• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Supreme Court upholds Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law

Great. Now, between birth control, abortion, and euthanasia, we can maximize the speed by which OUR people are wiped out while not reproducing enough to replace ourselves, and, much like the direction Europe is more quickly heading in, our country can eventually be run by third world immigrants too (because they have numerous kids per family).

By 2010 white English people will be a minority in London. White Americans are not far behind them.

Between all the effective ways we have found to kill ourselves and socialism making it unnecessary (and unappealing) to have kids, the west is setting itself up for self-destruction. Foreigners who don't care about our way of life (and aren't even asked to, since we started embracing bilingualism and began Balkanizing foreigners instead of expecting them to integrate) will be running our country by 2050.

Look at Hispanics. They ALREADY have a death grip on our elections. Celebrate all you want, but euthanasia, with our other killing, will end up contributing to a population plummet not seen since the bubonic plagues and archaic things will be done to our Constitution in the next 50 years to stave it off.

In Russia, the worst place for this problem, they have already quadrupled child tax credits, tried to legalize polygamy, and ban abortion.
 
aquapub said:
Great. Now, between birth control, abortion, and euthanasia, we can maximize the speed by which OUR people are wiped out while not reproducing enough to replace ourselves, and, much like the direction Europe is more quickly heading in, our country can eventually be run by third world immigrants too (because they have numerous kids per family).

By 2010 white English people will be a minority in London. White Americans are not far behind them.

Between all the effective ways we have found to kill ourselves and socialism making it unnecessary (and unappealing) to have kids, the west is setting itself up for self-destruction. Foreigners who don't care about our way of life (and aren't even asked to, since we started embracing bilingualism and began Balkanizing foreigners instead of expecting them to integrate) will be running our country by 2050.

Look at Hispanics. They ALREADY have a death grip on our elections. Celebrate all you want, but euthanasia, with our other killing, will end up contributing to a population plummet not seen since the bubonic plagues and archaic things will be done to our Constitution in the next 50 years to stave it off.

In Russia, the worst place for this problem, they have already quadrupled child tax credits, tried to legalize polygamy, and ban abortion.

Our? They?

Bigot.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Be afraid, be very, very afraid...:shock:
You've shown, on numerous occasions, that you don't understand sarcasm, Champs. Why try again now?
 
aquapub said:
Great. Now, between birth control, abortion, and euthanasia, we can maximize the speed by which OUR people are wiped out while not reproducing enough to replace ourselves, and, much like the direction Europe is more quickly heading in, our country can eventually be run by third world immigrants too (because they have numerous kids per family).
:rofl What did John McEnroe say?

"You can't be serious!"

This entire post reads like a morality play by a White Supremist group, sorry. I'm not saying or implying that you're a White Supremist but damn, dude, read over your post and then go visit those whacko sites on the Internet that are oh so worried about the decline of White America as if America is supposed to be a White majority.
aquapub said:
By 2010 white English people will be a minority in London. White Americans are not far behind them.
I'm sorry, but I do not believe that London will have a non-white majority in four years. Please provide facts to back up your invalid claim.

Your remark about "White Americans are not far behind them" is just like this from the American Nazi site:
The year is 2025, White people HAVE become a MINORITY in America. On our streets hang Aryan men who refused to accept the "New Way," or perhaps they just looked too White. Perhaps they never thought MUD RULE would really come.
White girls who refuse the advances of Negroids, are publicly gang-raped so as to serve as examples to other shuddering Aryan females. Children are now taken from their houses, by force, to be brought up in a "Multi-Cultural" home of Negroids, Arabs, Muslims and Gooks, all in the name of "brotherhood and love"...
Source: http://www.americannaziparty.com/

The sentence that I printed in BOLD has an amazing similarity to what you just wrote, don't you think? I'm not calling you anything at all, but the words that you wrote are virtually identical to words at the American Nazi Party website.
aquapub said:
Between all the effective ways we have found to kill ourselves and socialism making it unnecessary (and unappealing) to have kids, the west is setting itself up for self-destruction. Foreigners who don't care about our way of life (and aren't even asked to, since we started embracing bilingualism and began Balkanizing foreigners instead of expecting them to integrate) will be running our country by 2050.

Look at Hispanics. They ALREADY have a death grip on our elections. Celebrate all you want, but euthanasia, with our other killing, will end up contributing to a population plummet not seen since the bubonic plagues and archaic things will be done to our Constitution in the next 50 years to stave it off.
I couldn't help but notice that your post contains information from a extreme right wing blogger, Jon Christian Ryter, from here actually:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon27.htm

Who is this pundit? What qualifies him to be Aquapub's Muse? According to his website:
Today, the author works for The Washington Times as an advertising executive

Note that he's not a reporter for the Ultra-Conservative Washington Times. Nope, he sells advertising...and therefore he is so qualified that we should take his written words about race in the USA as Gospel? Is that an accurate statement Aquapub?

