WOW! A MUST READ!

[GoingNova]

Not going to say much, other than read this article about Terri Schiavo. I am curious to hear what people say about the case after reading this, so feel free to post your thoughts on the subject.

Terri Schiavo - Jucicial Murder (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,hentoff,62489,6.html)

[GoingNova]

Anyone?

[ski2bfree]

The article is grossly inaccurate. As far as all the articles I've read are concerned, Schiavo is in a persistent vegitative state, which means she lacks consciousness even though she may appear to be conscious. She can't feel pain, understand language, or control her responses to any sort of stimulus, and there is no hope of recovery :(. Check out www.cnn.com, they had a good article written by health care professionals about the case.

Personally, I think it's cruel to keep her alive, and the whole case has just convinced me to have a living will drafted. What really gets me going is that many of the conservatives arguing that she should be kept alive have argued for years that homosexual marriage is wrong because it is unnatural, yet are so intent on keeping this woman alive unnaturally :confused:. Furthermore, if social conservatives would have allowed stem cell research to be funded more liberally, there may already have been a treatment for Schiavo so she would have a chance to recover.

[jaws]

IMHO there are so many aspects and facets to this case that it's hard for me to come to an opinion having not read all the documents involved.

Based on my religious inclinations (Judaism), I personally tend to err on the side of life, and I would've done so in said case. But that's just me.

[GoingNova]

As far as all the articles I've read are concerned, Schiavo is in a persistent vegitative state, which means she lacks consciousness even though she may appear to be conscious.

Folks, this is a long post, but the last from me on the subject.

Here are SOME FACTS you may or may not have know. They are not opinion, but fact and undisputable. You decide if they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT have been mentioned in any article about this case.

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. PERIOD. As defined BY CURRENT FLORIDA LAW, SHE WAS NOT IN A PVS! Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:

Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)

NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley $10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell $65,607.00
Atty Steve Nilson $7,404.95
Atty Pacarek $1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) $4,511.95
Atty George Felos $397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank $55,459.85

Michael Schiavo $10,929.95

Total $545,852.34

SO MUCH FOR IT BEING USE TO PAY FOR HER MEDICAL EXPENSES!

Rest in peace Terri. :(

[ski2bfree]

That's just the thing, people keep quoting statements made by some physicians stating that she had hope for recovery, which just isn't true. The extensive damage done to her central nervous system made it impossible for her to recover without some kind of stem cell therapy, which there has not been enough research on to conduct in a clinical setting.

I'm a neuroscience major so I've been studying the case in some of my classes. Those video clips the media were showing of Terri were really brief clips taken of specific instances in which she appeared conscious. Despite appearances, she was in a persistent vegitative state. The higher centers of her brain, including much of her prefrontal cortex, was pretty much destroyed. Meaning, if you pinched her arm, you would see a reflex action in which her arm would recoil, but she would not have "felt" pain in the sense that we do. If you walked in front of her, her eyes would track you reflexively, but she would not "see" you in the sense that we see. It was as if someone took her input-processing-response cognitive loop and removed the processing portion.

All in all, the moral of the story is HAVE A LIVING WILL! Well, at least that what I've gotten from it.

[ski2bfree]

Oh, and as a side note, gotta love how all that money went to everyone except for Terri. I hate the ****in legal system.

[GoingNova]

All in all, the moral of the story is HAVE A LIVING WILL! Well, at least that what I've gotten from it.

Nicely Said! AMEN! :applaus:

[jaws]

I'm a neuroscience major so I've been studying the case in some of my classes.


Hooray! There's another neuroscience major here! Now I don't' feel so lonely!

[MrsD]

Here's what I KNOW - I heard today around 11:00 that Terri Shiavo had passed away. My heart sunk even though I knew it was inevitable. Then I cried, privately. God bless and rest her soul.

