



[edit on 26-3-2005 by JoeDoaks]

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 09:58 PM
Actually, i thought Mexico has still only had one party in government.

This also goes for Japan, there was only 1 year in 50+ that the Japanese government has not being ruled by Koizumi's party.

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 12:08 AM
Georgetown U more than a dozen political parties in Mexico.

Three main parties
Mexico’s three main political parties, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), National Action Party (PAN) and Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), are defining and watchfully preparing strategies so that mistaken notions of their internal breakdowns will disappear in 2005. This so they will be strong for the presidential race in 2006.

Wikipedia Mexico
On July 2, 2000, Vicente Fox Quesada of the opposition "Alliance for Change" coalition, headed by the National Action Party (PAN), was elected president, in what are considered to have been the freest and fairest elections in Mexico's history. Fox began his six-year term on December 1, 2000. His victory ended the Institutional Revolutionary Party's (PRI) 71-year hold on the presidency.
The Mexican Congress is a plural institution that is playing an increasingly important role in Mexico's democratic transition. No single party holds an absolute majority in either house of Congress.

The fox election was a 'watershed' event in Mexico. While Fox is tied to many of the PRI politicos, the PAN has a different agenda.

Involvement in local politics finally paid off for opposition members.

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:08 AM

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

The fox election was a 'watershed' event in Mexico. While Fox is tied to many of the PRI politicos, the PAN has a different agenda.

Involvement in local politics finally paid off for opposition members.


71 years, wow. Is Fox considered right-wing or left?

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 08:50 PM
Fox right or left? I knew at one time but it seemed so unimportant. The revolutionaries (PRI- out of power) became what they revolted against. An old Mexican saying:
'In a revolution the only things that change are the names (faces).'

70 years in power the PRI was a true one party state. Turmoil erupted from time to time and political pay-off was part of the system. Lots of Americans and others do not realize that in much of the world what are called bribes one place are nothing more than fees in another. Long time back there was a checkpoint about 15 km south of the Arizona/Mexico border (Nogales). With a $10 spot an automobile was pretty much waived through. Without the $10 hours upon hours would be waisted waiting for the inspector to arrive from some distant place.

Was this a racket? The guards only got about $5 a week and everything else had to come from fees collected. It was the system. Harbor fees, beach fees, lots of fees. For a country with almost no effective tax capabilities these 'fees' paid for the roads, guarsds, police and other parts of government many people take for granted in other parts of the world.

Back to Fox and PAN. The oligarchy (landed business class) quickly took over the PRI. For decades the PRI ruled Mexico. Finally, after much turmoil and disappointment the Presidential election changed the face of Mexican politics.

Civic organizations fielded more than 80,000 trained electoral observers, foreigners were invited to witness the process, and numerous independent "quick count" operations and exit polls validated the official vote tabulation.

With 43% of the vote the dominate party was changed. The PAN held the presidency. These were involved people, not mere complainers. This is what it takes to change the course of a nation.

2003 mid-term elections:
. . . the fact that 59% percent of the electorate chose not to bother to cast their votes in the mid-terms indicates a growing disenchantment with what some believe is business-as-usual in Mexican politics.

Were the expectations unrealistic or was there a merger of the new and the old? Fox has been unable to pass some laws and other that were passed have not made necessary changes.

Some analysts estimate that the illegal economic sector may make up about 25% of Mexico's GDP. Efforts to combat crime have been met by huge protests demanding that the government provide decent-paying legitimate jobs first.

People need income. Even crime related income is better than no income. Mexico is a country in turmoil. NAFTA increased revenues into Mexico but has done nothing to alleviate underemployment and crime.

More change will come to Mexico. How and in what fashion I don't know.


posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:00 PM
Good post!

I don't see Mexico collapsing, it's like what North Korea is to China. If it collapses, the U.S border will be flooded so the U.S will do everything it can to support Mexico.

As for politics, i think that a majority of people are just interested in feeding themselves rather then voting.

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 04:22 PM

WASHINGTON — Over a roller-coaster week, the Terri Schiavo case demonstrated both the political gains religious conservatives have achieved over the last generation and the challenges they still face in building a consensus for their agenda.

The aggressive intervention by President Bush and congressional Republicans in the conflict underscored their commitment to social conservative causes, while the muted, hesitant response from most Democrats highlighted their uncertainty about handling values issues after the 2004 elections.
The Growing Divide

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 05:08 PM
Sorry Fred, you are right.

