Ask Me Help Desk - I am woke

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So suicide is OK as long as someone assists you in it? Could a healthy person who is sick of living commit suicide so long as someone assists them?

Sounds like you're not up on this topic. You would have to establish residency in a state that offers assisted suicide. Here's this note:

In order to be approved for Physician Assisted Death, which is currently legal only in Oregon and Washington, the terminally ill patient must:
-be eighteen years of age or older
-be a resident of Oregon or Washington
-be capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him or herself
-be diagnosed with a terminal disease which will result in the end of the patient's life within six months.
Two physicians must agree that these criteria have been met.

http://physician-assisted-suicide.we...s-for-pas.html

I know what the law says. I'm asking you about the moral foundation of the law. Why allow some people but not everyone? If it's OK to commit suicide when you have a terminal disease, then why not when you have a disease that is very painful but not terminal, or why not when suffering from chronic depression? And why would you need a doctor to assist you? Why not just jump off a cliff, or shoot yourself, or swim out into the deep waters and drown? Why be so restrictive? Can you answer that? Isn't this just legalized suicide made to appear "civilized" so we can still look at ourselves in the mirror and feel moral?

As a society, there have to be set rules, otherwise the "SYSTEM" breaks down. This is exactly the tactic of anarchist and communists: Upend the institutions and break down the order of societies to take control.

It's obviously okay in two states if certain requirements are met. States can set their own laws and define their own morality for themselves. Laws are subject to change and morality redefined by that state. You can question or complain about someone else's morality, but can you make them adopt your morality? I suppose you could try, but the final outcome is up to them.

Quote:

States can set their own laws and define their own morality for themselves. Laws are subject to change and morality redefined by that state. You can question or complain about someone else's morality, but can you make them adopt your morality? I suppose you could try, but the final outcome is up to them.

If we adopt the view that morality is changeable, then we are on a slippery slope. The static nature of morals is exactly what Jefferson appealed to in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." His entire line of reasoning falls apart instantly if someone eliminates the "Creator", and that is exactly what we are doing.

Endowed by THEIR Creator. Do we all have the right to approach the relationship with the Creator that we understand in our own way? Can that relationship not GROW as we GROW?

Quote:

Endowed by THEIR Creator.

His appeal was to "all men", and that he considers there to be one specific creator is clear by the fact that he capitalized "Creator". You have to the right to approach any god you want, but Jefferson's appeal was to "unalienable" rights and "self-evident" truth. He did not regard those to be changeable, and thus his appeal was that, since God gave those rights, it is not in the proper authority of governments to take them away. It was a brilliant appeal that we are now casting aside.

We know Jefferson didn't mean slaves since he owned them, but that changed eventually and gradually over time as we grew as a nation didn't it? There you go.

And why? Because the moral values in the Declaration were considered to be permanent and not subject to the whims of people.

Anything in America can be voted on, and changed and thats how change occurs. With or without a civil war. Come on you know better than that. Wonder why Jefferson didn't say endowed by THE Creator instead of THEIR Creator? Because whatever you interpret as your Creator is VALID, even if you convert from one religion to another, no matter the name you give your Creator.

The appeal was to ALL, not some even if we are still working on a more perfect union, meaning a works in progress. Something to strive for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And why? Because the moral values in the Declaration were considered to be permanent and not subject to the whims of people.

Was Jefferson's Creator the same as his slaves' Creator?

Quote:

Anything in America can be voted on, and changed and thats how change occurs. With or without a civil war. Come on you know better than that. Wonder why Jefferson didn't say endowed by THE Creator instead of THEIR Creator? Because whatever you interpret as your Creator is VALID, even if you convert from one religion to another, no matter the name you give your Creator.

The appeal was to ALL, not some even if we are still working on a more perfect union, meaning a works in progress. Something to strive for.

You MUST pay closer attention. You are referring to changes in law. I am referring to changes in our moral standard. It is the latter that Jefferson attempted to etch in stone.

Quote:

Was Jefferson's Creator the same as his slaves' Creator?