[Mattok]

i know its sad but its about time. i mean how would you like to starve to death??? i didnt read all of nova's article but i did paruze it and the bottom line is(no pun intended)

"In this country, even condemned serial killers are not executed in this way."

referring of course to starving to death, and this lady has been like this for what 10 years?? more?? jiminy christmas people! i myself would never have wanted that. everybody dies in the end, ya gotta let go sometime. i mean if this would have happend when people first found out she was a rudabega, they could have been turough with the greeving process and on with their lives. its sad but it was gonna happen

[SALly]

It just makes me want to make sure I have a living will so if I am ever in that situation I can die long before 15 years. It makes me mad when people say "err on the side of life". That's barely life. I know we shouldn't decide who should live and who should die, but realistically if she was being kept alive with tubes- wasn't someone already controlling her life? How many of you would want to live 15 years of your life like that???

[SALly]

It would be fine by me- we should execute serial killers that way. That is something good that could come out of all this......

[GoingNova]

How many of you would want to live 15 years of your life like that???

I apologize in advance for this post. I try to NEVER get into debates this fiercely, but this case has genuinely depressed and upset me. I am not directing anger at anyone, just frustration over this case. This “rant” is not directed at anyone here, please, no one take offense.

In answer to your question, yes, I would want to live like Terri if I were in the same situation. So, you would be killing me against my wishes. THAT is why you err on the side of LIFE.

Do you realize how dangerous a line we walk? Do you want people deciding which lives are worth living, and which lives are not? It is already happening, which is why I am so outraged over this case: DO YOU WANT DOCTORS DECIDING WHO LIVES AND WHO DIES, LIKE THE GRONINGEN PROTOCOL? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151901,00.html) I really do not want to start arguing euthanasia here, I am arguing the FACT that this woman's wishes WERE NOT KNOWN, and the courts had NO RIGHT TO KILL HER, which is what they did. Her husband’s statement was hearsay, plain and simple, and the judge was GROSSLY wrong for even admitting it in the court record, let alone basing his court decision on it. That is the outrage here, that a judge who was so obviously wrong was not overturned. For the record, hearsay is defined as Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony. For Michael to say, “Terri said” is hearsay. Combine that with the fact that he waited seven years to say it. Combine that with the fact that the man has a new wife and two children, why is he even still having a say in Terri’s life? He moved on, he has a new common-law wife, her family should now have the final say! How did this all happen? Why did the judge ignore MOUNDS of evidence and rule to grant Michel’s wish? Simple, the judge in this case quite obviously had a predetermined notion, quite similar to what a lot a people have: who would want to live that way! AND THAT IS AN OUTRAGE! Judges are supposed to make decisions based on evidence (when it is presented, and it has been in this case), not ON PERSONAL OPINIONS.

Would you want to live life blind and unable to hear? Helen Keller did, and just look what she accomplished. How many people today, if they had the sad misfortune of knowing their baby was going to be born blind and deaf, would simply terminate the pregnancy? Can you look at any mentally handicapped person, and just say, “Who wants to live like that. Have him killed. Sound far fetched?

I am not trying to pass judgment here. In fact, I am asking that people DO NOT PASS JUDGEMENT. Do not assume ANYTHING when it comes to people living or dying. And when you do not know for sure, assume they want to live.

[ski2bfree]

Sweet! Another Neuro-nerd! And from Suffolk County? Where do you go to school?

[jaws]

Grad student in Neurobiology at Stony Brook

[Djeuve]

You raise good points, GoingNova. Points which people, in their own personnal fear of pain and suffering, will easilly overlook... This included myself, I HATE pain, but you are right. I can't say this is the same for others, or that my opinion would not change if I were to find myself in such a condition as Terri's.

And I can't believe the way they did it...just let her startve, which had been going on for days and STILL she was alive... Stop people's suffering because you think it's bad by MAKING THEM SUFFER MORE?

Is she alive, still? I'm slow in getting such news from Germany, plus with time difference...

Another sad thing is when people only consider the cost and time it takes to take care of people in such a condition, right away putting a value on someone's life. Delicate delicate matter...

As for hearsay, a lot of people mention in passing that they would rather die than lose both legs or some similar comment. Wether they mean it at the time is irrelevant, since they could only really know for sure if they found themselves in that condition. There is no way to ask Terri about her current wishes...

It's like what you Americans often say (not meant as a criticism...it's just something I hear from you guys often): Shoot first, ask questions later.

