I love how it's okay for Clinton to use government marshalls to send Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba even though the Florida Supreme Court ruled him the property of his American relatives...but when Bush & Congress try to stop a killing it's political and the Republicans are over stepping their bounds.

Which is it people?

I think someone needs to pull the plug on this thread.

It is fair to criticize me for using insults in my posts. But do I stoop to the level of people like Nick? I hardly think so. Not only that, but I've seen some outrageous things advocated in these forums - vandalizing Wal Mart, physically intimidating Republican convention delegates - but defending Republicans gets a more hostile response than those statements, not to mention the attentions of flakes like Reality Check and sp. It is that stupid Union Square mentality that views a Che Guevara t-shirt as free speech but a George Bush t-shirt as advocating genocide.

As for my positions and whether they are too rigidly ideological, I would not be able to defend my positions if I had not thought things through and come to my own conclusions. You also have to bear in mind that I'm more likely to post on a topic like this one, where my position is contrary to prevailing opinion.

i think the divisiveness stems from stereotyping opposing views, not having them. you come here expecting to be attacked and it's good that you defend yourself. i like to hear your point of view. i think you do make people think more about what they say, but when you stoop to the same level as pineapple pushers, then it's just arguing, not debate. i know you're often just reacting in kind to these immature comments, but you really could communicate your position more effectively by sticking to the high ground.

as for me, i definitely do not take the liberal side of every issue because i realize that democrats have just as much ideology as republicans and ideology is never a good problem-solver. i've sided with you in the past and i've voted for republicans, but, honestly, have you ever gone against the conservative agenda?

hijiki - My posts are only considered divisive because I'm usually going against the prevailing opinion in this forum. If you posted on a conservative website you might be accused of the same thing. I do not come here for enlightenment, I come for entertainment and for the opportunity debate with the other side.

As for personal attacks, I think I've been subjected to more personal attacks than I've launched. Nobody complains when some fruitcake wants to attack me with a pineapple, but if I call someone a moron it's a scandal?

And I do look at each issue and weigh the pros and cons, just as I assume you do. Does the fact that you always take the liberal position make you more thoughtful than me because I take the conservative one? I don't think so. We just have different perspectives on things.

that's all good, nola, i don't think you've made any racist statements. you have just as much of a right to comment as anyone else. but why do you always have to be so divisive and presumptive? anyone you disagree with is automatically an idiot elitist liberal. i know you're a devout conservative, but has it ever occured to you that not everyone is beholden to a political ideology? that many people here actually look at each issue and weigh the pros and cons with common sense? if your sport is truly debating in these forums, then it would be helpful if you would tone down the stereotyping and personal attacks otherwise you're just stirring up hatred, making annoying noise and your opinions won't touch anyone. are you here for enlightenment or to pick a fight?

"Judge Won't Order Schiavo Tube Reinsertion"

Not really a surprise considering the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

The parents will appeal. I know they will fight this as long as possible, but It strikes me that instead of spending time with their daughter in possibly her last weeks, Congress has created a way to force them away from their child.

I wonder what Congress will do now? Lambaste the judge as an "Activist Judge"??

REALITY CHECK - I don't think anyone is going to need therapy because of my critical posts. I've been called a racist, a homophobe and every other epithet that liberals rely on when they are losing arguments (and elections).

I'm part of the small minority in NYC who voted for Bush so it isn't a big surprise that my posts go against the grain here. But I enjoy sparring with the other side and it makes for more interesting debate when different viewpoints are provided. As for my name calling, maybe you should read the comments directed to me. But I'm not complaining - I'll leave the whining to your side. Speaking of which...

sp - Thanks for linking to that string. A perfect example of how words like racist and homophobe get abused by people who don't understand what they mean. Why don't you cut and paste one of my racist diatribes - or can't you find one?

The federal judge in Florida who ended up hearing the Schiavo case this afternoon has apparently said that he won't be ruling immediately. One can only hope that the delay will allow this whole thing to pass quietly away, in the way Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to go all along.

my favorite example is this thread:

http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2004/08/16/coney_island_terror_targets.php

where nola reveals his/her disgusting racism

Hello nola, the link was to let everyone know that your comments tend to be angry (ie: name-calling, snap assumptions, etc), which is the definition of "trolling." Out of curiosity (or my stalker nature) I googled your gothamist posts, and I was shocked to find that nearly every one of your posts is angry or contains some kind of insult.

I invite everyone to read over Nola's wide variety of Gothamist postings on the issues of our day, to get insight on what makes Nola tick, which is relevant to his position on the issue at hand (Terri Schiavo). I only stick to the facts, and I only speaketh the truth.

To summarize a cartoon I saw:

Bush & Co.'s (and some damnable Dems) Backruptcy Bill means that families will never be able to recover from the massive bills of such treatment thus being unable to pay.

Tort reform would end the malpractice claims that have so far paid for TS's care.

Bush kills babies if they cannot pay, see above post.

Who benefits?

This is the law Bush signed:

Section 166.046, Subsection (e):

If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient …

That equals hypocrasy in my book.

Nola: Oh, you know you like the attention. *wink*

Nick - Although these forums are a good place for freewheeling discussion, I don't think your sexual fantasies are of interest to anyone here. Maybe you can find someone with similar enthusiasms at Honoluluist?

at least nola is debating the issue. maybe you can see it as an opportunity to hear what the 'other side' might be trying to say even if it is religously and/or politically driven ideology that ignores the individual's rights and quality of life in favor of personal morality.

'too bad she's not a cop-killer', nola? you wanna expand on that bit of brilliance?

You really nailed me, REALITY CHECK. I actually post comments in the comments section of Gothamist. Is that what a troll is? And what is the term for weirdos who keep track of someone else's posts - stalker? But I'm glad you've found a hobby. Please let us know when I put up my 100th post and we can all celebrate.

No, Nola. I'm not going to send you threatening notes. I'm going to insert a large pineapple into that rectum you speak out of.

Insight on our friend nola and his trolling habit. I just speaketh the truth.

nola -- it is not complicated by the parents wanting to care for her -- Michael is fighting for his wife to die the way she wished, not to die so he doesn't have to care for her anymore. You make it sound like the guy is a cold-hearted snake who is just waiting for this ball and chain to croak already. And the guy's wife is dead. What do you want a man to do when his wife is dead? Have sex with her corpse? Or is it ok to have sex with her because she is, in fact, brain dead but kept alive with a feeding tube? Most courts in this case would grant Michael a divorce if he wanted one. And how do you know he didn't have a conversation with Terri about what she would want him to do with his life if she died i.e. move on and be with someone else? You don't know so stop making assumptions.

The fact remains that a court of law has ruled in favor of TERRI -- that is, it has ruled that TERRI'S wish to die should be carried out, not the wishes or her family or her husband.