It was the very moral standard that Jefferson and the founding fathers established that formed the basis of the appeal for the end of slavery, so your objection is actually an affirmation of the genius of Jefferson. Thank God people in that time understood the difference between changing laws and changing our moral standards.

Do you think the Creator of unborn children, which you never, ever stir yourself in the slightest amount to defend, is the same as Jefferson's?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Do you think the Creator of unborn children, which you never, ever stir yourself in the slightest amount to defend, is the same as Jefferson's?

Please answer my question. A Yes or No will suffice.

(The Creator has handed over to men and women the ability to create children.)

W.G.: It is patently WRONG to judge history, the actions of historical figures, or the actions of a nation while viewing that history, those figures, or the actions of that nation through the prism of today. We don't do that with the Bible, or at least we shouldn't, and we definitely should not condemn someone like Jefferson based upon a morality sprung forth through the enlightenment of many, many generations in Jefferson's future or modern times.

Our Founding Fathers were divinely endowed, that is the only explanation for how they were able to generate such a miraculously inclusive and enviable document like the U.S. Constitution: They are beyond reproach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

W.G.: It is patently WRONG to judge history, the actions of historical figures, or the actions of a nation while viewing that history, those figures, or the actions of that nation through the prism of today. We don't do that with the Bible, or at least we shouldn't, and we definitely should not condemn someone like Jefferson based upon a morality sprung forth through the enlightenment of many, many generations in Jefferson's future or modern times.

Our Founding Fathers were divinely endowed, that is the only explanation for how they were able to generate such a miraculously inclusive and enviable document like the U.S. Constitution: They are beyond reproach.

I wasn't judging anyone, V7!!!!! I am wondering if Jefferson's Creator is the same one as the slaves' Creator. Is YOUR Creator the same one as the slaves' Creator? -- or Jefferson's Creator?

"Enlightenment"? meaning we've improved our understanding of the Creator? As I watch and read the news, it doesn't seem like there has been much improvement.

JL/

Quote:

You MUST pay closer attention. You are referring to changes in law. I am referring to changes in our moral standard. It is the latter that Jefferson attempted to etch in stone.

Is not ones laws the reflection of morality on the national level? I submit yes, especially given the cultural, racial, and religious diversity of it's people. EQUAL protection, freedom, justice under OUR law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

W.G.: It is patently WRONG to judge history, the actions of historical figures, or the actions of a nation while viewing that history, those figures, or the actions of that nation through the prism of today. We don't do that with the Bible, or at least we shouldn't, and we definitely should not condemn someone like Jefferson based upon a morality sprung forth through the enlightenment of many, many generations in Jefferson's future or modern times.

Our Founding Fathers were divinely endowed, that is the only explanation for how they were able to generate such a miraculously inclusive and enviable document like the U.S. Constitution: They are beyond reproach.

They are humans and while it was a good thing they established, it had flaws as most human endeavors are flawed. Divinely endowed though or beyond reproach is rather a stretch but they done good for the times and circumstances we were in and every generation that followed should be inspired to keep strive to fulfill the promise of a more perfect union.

No one is attacking them at all as it was a different time but as we evolve we can be better can't we?

Quote:

Please answer my question. A Yes or No will suffice.

Yes.

Quote:

Is not ones laws the reflection of morality on the national level? I submit yes, especially given the cultural, racial, and religious diversity of it's people. EQUAL protection, freedom, justice under OUR law.

Laws are a reflection of some standard of morality. That's why it's important to be careful what standard you use.

Or what lawmakers you elect.

Quote:

Or what lawmakers you elect.

Absolutely.

Talaniman: You ith the nail on the head and I agree! We are in a constant state of evolution....and we can "get better" and we MUST get better because, otherwise, we will spin out of control.

W.G.: I get overly defensive about the Founding Fathers.....my apologies for misinterpreting what you were asking about: I was wrong!

Man that Dershowitz is one helluva defense lawyer. He is wrong in this case but that's who I would want as my lawyer defending me. Then we get one of them lying arseholes like Cipollone to close it out ARGH!!