[ski2bfree]

People keep saying that they way she died was so horrible, starving to death, yet there are so many people in our own country who can't afford food on a daily basis. I just can't help but wonder, why don't inner-city minorities in our nation get the same type of sympathetic publicity that Terri got? Why don't we have people picketing the government to take action and help the homeless? As cynical as this may sound, I doubt anyone would have cared about Terri if she were black or latino. "God bless the suffering, so long as I can relate to them."

[Nightwolf04]

although this sounds harsh I'm going to say it it's nice that she has died, poor girl, it was for the best, she ahd no lfie as it was Rest in peace terri.

[Angry White Man]

People keep saying that they way she died was so horrible, starving to death, yet there are so many people in our own country who can't afford food on a daily basis.

I live in NYC. We have FOOD STAMPS, FOOD KITCHENS, FOOD DRIVES, CHURCHES, SOUP KITCHENS and a whole slew of programs to help people. There are MORE THAN enough social programs to provide TEMPORARY RELIEF for people who do not have enough money to pay for food. The key is, it should be TEMPORARY, not permenant. There is no reason to feel sorry for people who are hungry, there are enough programs out there to help, and if you feel sorry, you can donate to them or volunteer to help. I give enough of my OWN MONEY to charity, and I recent the government, on top of my donations, taking additional money to do it. The government does not belong in the charity business.

I just can't help but wonder, why don't inner-city minorities in our nation get the same type of sympathetic publicity that Terri got?

Terri was an innocent victim. When you live in poverty but you don't work, don't go to school, have children just to get more government handouts, and do take the iniative to do anything to better yourself, you are not a victim. There is a HUGE difference.

Why don't we have people picketing the government to take action and help the homeless?

Because it is not the government's job to give you a house! I am not college educated. All I have is a high school diploma. I BUST MY ASS so I can afford my house. Why am I expected to work hard for my house and then pay TAXES OUT MY BUTT so that some lazy person who does not want to work can have a free house? Where in the United States Constitution does it say that the government has to provide housing for people? Please show me. If you say "Promote the General Welfare", then what about the government giving me a new car. Mine is old, and I want a new one. I can't afford it because my mortagage payment is to high, so, I want a new one and I want the government to pay for it. Ok? While we are picketing for a house for everyone, we might as well picket for cars too. And Air Conditioners. It gets very hot here in NYC. Oh, and heaters too, since it is cold here in the winter.

As cynical as this may sound, I doubt anyone would have cared about Terri if she were black or latino.


I want to be certain I understand you. You believe that the only reason we cared about Terri was because she was white? If that is the case, I am sorry, but that is utterly ridiculous. Please support your belief with some facts, if you don't mind. What makes you believe that? When I see A PERSON suffering, I feel bad for that person, I do not gage my sympathy on a race or religion.


Cutting to the point: people need to stop looking to the government to solve their personal problems. We as individuals are responsible for our own destiny. People need to stop blaming their lack of success on race, religion, beliefs, whatever, and take responsibility for themselves. The simple fact is, there are successful people OF EVERY RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, etc in this country, which proves it can be done. People need to get off their asses and do it, and stop waiting for a check from someone else to make it happen. Just ask Bill Cosby.

[ski2bfree]

Wow, right wing much? When you say that people have the responsibility to better their own lives and make generalizations about welfare recipients, I don't think you're looking at the big picture. Yes, people have the responsibility to better their own lives, but many are not able to. Is it fair that just because someone is born into the lucky sperm club with trust fund and all that he or she has a permanent advantage over someone born into poverty? It's hard to improve on your own when the schooling that you're offered is sub-standard.
And, if you're so concerned that you're paying twice with charity and then taxes, GET A ****IN RECEIPT AND RECORD THE DONATION! It's tax-deductable. We all have a responsibility to our fellow citizens, it's called patriotism.
As far as my last statement regarding Terri being white, I'm just speaking from observations of past court cases. Most well-known high-profile court cases are involving white, middle class people. How often do you see a well-publicized murder trial for a gang shooting? The reporting usually dies out after the report of the initial crime. But then, a white middle-class suburbanite kills his pregnant wife and the whole nation follows the trial the whole way through.

