JUGGERNAUT

Wrong again. Study the historical facts. Each of them controlled the election process. In fact they are perfect examples of individualistic will gain control of a minority group & then using the power & influence of the minority to control the majority. Simply put Hitler was a socialist. He had an egotistical vision for society & used every means at his disposal to impose it upon the majority.

I did not suggest you can. I simply stated there exists the possibility that she may be experiencing dreams in her state. There exists no evidence to rule that out. That's all I'm saying. As I have stated more than once the key to this specific case for me is that there is no mention of her state deteriorating. So I conclude it must be stable. With that being the case the state should exhaust every path possible to determining if there is any hope for her condition. I think the appointment of a medical review board to achieve a consensus opinion on that is the proper path to take.

It's wrong for me to suggest you are stupid but based on what you have written I must conclude you are ignorant. We are a democratic republic. Why? Because the officials that govern that republic are elected via a democratic process. It's pretty simple stuff. Now with respect to fascism since you seem to love to mirror it to democracy, I would like for you to list at least 3 historicial references whereby a democratic vote led to a fascist policy. Finally if you trully believe that a person who suggests there exists a limit to individual rights is a fascists please don't bother to respond. You are becoming a waste of my time.

Yet you still have a no Sox related poker ad in your signature. That constitutes spam in my book & I think this is a no-spam site. I can't recall one other poster who has done such a thing.

What does anything you said have to do with this woman's right to live? In response to one sarcastic & mundane question I explained how scientific method works. In response to your post I see a statement supporting the hypothesis that even with her being in a canotonic state she might still be experiencing dreams because in your opinion we don't know enough about them to rule that possibility out. So what is the point in continuing this? It seems to me since the debate centers around whether to pull the plug on this woman you have simply advocated a reason not to do it. In that respect I agree with you. As to the source, check out sciencedaily.com & put in "detecting dream activity". There are too many for me to list.

It's Constitution based on the principles of democracy fashioned around the federal system of a republic. As to your references equating democracy to fascism you should stop while you are ahead. You sound pretty stupid.

In your socialist dreams is what that means. In reality it means there are certain inalienable rights which can not be subjected to changes in opinion by the majority. As defined in the US Cons & practiced in years since then those rights were intended to remain small in number. Likewise those rights were intended to be such that the majority could not impose their will on the minority. They were never intended to allow the minority to impose their will on the majority. Socialists leave. Nobody wants your burden to society any more. Spain is welcoming you with open arms. Go now.

You really need to ask? You create a control group of 100 or so persons. You connect to monitors to record their dream activity. You then INTERVIEW them about their dream activity you compare that to the activity of the monitors. They mention dreams that show little to no activity on the monitors. You determine how many such cases exist in the control group. You then determine whether it is a significant number. If it's a significant number you conclude that there are dream states that can not be recorded. Duh!

One more time we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. Democracy first. Secondly, an individualistic viewpoint supported by the wealthy will remain in effect UNTIL THE MAJORITY of the POPULATION challenges it. That is what happened with the civil war. Through the influence of books, speeches, & rights of assembly by abolitionists the majority were made aware of the issue & sought to end slavery. When they opposed the wealthy the wealthy used their resources to retain slavery. There was no avenue for a peaceful solution. The resources of the wealthy had to be destroyed so that slavery could not be retained.

Wrong again. We are a democratic republic. That puts democracy first! Socialists go to Europe. We don't want you here.

Knowing how rapidly nanotech is progressing if I were put into a vegetative state & my condition was not deteriorating and remained stable I would want to remain alive. How do they know she can not dream? We dream subconsciously sometimes at levels which can not be detected. Clinical research has proven this to be true. Who has the right to terminate another's dreams?

There is something very interesting in your timeline: October 17, 2001 The 2nd DCA rules that 5 doctors should examine Terri Schiavo to determine if she can improve with new medical treatment. The Schindlers and Michael Schiavo are to choose 2 doctors each, and the court is to appoint a doctor. From that point on I do not see any reference to the 5 doctors. What I see is a repeated process by which The Schindlers file motions to stay the removal of the tube so that they can have tests performed to determine if there is any hope for improvement. At the same time there is a repeated process by Schiavo to prevent this from happening & to kill her immediately. Now maybe I'm just more good natured than the rest of you but it seems to me the woman is still alive now 4 yrs after this ordeal began & I haven't read a think about her conditioning worsening. So again thinking along the lines of protecting life & nurturing life I would think it's in the state's best interest to exhaust every avenue possible to improving her life before terminating it. At the very least allow the 5 doctor study to happen & live by the majority consensus thereof.