This guy Ryter is also the author of "The Baffled Christian's Handbook".

Your post Aquapub was certainly eye opening and certainly suggests extreme, extreme Right Wing beliefs that when taken literally appear to be racially motivated, though who am I to suggest anything like that about you?
 
26 X World Champs said:
This entire post reads like a morality play by a White Supremist group, sorry. I'm not saying or implying that you're a White Supremist but damn, dude, read over your post and then go visit those whacko sites on the Internet that are oh so worried about the decline of White America as if America is supposed to be a White majority.

26, I think what aquapub was trying to say is:

"Wake hup wite peepul!!!"
 
KCConservative said:
That's a good liberal. Good boy.

While I am an atheist, that's not the point I was getting at. We're a secular country, so even if I were religious I would recognize that we cannot base our laws on religious principles - only secular ones. The argument that we are "playing God" is irrelevant to a secular government.
 
26 X World Champs said:
No surprise that he hasn't replied to my post...have you noticed that some NeoCon posters when exposed do, to use a favorite saying of theirs: CUT AND RUN?
or maybe he's offline. :roll:
 
26 X World Champs said:
No surprise that he hasn't replied to my post...have you noticed that some NeoCon posters when exposed do, to use a favorite saying of theirs: CUT AND RUN?

Yeah, people shouldn't quote others unless they use those little (") indicators. I notice that several posters on this site omit these marks.

I see it a lot with some of the Conservatives, especially when they repeat the words of some of the radio hosts. Maybe the Liberals do it too, but I wouldn't know, because I'm in Central Florida, and there are no Liberal radio shows aired here during the day for me to listen to.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

tryreading said:
I just want those pseudo-pious control freaks (Ashcroft, et al) out of my personal life, out of Michael Schiavo's personal life, and out of pregnant women's private lives.


Make a deal with you. I'll support reducing the power of government to regulate your life if you support reducing the power of government to take money away from people.

It's the same thing, ain't it?

Oh, and just where in the Constitution is the authority to regulate state doctors found? I mean, outside of the Tenth Amendment which gives that authority to the states?
 
KCConservative said:
Oh, I guess it was your desire to play God that confused me.

If God did not want a person to die, God would intervine to make the methods ineffective or prevent their application, in all matters (abortion, assisted suicide, murder, execution, traffic violations, peeing on the toilet rim)would God not? So, in the absence of Divine intervention, God's Will (I would presume) is actually being satisfied.

Or, If God does not act to make an event ineffective or for prevention as a matter of "policy," it would hold than man is not "playing God" when doing things God does not do Godself.

Either way, in the absence of God's intervention, man's actions are not "playing God," merely playing man.
 
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Make a deal with you. I'll support reducing the power of government to regulate your life if you support reducing the power of government to take money away from people.

It's the same thing, ain't it?

Oh, and just where in the Constitution is the authority to regulate state doctors found? I mean, outside of the Tenth Amendment which gives that authority to the states?

Why don't you know? It's from the exceedingly broad interpretation of the General Welfare.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

This is of course interpreted to mean Congress and the feds can be "Daddy" to us all. Becaws Daddy is consewned fow us hewpwess wittle chiwdwen.\

*****ers.
 
tryreading said:
Yeah, people shouldn't quote others unless they use those little (") indicators. I notice that several posters on this site omit these marks.

I see it a lot with some of the Conservatives, especially when they repeat the words of some of the radio hosts. Maybe the Liberals do it too, but I wouldn't know, because I'm in Central Florida, and there are no Liberal radio shows aired here during the day for me to listen to.

We've got Jim Philips - the Philips Phile in the afternoons on 104.1 :shrug:

No doubt that's about it. :2wave:
 
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

danarhea said:
The existing legislation belongs to the state of Oregon. The ruling plainly stated that the Federal government did not have the right to trump the state's own laws. But gotta hand it to you for your try at word parsing and hair splitting. It was entertaining.


John Ashcroft's interpretation of a federal drug law was the issue. He tried to use this law to ban doctors from prescribing lethal combinations of drugs to patients who wished to end their suffering. The USSC in their ruling found it clear that the Federal drug law was misinterpreted by Ashcroft, and could not be used to stop doctors in Oregon from prescribing said drugs.

Your argument of states rights is way off base. It had nothing to do with the legislation passed by the state of Oregon, it was the former AG's interpretation of federal drug legislation that the USSC voted on.
 
aquapub said:
Great. Now, between birth control, abortion, and euthanasia, we can maximize the speed by which OUR people are wiped out while not reproducing enough to replace ourselves, and, much like the direction Europe is more quickly heading in, our country can eventually be run by third world immigrants too (because they have numerous kids per family).