[Angry White Man]

Is it fair that just because someone is born into the lucky sperm club with trust fund and all that he or she has a permanent advantage over someone born into poverty? It's hard to improve on your own when the schooling that you're offered is sub-standard.

Is it fair that my son is at a disadvantage because he is white, and he might not get a job because a quota has to be filled? Is it fair that someone does not get promoted because a quota has to be filled for a miniority? Is that fair? I see your angle, class warfare. So if I happen to work hard all my life, and make ten million dollars, I should donate it to charity, because based upon your "lucky sperm club" rubbish my son is a SCUMBAG! A RICH DIRTBAG. YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! What right does ANYONE have to say someone who is born rich is a "Lucky Sperm Club", or any other comment like that? Sounds like jealousy and envy to me. You have, I don't, you are a dirtbag because you wear born into a family that takes care of it's own, and I wasn't. Where does it say everyone has to be on the same playing field. Sorry, that is not how life works. You are born what you are, instead of being thankful that at least in the United States, unlike Socialist Europe, there is upward mobility in the class system. You can be born in a ghetto, and live wind up in a mansion. TIME AND TIME AGAIN, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, this happens. But people like you are not satisfied by this. In Europe, if you are born middle class, YOU STAY MIDDLE CLASS, with VERY RARE EXCEPTIONS! The taxes are so high, you never are able to save enough money to move up. Period. Unless you write a Hairy Potter Book, if you are born middle class, you stay middle class. That is a fact. I prefer it here: if you are born poor, and work hard, you can become rich. The only problem is, when do become rich, and send your son to Harvard, some liberal calls your son "advantaged", and wants to take away everything you worked for. Yeah, that's fair.

And, if you're so concerned that you're paying twice with charity and then taxes, GET A ****IN RECEIPT AND RECORD THE DONATION! It's tax-deductable. We all have a responsibility to our fellow citizens, it's called patriotism.

I don't want a receipt. I don't want to work, say I am "disadvantaged", and I want a free house that people picket the government for. And, for your information, a "tax-deduction" is not equal to what I paid for, meaning, if I donate $10,000, I don't get $10,000 off of my tax bill. Before you start shouting "Get a ****ing Receipt", perhaps you should read a book on tax code.

You say we have a responsibility to our fellow citizens, where is that in the Constitution. Please show me. What about the resposibility our fellow citizens have to provide for themselves. Sorry, no one is entitled to anything from anyone. CHARITY doles things out. When the government gives out handouts, it is not called PATRIOTISM, is is called COMMUNISM!

As far as my last statement regarding Terri being white, I'm just speaking from observations of past court cases. Most well-known high-profile court cases are involving white, middle class people. How often do you see a well-publicized murder trial for a gang shooting? The reporting usually dies out after the report of the initial crime. But then, a white middle-class suburbanite kills his pregnant wife and the whole nation follows the trial the whole way through.

I probably see it more often then I see a "Hate Crime" (what a joke) being committed against a white person. It is funny how you only hear about "Hate Crimes" being COMMITTED by WHITE PEOPLE, against MINORITIES. You never see it the opposite way.

I am not forcing my views on others. My view is, if you want to help others, knock yourself out! Donate EVERY LAST SPARE DIME YOU HAVE to ANY CHARITY YOU WANT. I am not forcing you to do it, I am not forcing you not to do it. Now, look at what the left says. PAY TAXES FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS, OR GO TO JAIL! Wealth distribution, or nothing. If you are lucky enough to happen to be born to "Rich" parents, you are a SCUMBAG, "LUCKY SPERM CLUB" member, who deserves NOTHING! Everything your parents give to you should be given to the poor, because parents have NO RIGHT TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR CHILDREN, and the GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE THAT MONEY TO DISTRIBUTE AS THEY SEE FIT AND MAY GOD DAMN ANYONE WHO DISAGREES!

Which side seems more tolerant to you?

