Division/Agreement

[Soldier]

In most arguments, Gav and Jeff seem to carry the liberal side of things the most, whilst Inq and myself (mostly Inq) carry the conservative side of things; I tend to throw in more of a Christian perspective.

Yet in the Terry Schiavo case, we all agree. Further, others on the board who have a generally liberal or conservative view of things, have been split on this issue not according to the usual lines.

What makes this case so different? Why do we form different camps here? What things tend to make us agree or disagree on various issues?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

In most arguments, Gav and Jeff seem to carry the liberal side of things the most, whilst Inq and myself (mostly Inq) carry the conservative side of things; I tend to throw in more of a Christian perspective.

Yet in the Terry Schiavo case, we all agree. Further, others on the board who have a generally liberal or conservative view of things, have been split on this issue not according to the usual lines.

What makes this case so different? Why do we form different camps here? What things tend to make us agree or disagree on various issues?

Many and big questions, which do not lend themselves to poll-type answers. Any good reply will be quite long, IMO. This, I assume, it the reason for why you so far have not gotten any meaningful replies. Maybe you can break down the questions into more bite-size chunks? Just a half-baked suggestion.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[achilleus]

In most arguments, Gav and Jeff seem to carry the liberal side of things the most, whilst Inq and myself (mostly Inq) carry the conservative side of things; I tend to throw in more of a Christian perspective.

Yet in the Terry Schiavo case, we all agree. Further, others on the board who have a generally liberal or conservative view of things, have been split on this issue not according to the usual lines.

What makes this case so different? Why do we form different camps here? What things tend to make us agree or disagree on various issues?

Three of the things that make this case different, I feel, is that:

1) We all are emotionally removed from the issue, so it's easier for us to follow our brains.

2) A doctor I saw interviewed on Fox News summed it up perfectly. When asked what she would do, she replied, 'Regardless of what I feel personally, the ethical thing to do is what the patient wants.'* I think most people, liberal and conservative, agree with this.

3) The attempt by politicians to get involved just doesn't feel genuine to anybody. It seems like a move to garner votes over something that shouldn't be a matter of state...

In other words, it's easy for us all to look at the medical evidence, and say 'there's no hope of recovery, it's a tragedy, and it's time to say goodbye.' It's quite another thing for anyone to deny themselves hope when a close relative is ill, or deny that person food and water.

*I saw the interview while grabbing a quick bite to eat, and it was on the Hannity and Colmes program. Wow, what a biased piece of crap that was...
They had two experts, both who disagreed with the judges, and supported politcal involvement. Wouldn't one have sufficed? And then when the Dr. came on, Hannity (or was it Colmes...) argued with her constantly, and kept inserting that Schiavo's desires aren't known. He even seemed upset when she said it would be unethical and impossible for her to give an evalution of Schiavo's condition. And the liberal cohost said so little, it made me think he's on the show just to sputter ineffectually while the other guy ranted...

[oiuyt]

And then when the Dr. came on, Hannity (or was it Colmes...)

That would be Hannity.

And the liberal cohost said so little, it made me think he's on the show just to sputter ineffectually while the other guy ranted...

Bingo.

-B :)

[lochinvar]

What makes this case so different? Why do we form different camps here? What things tend to make us agree or disagree on various issues?

Short answer: Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then.

Reasonable and intelligent people sometimes agree. Don't worry about it--it won't establish a precedent.

[neevel]

And the liberal cohost said so little, it made me think he's on the show just to sputter ineffectually while the other guy ranted...

Alan Colmes was specifically selected on the basis of his ability to lose an argument with a 4-year old that 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4. Can't allow someone who could effective counterpunch against Hannity's blatherings.