By 2010 white English people will be a minority in London. White Americans are not far behind them.

Between all the effective ways we have found to kill ourselves and socialism making it unnecessary (and unappealing) to have kids, the west is setting itself up for self-destruction. Foreigners who don't care about our way of life (and aren't even asked to, since we started embracing bilingualism and began Balkanizing foreigners instead of expecting them to integrate) will be running our country by 2050.

Look at Hispanics. They ALREADY have a death grip on our elections. Celebrate all you want, but euthanasia, with our other killing, will end up contributing to a population plummet not seen since the bubonic plagues and archaic things will be done to our Constitution in the next 50 years to stave it off.

In Russia, the worst place for this problem, they have already quadrupled child tax credits, tried to legalize polygamy, and ban abortion.

Well boo hoo all you want to. This issue is REAL. My father just died 7 days before Christmas, from lung cancer. For the last 2 months of his life, he was on CONSTANT morphine drips that did nothing to minimize his pain. We could not touch him, nor hug him. We had to watch as he lay there and waste away to nothing. He could keep no food down, and eventually began to vomit bowel excrement because his internal organs were failing miserably. He begged REPEATEDLY for death. At that point, that's all he wanted.. that's all WE wanted.. we wanted his pain to be gone. We wanted him to be at peace. We didn't want to watch him suffer, nor did we want him to suffer.

*scratches my head* your name speaks for itself. I should have payed a bit more attention before I spoke. Compassion doesn't seem to be your strong suit, eh?
 
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Make a deal with you. I'll support reducing the power of government to regulate your life if you support reducing the power of government to take money away from people.

It's the same thing, ain't it?

Oh, and just where in the Constitution is the authority to regulate state doctors found? I mean, outside of the Tenth Amendment which gives that authority to the states?

Its a deal. They take too much money, obscenely spend too much money. I support anyone running for office who wants to reduce government. But once they arrive in D.C., they never figure out how to do this, Republican or Democrat. I agree, reduce their power and money.

If you are talking about the Oregon assisted suicide issue, the right of the woman who sued to kill herself was paramount, and her right had to be protected. These cases sometimes need to be pursued to the highest courts.
 
mixedmedia said:
We've got Jim Philips - the Philips Phile in the afternoons on 104.1 :shrug:

No doubt that's about it. :2wave:

Yeah, I listen to him sometimes. He is liberal, but spends little time talking about politics. He is interesting when he does.

But I really was talking about AM radio, where the issues are discussed daily.

We've got:

Burke
Boortz
Limbaugh
Hannity
O'Reilly
Ingraham
Savage
A few others whose names I don't know.

These people are all Conservative. Boortz is the only open minded host, but still sides with the Conservatives on most issues. I listen to him daily. Don't like Limbaugh, he takes few callers because he's deaf, so his show is a running speech (also, I don't like drug addicts). Hannity is a hard listen, but I bear it when I can, even though I hate commercials, like the one he runs for three hours a day for the GOP. The rest are more of the same, same issues, same conclusions.
 
tryreading said:
Yeah, I listen to him sometimes. He is liberal, but spends little time talking about politics. He is interesting when he does.

But I really was talking about AM radio, where the issues are discussed daily.

We've got:

Burke
Boortz
Limbaugh
Hannity
O'Reilly
Ingraham
Savage
A few others whose names I don't know.

These people are all Conservative. Boortz is the only open minded host, but still sides with the Conservatives on most issues. I listen to him daily. Don't like Limbaugh, he takes few callers because he's deaf, so his show is a running speech (also, I don't like drug addicts). Hannity is a hard listen, but I bear it when I can, even though I hate commercials, like the one he runs for three hours a day for the GOP. The rest are more of the same, same issues, same conclusions.


We have a guy up here in the Harrisburg area named Bob Durgin. He's an equal opportunity basher, and I love listening to him. Sometimes he gets a little too praise happy of the President, but he deals mostly with issues in and around Pennsylvania. He ran a campaign against the legislative payraise up here, encouraged residents to download and sign copies of said petition, then walked into the state capitol, and handed a copy to the head of the Senate, the House, and to the Governor (well ok, it ended up going to their "staff" because each lawmaker was too chicken to be present.

Anyway, Bob has so much more on these guys you mentioned. He listens to his callers, debates on the issue, and doesn't attempt to make one party "superior" over the other.
 
debate_junkie said:
We have a guy up here in the Harrisburg area named Bob Durgin. He's an equal opportunity basher, and I love listening to him. Sometimes he gets a little too praise happy of the President, but he deals mostly with issues in and around Pennsylvania. He ran a campaign against the legislative payraise up here, encouraged residents to download and sign copies of said petition, then walked into the state capitol, and handed a copy to the head of the Senate, the House, and to the Governor (well ok, it ended up going to their "staff" because each lawmaker was too chicken to be present.

