Quote from: carlb on September 26, 2015, 03:33:40 PM
She was absolutely NOT brain dead! Public opinion was NOT with her "husband."

Quit looking to Wikipedia for your "facts."

http://terrisfight.org/terri-s-case-frequently-asked-questions

I live in Florida and know this case! I just reverenced Wikipedia because it was easy. She was Brain dead as all her doctors testified to! This was a regular war down here throughout this thing and as I said Hillary would love to bring it into this election cycle! Your jumping on it just proves the point!

Quote from: redbeard on September 26, 2015, 03:44:49 PM
I live in Florida and know this case! I just reverenced Wikipedia because it was easy. She was Brain dead as all her doctors testified to! This was a regular war down here throughout this thing and as I said Hillary would love to bring it into this election cycle! Your jumping on it just proves the point!

But explain how this helps Hillary?

Hillary would argue for the man (Terri's husband) wouldn't she?

I cannot see how this is a war on women.

Quote from: redbeard on September 26, 2015, 03:44:49 PM
I live in Florida and know this case! I just reverenced Wikipedia because it was easy. She was Brain dead as all her doctors testified to! This was a regular war down here throughout this thing and as I said Hillary would love to bring it into this election cycle! Your jumping on it just proves the point!

Where you live has NOTHING to do with the facts.  BTW, MY opposition to this Bush is almost exclusively based on his obvious preference for the people south of the  border over AMERICANS. Primarily his OPEN BORDERS beliefs.

She was neither brain dead or in a coma. Her parents, unfortunately had no rights in saving her life. Her scumbag husband needed her DEAD so he used the courts to accomplish that.  But, in this case, the courts did what YOU wanted, so you're ok with that.

Quote from: kroz on September 26, 2015, 03:51:13 PM
But explain how this helps Hillary?

Hillary would argue for the man (Terri's husband) wouldn't she?

I cannot see how this is a war on women.

It's all the screwed up "logic" of the "I hate social issues" crowd.

Apparently he didn't bother to read the FACTS I provided.

QuoteWas Terri dying?

No. Terri suffered from no terminal disease or condition and her cognitive disability did not jeopardize her life in any way. She was simply a physically healthy woman with a profound brain injury.

Was Terri brain dead or in a coma?

No. Brain death is not a catch phrase used to describe a persons condition but rather an authentic medical diagnosis determined when respiration and other reflexes are absent. Coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Terri was neither brain dead, nor was she in a coma.

Were there any machines keeping Terri alive?

Absolutely not. Contrary to media reports, Terri did not require life sustaining equipment such as a ventilator. The only thing keeping Terri alive was the same thing that keeps every one of us alive - food and water.

Was this an "end-of-life" issue?

No. Terri's case should not be confused with legitimate end-of-life cases in which patients are terminally ill and imminently dying. As already stated, Terri was neither ill nor dying.

Was Terri in a "Persistent Vegetative State"?

No. Despite Judge Greer's ruling, and in keeping with the 40 medical affidavits submitted to the court, all evidence proves that Terri was not in a PVS. Terri's behavior and ability to interact with her surroundings did not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state.

Quote from: kroz on September 26, 2015, 03:51:13 PM
But explain how this helps Hillary?

Hillary would argue for the man (Terri's husband) wouldn't she?

I cannot see how this is a war on women.

She would argue the insensitivity toward the grieving family shown by the state to force them into court repeatedly to argue to kill their loved one! Bush even went so far as to remove family rights and attempt to make her a ward of the state!
I'm not sure where I personally stand on this but I have seen what the Dim's do during an election with things like this and it is not a debate we need during this election cycle!

Quote from: carlb on September 26, 2015, 04:00:13 PM
Where you live has NOTHING to do with the facts.  BTW, MY opposition to this Bush is almost exclusively based on his obvious preference for the people south of the  border over AMERICANS. Primarily his OPEN BORDERS beliefs.

She was neither brain dead or in a coma. Her parents, unfortunately had no rights in saving her life. Her scumbag husband needed her DEAD so he used the courts to accomplish that.  But, in this case, the courts did what YOU wanted, so you're ok with that.

Don't you tell me what I am thinking or how I stand on this issue! I pointed out something the opposition will use against us and you go off on a rant! It proves what I said, This social issue is a loser for our party! Were even getting hot and arguing on a conservative forum over it! What do you think the Dim's will do with it?

Quote from: redbeard on September 26, 2015, 04:09:03 PM
Don't you tell me what I am thinking or how I stand on this issue! I pointed out something the opposition will use against us and you go off on a rant! It proves what I said, This social issue is a loser for our party! Were even getting hot and arguing on a conservative forum over it! What do you think the Dim's will do with it?

Translation: I disagree with Readbeard on the value of innocent human life, so I better shut up

Sorry, but MILLIONS will base their vote on this one issue in the Republican primary. Try running a candidate who shuns the issues that matter to them and simply says, "I'm for smaller government" See how far THAT will get you.

If OUR guys agree with Hillary on the "social issues" but want smaller government, kiss your 2016 victory good-bye!

Take YOUR libertarian message to Cruz, Jindal and Carson and see where you get. I don't think they have any intention of following YOUR losing strategy.

Quote from: carlb on September 26, 2015, 04:00:13 PM
Where you live has NOTHING to do with the facts.  BTW, MY opposition to this Bush is almost exclusively based on his obvious preference for the people south of the  border over AMERICANS. Primarily his OPEN BORDERS beliefs.

She was neither brain dead or in a coma. Her parents, unfortunately had no rights in saving her life. Her scumbag husband needed her DEAD so he used the courts to accomplish that.  But, in this case, the courts did what YOU wanted, so you're ok with that.