[GoingNova]

WE INTERUPT THIS THREAD TO BRING YOU THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE


:laughing3 I am sorry, I don't mean to laugh, but why is it that you always seem to, how can I put this, get folks all annoyed Angry! :eusa_ange

Just a friendly reminder, TO EVERYONE, we welcome all opinions here at BashAnything.com! Please don't direct attacks at any other MEMBER, rather keep the guns pointed on the issue. Flaming, which includes insults, personal attacks, and anything that can be construed as such, ARE NOT ALLOWED.

<Copying Thread to Repartee Section>

We now bring you back to your regularly scheduled thread, where the debate continues. Thank you. :eusa_ange

Actually, the debate continues in the Repartee (debate) Forum. :eusa_shhh

[ski2bfree]

You're making statements to the effect that a WANT is equal to a NEED. Yeah, I WANT to **** Natalie Portman, but I don't NEED to. I would want the government to give me a house and a nice car and the whole nine yards, but I certainly don't need it. The government has a responsibility to make sure the needs of the people are met, not the wants. Fulfilling those needs does not equate to communism. Speaking of which, check a textbook, cause you're confusing communism with socialism.
And by the way, when I refer to the lucky sperm club, I mean the people who have the ability to help those who need it but are devoid of the moral fiber to do so. I was born upper-middle class, so it's not bitterness at socio-economic standing that motivated my statements, but rather the arrogance that often comes with it.
Oh, and another thing, don't lecture me about tax law. I know enough about it and I've been ****ed over by taxes enough to write a novel on the subject. I was just stating that you can get some of your donation money back by writing it off as a tax deduction. However, since you feel the need to be such a philanthropist, donating your time is much more valuable than donating your money. Anyone can write a check, but helping to build a house for Habitat is free and much more gratifying.
Also, saying that affirmative action is preventing whites from employment by methods of reverse descrimination is an immature stance. It's very easy to blame these practices of fulfilling quotas when you're unable to get the job you want. In some instances, it does happen. But when you make the claim that it is the responsibility of others to better themselves and then blame affirmative action in a search for employment, you're ignoring that responsibility with yourself.

[ski2bfree]

Uh... whoops. I think you posted that while I was writing my reply. No hard feelings, just the old right vs. left wing debate.

[GoingNova]

I fixed it. I deleted the first copy, and then copied this copy here. LET THE DEBATE CONTINUE! :eusa_danc

[Angry White Man]

No hard feelings, just the old right vs. left wing debate.

NONE TAKEN AT ALL! I LOVE TO DEBATE! :eusa_ange

You're making statements to the effect that a WANT is equal to a NEED. Yeah, I WANT to **** Natalie Portman, but I don't NEED to. I would want the government to give me a house and a nice car and the whole nine yards, but I certainly don't need it. The government has a responsibility to make sure the needs of the people are met, not the wants. Fulfilling those needs does not equate to communism. Speaking of which, check a textbook, cause you're confusing communism with socialism.

The point you make about the wants and the needs is a valid point, and I will concede that to you, HOWEVER, it is irrelevent because again I point to the Constitution and say there is nothing in there that says the people are entitled to wants, needs, or ANYTHING directly from the governement EXCEPT what is clearly defined in the Constitution via it's ammendments. The Preamble says it best:

establish Justice: Establish Courts
insure domestic Tranquility: Establish Police
provide for the common defence: Establish an Armed Forces
promote the general Welfare: PROMOTE not PROVIDE the general welfare - build roads, bridges, and things that help EVERYONE not specific groups
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity: Make sure each generation after us has the same opportunities we had
Further, the Ammendents define exactly what we are to expect from our governement, and there is NOTHING that says the government is obliged to provide to the NEEDS of the people. And to those who say it is a "Living, Breathing Document" that can be "Changed to suit the times", I say HORSE ****! It is CONCRETE, and clearly defines the powers of the governement. It is FLEXIBLE, and allows for change, but it clearly states how to add an Ammendment, or change a current one. To say it is "living and breathing" is just another way of saying, "We can make it say whatever we want it to say!"

Communism, as defined by www.dictionar.com (http://www.dictionar.com/):
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Socialism, as defined by www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/):
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

It goes on further to say:
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved

So, Socialism is COMMUNISM LIGHT. I am a Capitalist, not a Socialist enroute to eventual Commuism.

