Jobber of the Week

Well, the judge refused to have the tube reinserted. No story yet, but it's breaking on TV.

Well, it depends on what you want and what you plan to do. If your primary wish is to have something that will go with you all over the goddamned place without being a burden, I would reccomend one of those little Flash memory players.

Then we keep her going as long as we possibly can? Is that the idea? Because there's other ways besides conciously pulling somebody's feeding tube and letting them starve to death. What about in the possible events of gangrene or heart disease that was discussed a few pages back? Is it murder to not try and keep her alive as long as medical science will allow, or can we say "Well, the Lord wanted to take her" and let the body do it's work without intervention? Expand a little on your position. We couldn't possibly bring back anyone who was wrongly sentenced to the death penalty, either. We have no choice but to trust him to make the right decision, even if he's not the greatest guy in the world. Just like how much we would be disturbed if an innocent person was to put to death under the death penalty, we keep it because we have to keep trust in our system of justice to not do such a thing. The baby will, over time, develop the skills. Terri will never redevelop what she has lost. She isn't just going to snap out of it any day. She has nowhere to go but to degenerate further into misery. So when did her parents get the right to make such a decision? By my system or yours, that makes no sense. This has been disproved via several different methods, the most factual one being that the money reserves have dried up. The second obvious one being that if he was just there for the cash he would have taken the $10 mil and left her to her own devices and whatever her parents had in mind. Oh? You are making this judgment on no more information than what I have, as neither of us know these people personally. We have no contact with Mrs. Schaivo, her caregivers, or her relatives and loved ones. This is just going to be one of those ethical areas where we disagree. I have a great respect for life, but there is a difference between life and prolonged death. Understanding that this been going on for well over a decade, I cannot see any dignity in continuing to keep bodily parts functioning when the chemistry and organisms that make that person who they are have ceased to function and the chances of recovery are zero. Unfortunately for that simple view, living wills are often not enough. You need to seek out someone who will agree to share your view and has power of attorney, as a living will is often not enough to end the struggle and convince the hospital that the plug should be pulled. You're being overdramatic. She is not going to starve to death. She is going to dehydrate to death, which is a different process. In a few days she develops kidney failure and, even if she could have felt pain in the first place, enter a coma.

I have some pro-lifers I'd like you to meet. But beyond that, the last part of your post interests me, because it was something like an idea I was thinking of storing in my head for the next abortion thread. Clearly, we'll never be able to agree on the soundbyte issues, like whether abortion is murder or not. We can't agree on that, but we can come to some sort of level of what an agreed-upon ideal scenario would look like and how to achieve that. Ideally, to achieve this scenario, we will both be able to agree that you cannot make people stop fucking. Whether it's for purposes of procreation or because it feels so good that people want to do it over and over again for pleasure, you cannot make it so that people won't fuck. It's an instinctual thing to want to, as they say in the scientific circles, "tap that." See, I'd be at peace in a world where people weren't getting abortions because the pro-life movement, rather than petitioning government to outlaw the practice, has changed the position of our culture to make abortion a very taboo thing. I would not mind if abortion doctors went out of business because regular use of contraceptives replaced abortion. This comment from you is refreshing, because it reflects the socially conservative position while still maintaining the basic conservative tenets of reductionist government, as opposed to the weird, half-assed conservatism wherein the government is actually expanded in ways that allow the conservatives to get what they want on other issues, like abortion, the culture war, bankruptcy laws, etc.

What he means is some "har har am i not the wittiest man alive" stupid comment like "Oh well, the Asian dolphins weren't big enough to main event anyway." If any country is a haven for despicable practices of animal treatment or capture, it's China. I mean, animal people complain about the baby seal clubbing in Canada, but in Canada at least there's people who care and want to see that stop. In China, there's nobody in any position of power who remotely will care.