Talaniman: Got to agree about Dershowitz and his legal prowess: He is a legal "mental giant"! I don't know why there has been such a drastic change in Dershowitz: He used to be a huge Civil Liberties advocate and was know to be very liberal and a darling of the left....not to stereotype him or anybody or any Jews, in general, but he is a New Yorker and "most" (again, not stereotyping) New York Jews are liberal or, at least Democrats.....The only thing I can come up with is that he has stated before that he is always felt a need to "help the underdog" and, maybe, he somehow feels Trump is the underdog in the Impeachment proceedings.

Maybe Dersh is trying to stand for something which transcends mere politics. Maybe he is standing for the rule of law and is willing to follow that where it leads him.

Last I heard he is still doing quite well with his pet projects and causes and in this case he is defending his client with the same zeal he always has in the past, and I have confidence he always will in the future, no matter who his client is. Defending the dufus with the line that you cannot impeach him no matter what he has done or what the evidence shows is an HUGE stretch of the imagination.

That's why he can command the big bucks though, and earns every cent of it, and MORE!

Quote:

Defending the dufus with the line that you cannot impeach him no matter what he has done or what the evidence shows is an HUGE stretch of the imagination.

The only imagination being stretched is yours. Dersh never said that.

jlisenbe: Believe you are correct: Dershowitz said that anything that the President did was not of a High Crimes and Misdemeanor variety.

It was a paraphrase dude, but I'll see if I can find the quote just for you.

Quote:

"If a president, any president, were to have done what The Times reported about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense. Let me repeat: Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense," Dershowitz said on the Senate floor.

It also makes a lie of his Carnival of Dunces claim that there are no first hand witnesses that heard the dufus say that his hold was tied to the investigations he wanted the Ukrainians to do for him. In case you cannot see it on your own, it's also EVIDENCE of a QPQ.

Quote:

Democratic House managers have argued that Trump demanded that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden, a potential 2020 rival, and his son in exchange for the release of U.S. aid to Ukraine and a White House meeting. Democrats said he did it for his own personal gain, to "cheat" in the election.

See how easy that was?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

jlisenbe: Believe you are correct: Dershowitz said that anything that the President did was not of a High Crimes and Misdemeanor variety.

A good lawyer will say anything to defend his client.

Quote:

Democrats said he did it for his own personal gain, to "cheat" in the election.

Key phrase is "Democrats said".

Quote:

A good lawyer will say anything to defend his client.

Just like a good House dem will say anything to convict Trump.

He did cheat but no repub will ever call him out no matter what because he will whoop their a$$es on twitter or Fox. Everybody knows he runs repubs with an iron fist and they better do as they are told and stay in line.

The dems have the law on their side now where as the dufus went out side of it. You do know the USA and Ukraine have treaty en force to cover an investigate an American in their country don't you, so the real question has always been why the dufus didn't just file a formal request with the Ukraine prosecutors into Biden like they told him too? That would have been LEGAL!

Must be hard for a crook to do anything the legal way huh?

Quote:

He did cheat

How?

As for the treaty, I get that, but there is nothing that would prevent an American pres from requesting an investigation.

Quote:

Must be hard for a crook to do anything the legal way huh?

Didn't seem to bother you with HC. Why are you bothered now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

How?

"Do us a favor though". You have a problem seeing evidence, and you seem to have aproblem with recognizing cheating too.

Quote:

As for the treaty, I get that, but there is nothing that would prevent an American pres from requesting an investigation

To much to ask to do it the right way without cheating?

Quote:

Didn't seem to bother you with HC. Why are you bothered now?

HC didn't bother us the way the dufus does so, we are dealing with what's bothering us NOW. You have a problem with that?

Quote:

"Do us a favor though". You have a problem seeing evidence, and you seem to have aproblem with recognizing cheating too.

So asking the Uke pres to do our country a favor is illegal???

Quote:

To much to ask to do it the right way without cheating?

Now remember. You have yet to demonstrate that he cheated on anything.

Quote:

HC didn't bother us the way the dufus does so, we are dealing with what's bothering us NOW. You have a problem with that?