And by the way, when I refer to the lucky sperm club, I mean the people who have the ability to help those who need it but are devoid of the moral fiber to do so.

And who are you, God? Who are you, or ANYONE except maybe a priest, rabbi, or other religous leader, to tell me who I should or shouldn't help? What gives YOU the right to judge people? I am a Christian, I donate because I know it is the right thing to do. I am not naive to think that people like you mentioned do not exist, but I will leave it up to GOD to punish them as he sees fit. It is not your place, my place, or the government's place to tell anyone that they MUST help others.

Money is a possesion. It does not matter how someone aquires it, so long as they aquire it legally. If it is their possestion, it is their possestion. It is THEIRS, not yours, and they may do with it as they see fit. I am not attacking you, but do you see how dangerous this can get? Do you see what you saying? You are saying that the governement has the right to take away something of yours and give it to someone else. That is just wrong, and VERY dangerous!

Oh, and another thing, don't lecture me about tax law. I know enough about it and I've been ****ed over by taxes enough to write a novel on the subject. I was just stating that you can get some of your donation money back by writing it off as a tax deduction.

No, you did not say "some", you said "It's tax-deductable" and the implecation was that I would get it back anyway. You should have said what you just said the first time.

However, since you feel the need to be such a philanthropist, donating your time is much more valuable than donating your money. Anyone can write a check, but helping to build a house for Habitat is free and much more gratifying.

I have a Priest to worry about my soul friend, I do not need you or the government telling me what I should or should not do with my free time, or what is the best way to donate my charity, be it money or time. Again, what gives you the right to judge others? What makes you think that you know what is best for me and my family?

Maybe if my property taxes were not so high, and maybe if my mortgage payment was not so high, I would not have to work as hard and as often as I do. Maybe then I would have more free time. But while you are off building houses for strangers, I have to worry about providing for my wife and kids, making sure there is food on the table and clothes on their back, because I have a job, so I get diddly squat from the government. Now, if you would come with your friend Jimmy Carter, and build me a house that I did not have to pay for, maybe I would have more free time.....

Also, saying that affirmative action is preventing whites from employment by methods of reverse descrimination is an immature stance. It's very easy to blame these practices of fulfilling quotas when you're unable to get the job you want. In some instances, it does happen. But when you make the claim that it is the responsibility of others to better themselves and then blame affirmative action in a search for employment, you're ignoring that responsibility with yourself.

I am not speaking out of my ass about affirmative action friend, I am speaking from EXPERIENCE. To get promoted to a manger on my job, you need to take a test. The last promotion, they needed to promote a specific number of African Americans to fill a quota. The "passing" grade was lowered to 55. An African American who scored a 55 was promoted, while hundreds of CAUCASIANS (and frankly, many other people) who scored higher, were not. That African American now makes 20% more than I do, has a supervisory position, and works less than all the people who scored higher than him. So please Sir, do not lecture me when I say AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION. I have earned the right to say that.

I once read a joke about Affirmative Action, and it went something like this:

A daughter in college often argued with her father about AA. He was against it, she was for it.

The daughter had a friend in college with her, who partied all the time, and never studied. The daughter did not go out to parties, but instead spent hours studying while her friend was out having a great time. Well, it paid off, the daughter got a 4.0 GPA, while her friend only got a 2.0.

The daughter was home for the holidays, and she was showing her report card to her father, who was very proud. He asked her how her friend did, and she told him that she only got a 2.0 GPA because she was always out partying and having a good time, instead of sacrificing and studying to get better grades.

Her father said, "OK honey. I want you to go to the Dean tomorrow and give your friend 1 of your GPA, so you both have a 3.0. A 3.0 is still very good, and you will still get a good job, and you can help your friend out in the process."

The daughter looked at her father and said, "Dad, are you crazy!? I worked for that 4.0! I EARNED IT! I am not going to give it to her! If she wants it, let her earn it!"

Her father smiled, and said, "EXACTLY! Now you know why I am against Affirmative Action!"