Exactly. My life isn't over with "In God We Trust" on money. I questioned it's appearance there as a little kid, but nobody was really able to answer why it was there and I just moved on to something else. But when all these things add together in a great wad, it's not going to be long before everybody else in the world sees my country as Christianity's World Power, and that's not something I'm really proud of. I can live with the money as it is, to be honest. I can live with religious displays on public property as long as that property is being used by the government (i.e. courthouse) and someone can submit something equally non-religious and have it put up, too. Unfortunately, my lack of interest in general religious displays is shattered by the extremist-religious types like what's his name's salute to the killing of Matthew Shephard. Unfortunately, he ruined it for everyone. I can live with public recognition of Christmas since it's both a religious and non-secular holiday, although nativity plays at the public school are an iffy one. I'm generally a pretty accepting guy. I just don't like to see the Ten Commandments on my courthouse and I don't like Under God in the pledge because it wasn't just some vague allegory to a creator, but an intended affirmation of faith in the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...n_annan_reforms More at the link.

Boy, that doesn't sound prejudiced. "All these damn Latinos just won't go away! I guess I better get the hell outta Dodge before they get all uppity or something."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA just what we needed, eh.

1) What is your favorite WM, top to bottom, of all time? 20 2) What is your least favorite WM of all time? 4 3) What is your favorite WM match? Oh jeez, too many to count 4) What is your least favorite WM match? Undertaker VS Diesel. Not only do I dislike both guys, but it broke ground as the only WM match where I fell asleep in the middle. 5) Name some honorable mentions for favorite match: I can't even pick one in the first place, there's just too many. 6) What is your favorite WM venue? Uh... As close to my hometown as possible? 7) What is your least favorite WM venue? The "multiple venues" gimmick at WM2. 8) Going in, which WM card do you think looked the best on paper? 17 9) Going in, which WM card do you think looked worst on paper? 11 10) What do you think is the most underrated WM of all time? I haven't seen them all to judge. 11) What do you think is the most overrated WM of all time? 10 12) What is your favorite WM moment? Hogan VS Rock 13) What is your least favorite WM moment? WM9's main event results in guy who wasn't even promoted as being in the match walking off with the title. 14) Who would you pick as the top three Wrestlemania performers of all time? The Rock HBK Kurt Angle 15) How many of the previous 20 Wrestlemanias have you seen? 11 16) What was the most surprising WM moment to you? After months of bitching about the company, Roddy Piper appears at WM19. In hindsight, too bad it wasn't a one-time appearance. 17) Who was your favorite "special guest" at a WM? Pete Rose, though his participation has been milked to death now. 18) Which WM have you seen the most times? 19, as I was at the show and wanted to see how it came on TV, then watched the DVD multiple times later to see if I could see myself or anyone else I noticed in the crowd (I did see that goof in the Ric Flair robe and wig during Hogan VS McMahon, heh.) 19) Which WM commentary team was your favorite? I think everybody has a soft spot for Gorilla/Jesse. 20) Above all, what do you want to see at WM this year? Uh, Angle/Shawn? Unless you mean my most unrealistic expectations, in which case Brock Lesnar returns, in some crazy booking accident Eddie winds up with the WWE title, and Bret Hart puts Vince McMahon's torn quads in the Sharpshooter while Vince announces that he's giving the company to Shane. Or me, whichever.

Regardless of whether or not he or anyone else she requested it, the burden should fall on his shoulders as her husband to make the decision, or the next closest family member in the event that he wouldn't want the responsibility, etc. This jumping to conclusions/assumptions stuff isn't acceptable, despite your insistance that it's the only way. As I said, you can argue the symantics, as you did, but the point is that without the machine she would die. She is machine-assisted in order to stay alive. You don't assume anything and that's the point. The point is that the partner is the person who will know best, and barring their participation, the closest bilogical family members that can be found. Of course, we should just automatically go with the conservative right-to-life stance and accept it as the only decent answer and not even give the alternatives a fair shake. Good enough. It was explained on the last page by Slickster. Tough. She married the guy, and as her life partner he has the right to step up to the plate on this issue before her parents do. No, I am trusting that someone's life partner knows what that person's best interests are. I mean, considering that they only know each other well enough to have entered into marriage, it doesn't seem that illogical. No, it's not property. It's shared responsiblity for one another. If the shoe was on the other foot and his brain decided to check out and she was left with the switch in her hand, it would be the same thing. I think it shouldn't be outright banned, but it's definitely not for every situation. Still, I don't understand how it's more cruel than letting the body fail on it's own and stop working.