I have a problem with your selective outrage, and with the fact that you could so happily vote for someone like her, and then want to be so critical of Trump. It's the ole double standard. Correct???

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So asking the Uke pres to do our country a favor is illegal???

The illegal part was asking them to announce the investigation after promises and assurances didn't work, and putting a hold on lawfully authorized funds that he previously approved without notifying congress of his intentions. That also goes for the process laid out ratified and signed for pursuing an investigation by an American working in Ukraine, that also wasn't done. # illegal acts though not hanging offenses that show a pattern of intentional wrongdoing in that he was advised of the correct procedures.

Quote:

Now remember. You have yet to demonstrate that he cheated on anything.

See above. To add the illegal notion he wanted a public announcement into investigations by a foreign government to smear Biden and influence voters, when he had a perfectly legal option, is the definition of cheating.

Quote:

I have a problem with your selective outrage, and with the fact that you could so happily vote for someone like her, and then want to be so critical of Trump. It's the ole double standard. Correct???

The same selective outraged the right and conservative used against Obama and HC, while letting the dufus run hog wild with his big bad bully mouth and behavior. Shows we are both human and are flawed.

Quote:

The illegal part was asking them to announce the investigation after promises and assurances didn't work, and putting a hold on lawfully authorized funds that he previously approved without notifying congress of his intentions. That also goes for the process laid out ratified and signed for pursuing an investigation by an American working in Ukraine, that also wasn't done. # illegal acts though not hanging offenses that show a pattern of intentional wrongdoing in that he was advised of the correct procedures.

You have a small and largely irrelevant point about the withholding of funds in violation of what the Congress wanted, but the rest is just silly. There is nothing in the law that says a pres cannot ask a foreign leader to investigate a possibly illegal act. And you certainly have not demonstrated "cheating". That's what people do on tests, or husbands do to their wives. What standing in law does that term even have?

Quote:

he wanted a public announcement into investigations by a foreign government to smear Biden and influence voters, when he had a perfectly legal option, is the definition of cheating.

Maybe, but you have no proof of that.

Quote:

The same selective outraged the right and conservative used against Obama and HC, while letting the dufus run hog wild with his big bad bully mouth and behavior. Shows we are both human and are flawed.

The difference is in policy. I despised Obama's welfare state, deficit spending, support of gay marriage, liberal judges, and over regulation that constrained the economy. Trump, on the other hand, became the first and only pres to speak at the annual March for Life recently. I despise his deficit spending, but in many other areas of policy he is doing well, so I tolerate his big mouth.

You act like Obama and HC were saints and Trump is the devil. That's ridiculous. That's where your double standard is so obvious.

You don't want to know what Bolton wrote in his book JL? I mean how long could that take and would it make a difference if it was indeed his tesimony that the dufus told him to with hold the money until the Ukes announced publicly to investigate the Biden's and Crowdstrike?

I think it would make no difference. It would be his testimony as opposed to the testimony of both the Uke PM and FM that there was no quid pro quo at all and the testimony of Trump (and others) that it did not exist. The investigation did not take place. The Ukes got their money. The overwhelming balance of evidence and testimony swings decisively in Trump's favor.

I would like the time taken to find out then judge for myself who I beleived. 3 of every four Americans agree, so should not the majority rule?

I have no problem with witnesses. I'd love to see Schiff, Pelosi, HB, and JB called for sure. Go ahead and call in Bolden. Let's see what he actually has to say. You do realize that all we have so far is the NYT (hardly a neutral source) paraphrase of his remarks. Call in the whistle blower. Go for it.

How in the name of good sense can anyone believe Bolton? Why did he have to "WRITE A BOOK" to get his story to have any interest? Is it not obvious to all that WRITING A BOOK IS TO MAKE $$$s, that is the plan! If what he had to say had all the HONARABLE, VIRTUOUS AND CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPACTFUL QUALITIES that the Demos want to pretend this NeoCon has to say, why didn't the Demos call him up when they were doing their little IMPEACHMENT gig? If a man is so virtuous and has something so important and earth shattering to say, why does he wait so damn late in the game to say it? I can already see that this is another NOTHING BURGER!