We all know the ACLU is the bastion of morally relative politcally correct speech. There's no point in debating it. It's another socialist think tank designed with a specific intent to undermine democracy.

It's simple. I generalize the argument to where the facts don't mean as much as the principles. I read nothing in your timeline that presents a unanimous opinion that her condition will never improve. The issue is not whether her brain cells will grow back. The issue is whether new technologies interfacing with her existing brain centers will improve her life. I can provide you links within sciencedaily.com which discuss these technologies extensively. Generally speaking (AGAIN!) and with respect to right to life as defined in the US Constitution if her situation is not deterioriating & there hope exists for an improved condition (nothing in your timeline suggests anything to the contrary) then the state has an obligation to uphold her right to life. Until the state of FL passes a law making Euthanasia legal it matters not what her implied consent was. Of course any passage of a Euthanasia law would probably be challenged as unconstitutional & would require an amendment for such actions to be considered legal.

Slavery, demanding minorities sit at the back of the bus/use seperate facilities etc., not dumping Jim Crow laws, criminalizing sexual behavior between consenting adults comes to mind. Specifically, ALL OF THESE represent individualistic viewpoints NOT CHALLENGED by the majority. When they were challenged by the majority they were overruled. Generally, You are making your argument based on a relativisitc system of individualistic morality which you believe in. I may agree with that system but I do not agree with the general principle that any such system should ever usurp the will of the majority. Democracy first, individual rights second.

Can we prosecute this person for spamming a poker ad?

For persons of high intelligence the most depressing day is the day they pay their local, state, & federal taxes. They understand that getting a refund simply means they gave the govt more than they had to in the course of the past year & that they lost money they could have made on that money. I guess under a bell curve that would fall around St Patty's Day.

Do you honestly believe that if there were say 500-600 members of the house the staffs would be any smaller? Grow up.

All egotistical individualists please leave. I sick & tired of hearing this crap. You are nothing but a burden to the system. You are nothing but a burden to the tax payers. If you do not believe in democracy go to Europe or better yet to China. Democracy means majority rule. The school board represents the majority in that district. You as an individual have a right to be heard by the school district. That is where your power & influence ends. The only way this crap is going to end is if national & state congresses pass nuisance laws that costs these egotists $ when they place a burden on the courts with their frivolous suits. These same congresses should decide what constitutes a frivolous suit.

Generally speaking, Personal income of those working in abortion clinics drawf that of those working in crisis pregnancy centers. The number of abortion clinics in the US drawfs the number of crisis pregnancy centers. The amount of government funding/spending on abortion clinics drawfs that of cpc's. When that is no longer the case then I can take this insane & spiteful debate seriously. The only one hurt by what SC is trying to do are those in love with abortion. So much in love with it that they don't want to be reminded or challenged by it. Specifically speaking, As long as SC offers an individual the opportunity to put any slogan they want on their plate (incl a pro-abortion) one then this is not a violation of 1st Amendment rights. The 1st Amend does not imply the right to be heard. Which in this case means that all forms of speech carry an equal weight & therefore should have equal access to the public. If it did imply that then media companies today could not exist. Instead we would have some kind of time-share management of all media outlets. So there is a firm established culture that capitalism determines the access to which any one person's speech can be heard. The elected government in SC representing the people of SC have the right to offer slogans that they feel best reflect the majority consensus of their constituents & would generate the most sales. That is how supply & demand works. Likewise if the govt in SC doesn't feel a pro-abortion slogan best relfects the majority consensus viewpoints of their constituents & would generate few sales then it makes no sense for them to burdened by the costs of the supply. If SC were to refuse pro-abortion slogans under a personalized plate service then they would be in violation of the 1st Amendment. That would amount unfair & unlawful censorship. I have not read anything to that effect. If the pro-abortion advocates believe that the majority of SCians want their plates then they can call for a state referrendum on the issue. In my opinion this is yet another example of a spiteful minority trying to censor the actions of the majority because they are in disagreement with them. The best name for these people is egotists. Since they do not agree with the democratically elected majority they will do everything in their power to undermine it. If you do not believe in democracy above all else then you are not an American. You are a socialist. You believe that your way of life is more important than the majority's right to choose their way of life. Since America represents democracy above all else it would be best if you just left.