Sure, but someone does have the right to request that they be taken off life support. And you could debate the symantics of that term, but since she won't live without machine assistance, it's life support. And in the abscence of any personal statement on the issue, the responsibility moves on to the partner. If you don't trust your partner to make the right decision for your well-being, either make a living will or don't marry them. It's unfortunate for the parents, but that's the way it is. Repeated, for effect: If you don't trust your partner to make the right decision for your well-being, either make a living will or don't marry them. If you don't make the will, then you are trusting your life partner to do what they believe is best for you. It's unfortunate for the parents that they're her closest biological relatives and can't make the decision themselves, but it was her choice to marry this guy. I'm not going to argue against that. I hope that this wakes people up and we have a humane way out of life support other than simply turning off the machine and letting the body make it's natural collapse.

Read my edit about your posts on the Chomsky thread. If you actually put that much information into your posts rather than just sitting around in controversial subject threads telling everyone their opinions is wrong for not aligning with yours, perhaps you'd be more useful here.

Point is, Mike, with your shitty attitude and need to feel like you're educating people instead of debating with them on the level, you don't make many friends. You are a pox to intelligent discussion on this board and your abscence only that made that more the obvious apparent. The only reason you're still here is because you manage to take your uncredible and unrealistic positions and expand on them with wordy language, making it appear to look like it makes sense. I don't know if you're reading from transcripts of the Rush Limbaugh Show or what. Your posts in the Chomsky thread were actually quite interesting and thorough, but that was one rare spot of intelligence and since then you've just been reading talking points and demonizing people as being either cruel or stupid for their opposite positions. Point is, even Marney would tackle people's points while calling them cretins and wastes of cellular organic matter. You, on the other hand, made a whole post saying RoboJerk pulled stuff out of his ass and called him a child and a sandy vagina. You didn't prove anything. Way to go.

Regardless of the fact that this guy is clearly not the most gracious fella in the world, he is still next on the line of who makes the decision, not the parents. When you enter into marriage, you take joint custody of everything, including your health. Even if you don't like the husband, you can't try to make exceptions and circumvent that just for this. Haahahahahahhahahaha. Best NewsMax Comedy Of The Year.

Glad to see you finally started posting here, Mr. Cheney.

Didn't happen when Mike was gone. He has his moments, but since he came back the "I don't need to reply to this arguement because the person giving it is so obviously retarded that to answer would be beneath me" levels have gone through the roof.

Does anyone else think it's funny that Mike is defending this after complaining in so many gay marriage threads about judges following their interpretation of the Constitution instead of the political leanings of voters?

I read that, that's why I edited. I can't imagine that lying in bed all the time is good for your body, one way or another. Of course, she's basically stuck to it, but that's part of the problem.

Not really, I've heard the opposite. As far as I know, Christmas is two holidays in one. The birth of Christ to those of Christian faith, and a day when Santa Claus rides around in his sleigh and gives presents to those who don't. Fine by me, the holiday is so darn big anymore that I don't see any reason to exclude people, especially since in the end it all helps the economy.

Not really, it makes sense to pursue what is least painful. Looking at the current options, I'd say neither. What the hell is the deal with that? If she was a convicted child-rapist, she'd be quietly put away through injection. If my brain was on the verge of collapse and I had sores on my body from well over 10 years of sitting in bed and everything was going decrepit, I'd be insulted if everyone assumed that i was happy like that and wanted to continue. Then again, in her case, she can't even figure out enough to be insulted about it. Her condition is so sad, it's unfortunate that the people trying to keep her there are considered the "saviors" by so many.

He seems to think the show is going to the junkyard, when it probably does best of all the G4 shows. I don't know what that guy is smoking at all.

Isn't government-recognized religion a bit a problem in the middle east? It seems to make, you know, conflict. And I'm laughing at Mike using OMG THEY'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF CHRISTMAS in serious arguement. That stuff is red meat that only shows up on Rush and Hannity for a reason, you know. Because they can blow it out of proportion.

Well, I don't want to totally sidetrack this thread, but you're fighting a tide that was already fought once before with interracial marraiges, and look where that went. I'm curious to know how much this counts for even if she did. Obviously, someone else must pay to keep her alive.

The judicial branch is meant to make decisions that aren't liked, even if over 50% of the voting populace doesn't like them. That's their job. Congress, on the other hand, doesn't have that role in our checks & balances system. But I sure hope they enjoy making what's left that this woman can experience a prolonged hell. Not that I approve of starvation, either, but it would have gotten the job done.