Then what the hell was she Doc. ?? 

Quote from: carlb on September 26, 2015, 04:17:27 PM
Translation: I disagree with Readbeard on the value of innocent human life, so I better shut up

Sorry, but MILLIONS will base their vote on this one issue in the Republican primary. Try running a candidate who shuns the issues that matter to them and simply says, "I'm for smaller government" See how far THAT will get you.

If OUR guys agree with Hillary on the "social issues" but want smaller government, kiss your 2016 victory good-bye!

Take YOUR libertarian message to Cruz, Jindal and Carson and see where you get. I don't think they have any intention of following YOUR losing strategy.

libertarian? I have never been called that! I support Cruz and know his beliefs and agree with him but I am telling you to win in the general you had better pull in votes from moderates and independents too or we will lose! We need to win before we can make the necessary social changes why would you want to feed the  liberal attack dogs?

Yeah, everyone knows the evangelicals sat out the previous elections because our RINO nominees were mum on the issues important to evangelicals.

If we want to win we must make a principled stand on every issue.... social or not.

The evangelical votes would have won us the election in 2012 and maybe in 2008.

We ignore them at our own peril.

In the past we have foolishly given up the social issues to gain independents and moderates.  Did it work?  Are we going to keep making the same mistake?

Reagan was conservative on social issues and won democrats!!

When are we going to learn?

Quote from: kroz on September 26, 2015, 04:34:44 PM
Yeah, everyone knows the evangelicals sat out the previous elections because our RINO nominees were mum on the issues important to evangelicals.

If we want to win we must make a principled stand on every issue.... social or not.

The evangelical votes would have won us the election in 2012 and maybe in 2008.

We ignore them at our own peril.

In the past we have foolishly given up the social issues to gain independents and moderates.  Did it work?  Are we going to keep making the same mistake?

Reagan was conservative on social issues and won democrats!!

When are we going to learn?

Redbeard operates from a position of FEAR because he firmly believes the American People are with Hillary, Pelosi and Obama on these issues. Our candidates must never say what they REALLY think because THAT will drive them to the atheistic Socialists.  He's learned NOTHING from the Trump example. So many, even among our own, believe the PC lie pushed by the left.

Thank GOD the best candidates aren't operating from a position of fear this election cycle.

People who would be on our side sit out elections because they're consistently forced to choose between Democrat and Democrat Lite. THIS YEAR we have a clear difference.

Quote from: redbeard on September 26, 2015, 04:09:03 PM
Don't you tell me what I am thinking or how I stand on this issue! I pointed out something the opposition will use against us and you go off on a rant! It proves what I said, This social issue is a loser for our party! Were even getting hot and arguing on a conservative forum over it! What do you think the Dim's will do with it?

Bingo! And that is the whole point of what AP is doing in thois article.

Quote from: kroz on September 26, 2015, 04:34:44 PM
Yeah, everyone knows the evangelicals sat out the previous elections because our RINO nominees were mum on the issues important to evangelicals.

If we want to win we must make a principled stand on every issue.... social or not.

The evangelical votes would have won us the election in 2012 and maybe in 2008.

We ignore them at our own peril.

In the past we have foolishly given up the social issues to gain independents and moderates.  Did it work?  Are we going to keep making the same mistake?

Reagan was conservative on social issues and won democrats!!

When are we going to learn?

Reagan's message was much more then the social issues! Carter was week on defense Ronnie exploited that! The economy was also his main issue with carters high unemployment and interest rates trough the roof! Communism
spreading through central and south America with the Cuba influence! Ronnie had a lot of other issues that were his main message but he never gave up on his social issues either. he prioritized his message!

Quote from: redbeard on September 26, 2015, 04:51:51 PM
Reagan's message was much more then the social issues! Carter was week on defense Ronnie exploited that! The economy was also his main issue with carters high unemployment and interest rates trough the roof! Communism
spreading through central and south America with the Cuba influence! Ronnie had a lot of other issues that were his main message but he never gave up on his social issues either. he prioritized his message!

Are you saying THAT'S ALL CRUZ IS?

You're the one who says they need to shut up about THOSE issues.  WE are not arguing with Cruz' message. YOU are.  YOU are the one demanding that they not talk about EVERYTHING.  That's what a campaign is about. To learn WHO the candidate is.

Quote from: carlb on September 26, 2015, 04:46:54 PM
Redbeard operates from a position of FEAR because he firmly believes the American People are with Hillary, Pelosi and Obama on these issues. Our candidates must never say what they REALLY think because THAT will drive them to the atheistic Socialists.  He's learned NOTHING from the Trump example. So many, even among our own, believe the PC lie pushed by the left.

Thank GOD the best candidates aren't operating from a position of fear this election cycle.

People who would be on our side sit out elections because they're consistently forced to choose between Democrat and Democrat Lite. THIS YEAR we have a clear difference.

You haven't a clue what I believe so stop putting words in my mouth! The liberal spin machine will attack, attack and attack us on these issues when there are so many others that they cannot defend! Why would you want to give them ammo to fire back on?
immigration, boarder security, the economy, Obama care, the state of our military, ISIS and terrorism! These are all issues higher on the priority list to average Americans and the Dim's are weak on all of them! Trade, Iran's Nuclear treaty, Israel, Our allies, Russia, The middle east disaster brought on by this administration! entitlements, jobs, respect for law enforcement, law and order  even race relations! The left has no defense on these issues! Why give them the issue that they want to talk about! Why do you think Hillary's major thing is " A War on Women"? Because she is so empty on everything else she wants a social issue debate and you want to give her one! God help us!