Respect for life vs respect for the right to murder & dispose of life. This battle wages throughout time, across borders, & across cultures. It's always the same. First you strip the value of personhood from the human life. The plantation owners did it to the slaves, & the Nazi's did it to the Jews. Having established a law that accepts the devaluation of such life you then go about seeking a means to control it to the extent you can terminate it when it no longer serves a purpose for you. Of course both the owners & the Nazi's believed in the human soul so they needed to de-spiritualize their prey as well. Essentially creating a belief that you had to be worthy to have a soul. Just like the abolitionists fought the owners & the American's fought the Nazi's we to will continue to fight those who wish to oppress others. Pro-Choice is a joke in America. Until the day exists when there are only pro-choice clinics which over both abortion & prenatal services & counseling on equal footing there is no such thing as pro-choice in America. The number of abortion clinics in American drawf that of the number of crisis pregnancy centers. Whether you are pro-abortion, pro-choice or pro-life there are right ways to do things & there are wrong ways to do things. Flushing fetuses down the toilet & cremating them without a service is not the right way.

No. Hell no! We need less goverment. Not more! What part of state debts do these people not understand? CA 50B, NY 30B, IL 6B, etc. We need less debt. Not more! Why do we have so much debt? Because campaigns cost billions now. With those kind of costs, patronage & govt spending growth grows. It's almost to the point where it's instinctual. If you want real reform first do something to cause a decrease in campaign spending growth. I've yet to see that happen. When you've accomplished that then we can attack the patronage spending growth. Does a member of the House really need a staff of 50 people? If you can manage to shrink the size & scope of congressional staff serving our electorate then I'd be open to increasing the size of our electorate. But I think both remain pipe dreams at this time.

Well it's not surprising that I disagree. I seem to always be the one to present the macro view of these debates so I take a less personal (micro) approach. The first question I have to ask is what is the medical consensus opinion of her condition. If it is unanimous that it will never improve then I would say the decision lies with the closest living relative whether that be immediate family, distant family or just close friend. When there is no consensus hope then the people closest to her should have the final say. But if it is not unanimous & there are some in the medical community who believe her condition can be improved then I say the state has the right to protect her right to life. I do not know the particulars in this case, but the obvious general questions come to mind: 1) Is there progress being made in a field that would help her case? 2) What is the likelihood of her condition improving in the next year, the next 3 yrs, or the next 5 yrs? 3) How old is she & how does her age affect her condition? Generally speaking where there is hope for improvement of life the state should protect that right to life against individuals who do not share that hope. What determines whether such hope exists are trained professionals in that field of science or healthcare.

http://whitesox.mlb.com/cws/downloads/attr...s_map2004-2.pdf Make the space east of the OF concourse a LOT. That would remove the need for LOTS F & G (west of the tracks) & allow cars to enter/exit via Wentworth. If it means moving the school to where LOT F is then do it. This now provides a clear view of the Park from both the Ryan & Wentworth. A few modifications to the OF concourse wall would help illuminate & gentrify the park as a whole. So when you driving down the Ryan you would not only see the park but it would look alive. If you have more money & the state is willing to help expand the IIT campus to the south end of the park. That area would be perfect for moving the IIT Research Center. That's not a part of the campus frequented by students much. It's the business angle of the campus. What you gain in the move is new space to expand the IIT student campus. With that expansion you might be able to push enrollment from about 5K to 10K. Ideally if you could get the college enrollment around the park up to 20K the Sox could easily avg 30K a game at the Cell. This is why Wrigley has such a big advantage over the Cell. Between NW, DePaul, DeVry, & other campuses w/in a few miles from the park they are drawing from about an enrollment area of 40K students. Compare that to the 5K that surround the Cell.

All of this is nice but it doesn't change that which immediately surrounds the Cell. My recommendations: 1-Swap the south lots for east lots in front of the OF side of the park. This means moving the school & others to the land occupied by the south lots. This would make it more convenient to park because then you just exit the Ryan & find an entrance to the east lot parking. It should amount to a shorter walk to your seat as well. The added space should remove the need to retain the lot west of the tracks. Makes the whole experience more of a Sox experience than a hood experience.