Back to this thread

Yahoo news
. . . opposition was so widespread that even decisive majorities of Republicans, conservatives and white evangelical Christians said Bush and Congress should not have intervened.

Things like this really 'hack' me. I have some acquaintances that rail on the sanctity of life and God said . . . stuff. Well hey:
    folks, 15 years! IF God was going to pull that woman out of her coma he would have done it long ago. Without modern medical miracles she would have died long, long ago.

They really think I am jaded (heard that from someone on ATS too) and cursed. I would rather all this energy be placed on helping people that are helpable. Look at all the water purifiers that could have been bought with just the money WAISTED on this Schiavo escapade.

Politics plain and simple. I laughed when Bushco made his 11th hour move- just like Jeb and the State Police. A political gamble that fizzled.

While I'm on a roll here-
    with Jeb, where is that 'rule of law' thing? What a joke- sent in the State Police

    back to G.W.- half the world in turmoil caused by HIS administration's antics and some vegetative woman (who can't vote
    ) takes us away from issues that need solving.

All the voters out there need to be reminded on election day what their Congressman/Senator was doing during the Schiavo escapade. Pat Robertson and the rest of 'those guys' bit the bitter root on this one. They were looking for a cause to justify something- this was not it.

As you can probably tell, I agree with the husband.

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:23 PM
The polls are like 80 percent against the action. Not wanting to pint fingers just tot he right, but the senate Dems, pehaps stung by the election did a good job of rolling over as they figured there would be popular support for this debacle. However, unusual for congress nobody got a poll. Howmany of these "morality" minded 'side with life" supporters would have managed to out of town if they new the numbers of that poll??

posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 05:44 PM
Democrats didnt roll over, they got out of the way.

This was a no brainer, the only reason the schiavo case got as far as it did was tom delay trying to avoid investigation of his crimes. The Religious Right would have been shut down otherwise. But, Tom delay is in need of serious political muscle, the religious right needed someone to carry their water, so they got into bed together. Why frist and president bush entered the fray is beyond me, they should have known better.

The actions taken by delay, frist and the president are unconstitutional, and will result in longer term damage to themselves and their party. How much damage depends on how long delay is allowed to remain in his seat. sooner or later he will be forced to resign.

The Democrats are smart to maintain a low profile. The only result would be to direct the fury of the religious right towards themselves.
Let them eat their own young.

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 10:39 AM

The babyboombers should be euthanized because they caused this mess

Surely you don't believe that. The ones that created this mess are the same ones whose parents and grandparents created it. The Bushes, the Harrimans, the rockafellors and every other rich son of a bi--- that took control from the turn of the century, [the 19th century,] and of course the legions of young Republicans that have grown-up never giving a # about anyone but theirselves. I've read you posts and I know you don't really believe the majority of boomers are guilty. Jeez--we raised all the hell in the world to create change--yeah many sold out to responsibility when they grew-up but we all should--But most of us grew-up not trusting our government, it's nothing new, believe me. The government has just become more visible. Hell, I don't even like my own party anymore. I'm open for a movement to the center as long as we remember the principles of fairness, humanity and the golden rule.

Grover-you're right about the hypocracy of the Terri Schaivo case. There was just a thread on a African American woman's baby getting the ax in Texas because he was malformed and too costly to keep alive.

[edit on 8-4-2005 by kazi]

[edit on 8-4-2005 by kazi]

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:34 PM
I can see that the fight still goes on.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:57 PM
I may have been a bit premature, but after yesterdays spanking of ultra conservative precepts and values, the looming war I spoke of 3 years ago may be at hand.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by FredT

It has already begun, according to some Trotskyist...err...I mean Neoconservatives, are now looking for cover and trying to turn the tables on the rest of the party, they are saying that people are throwing the word neocon around as if it's a slur. Soon if you are using the short Neocon word you'll be called an anti-Semite.
And just like a "Chicken Hawk" to run hide, and blame someone else for their failures.

One thing I'm thankful for, I'm thankful that Bush and others have exposed themselves as the Big-Government, corporatists they are. Bush has put the "death nail" for the Necon movement. -Thanks, W.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Gateway]

<< 1    3 >>

log in