Anyway, Bob has so much more on these guys you mentioned. He listens to his callers, debates on the issue, and doesn't attempt to make one party "superior" over the other.

I would kill (not really) to be able to listen to somebody like that daily. AM radio is so repetitive here, if you listen to one host, you've heard them all. I left out some of the local hosts, Bud Heddinger and the like, who also hold the same opinions as the above national guys. I would love a little variety, some alternate viewpoints, the argument from the other side. I don't know why the local stations don't hire any liberal hosts. The stations would gain Democrat listeners for sure. I wouldn't listen only to liberal shows, of course, that would be boring too. Somebody like you describe above would be very refreshing, an open minded host.
 
tryreading said:
Yeah, I listen to him sometimes. He is liberal, but spends little time talking about politics. He is interesting when he does.
This is true, but when he does, he does us proud. I wasn't here at election time 2004, but I heard he was pretty relentless at that time.

But I really was talking about AM radio, where the issues are discussed daily.

We've got:

Burke
Boortz
Limbaugh
Hannity
O'Reilly
Ingraham
Savage
A few others whose names I don't know.
There was a time, when I was driving a car with a busted tape player and no fm reception, that I was listening to these guys everyday, on a long ass trip to work from Altamonte to S Orlando and back. It was self-inflicted torture, but I found it got addictive - being outraged at what they said - glad those days are over. Now I mostly just listen to NPR.

These people are all Conservative. Boortz is the only open minded host, but still sides with the Conservatives on most issues. I listen to him daily. Don't like Limbaugh, he takes few callers because he's deaf, so his show is a running speech (also, I don't like drug addicts). Hannity is a hard listen, but I bear it when I can, even though I hate commercials, like the one he runs for three hours a day for the GOP. The rest are more of the same, same issues, same conclusions.
You're right, of course, AM radio is dominated by conservative hosts. But this is a pretty conservative town. I'm not surprised there are no liberal hosts here.

Soooo....let me go back and start at the top of this thread. I'm afraid I've derailed it. :doh

About 15 minutes later.....
Okay I read the thread and article and concur with many here that this was a favorable decision by the Supreme Court that will allow for a compassionate alternative to long-term suffering for the terminally ill in the state of Oregon.

Conversely, euthanasia and abortion should be outlawed cause we can't spare the honkies.

Did I miss anything?
 
Last edited:
mixedmedia said:
There was a time, when I was driving a car with a busted tape player and no fm reception, that I was listening to these guys everyday, on a long ass trip to work from Altamonte to S Orlando and back. It was self-inflicted torture, but I found it got addictive - being outraged at what they said - glad those days are over. Now I mostly just listen to NPR.

The drive from Altamonte Springs to South Orlando had to be almost as bad as some of the mouths. Hope your A/C worked.


mixedmedia said:
Conversely, euthanasia and abortion should be outlawed cause we can't spare the honkies.

Did I miss anything?

I'm afraid aquapub already stole your thunder:

aquapub said:
Great. Now, between birth control, abortion, and euthanasia, we can maximize the speed by which OUR people are wiped out while not reproducing enough to replace ourselves, and, much like the direction Europe is more quickly heading in, our country can eventually be run by third world immigrants too (because they have numerous kids per family).

By 2010 white English people will be a minority in London. White Americans are not far behind them.

Between all the effective ways we have found to kill ourselves and socialism making it unnecessary (and unappealing) to have kids, the west is setting itself up for self-destruction. Foreigners who don't care about our way of life (and aren't even asked to, since we started embracing bilingualism and began Balkanizing foreigners instead of expecting them to integrate) will be running our country by 2050.

Look at Hispanics. They ALREADY have a death grip on our elections. Celebrate all you want, but euthanasia, with our other killing, will end up contributing to a population plummet not seen since the bubonic plagues and archaic things will be done to our Constitution in the next 50 years to stave it off.

In Russia, the worst place for this problem, they have already quadrupled child tax credits, tried to legalize polygamy, and ban abortion
.

I nominate aquapub the new Grand Dragon. She is worthy.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Anyone can stream Air America here:

www.airamericaradio.com
Cool Champs, thanks! Maybe I'll listen to it at work just to rankle my boss a bit. You should have seen his face one day when I told him I'd vote for Hillary Clinton. From the the way he looked at me you'd think I'd just kicked his mother. He recovered quickly though. :mrgreen:
 
tryreading said:
The drive from Altamonte Springs to South Orlando had to be almost as bad as some of the mouths. Hope your A/C worked.

LOL, yes I had air, but years ago I drove a car about the same distance every day without air. You get used to it.


I'm afraid aquapub already stole your thunder:
Well, I was referring to aquapub's captivating post, don't ya know? ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom