Keith Devens .com

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

asdf, that's exactly the opposite of the point. This isn't about politics -- that's why we agree.

It is politics.

sadf/asdf, you seem to have a tendency to merely re-assert your positions rather than actually arguing. How old are you anyway? This is like kindergarten arguing ("it is so!").

The only thing I can imagine you're trying to argue is that Nader's position, and mine, are politically motivated. So, if you'd like to argue that, then do so. And stop changing your name around. Pick one and stick with it or I'll ban you from commenting. Also, stop providing a fake e-mail address. The field is optional.

Uh, you were the one arguing like a kindergartener in the other thread (being coy, ad hominem, etc.). I was merely pointing out the saying "politics makes for strange bedfellows" - the whole Schiavo case is very political - it has the right very worked up, and you and Nader actually agree on something. Try reading up on that saying instead of having a knee-jerk reaction.

Mr. ASDF

Heh, I don't know if I've ever been coy in my life. And I was "ad hominem", but not towards you, and not as part of any argument (which is what ad hominem is usually used to mean), so it's silly for you to say I was "arguing like a kindergardner". My point stands that you merely reassert your positions without offering any argument.

I was merely pointing out the saying "politics makes for strange bedfellows"... Try reading up on that saying...

Like I said, my position on this isn't politically motivated, and Nader's position as well doesn't seem to be politically motivated, so the phrase doesn't apply.

You were coy by not answering my questions and instead trying to twist what I said.

The saying does apply, because I'd suspect you and Ralph Nader would disagree on a majority of subjects, but on this one you both agree. You're "bedfellows" on this one issue.

I gave a reason for not answering your question, in response to which you just reasserted the opposite Then without responding to my reason you keep claiming I'm merely not answering your question. And neither did you respond to what I said to give reason why the thing you claim I was twisting your words about wasn't accurate.

Sure, we're "bedfellows" if you want to use the word, but it's not politics that's made us such.

For anyone with no clue what we're talking about, here is the discussion we're referring to.

Huh, what reason?

Come on, your position on Terri Schiavo is political. The whole social issues right has the same position. It's a political position. Just like the right's position on the right to kill murderers - it's part of their political platform.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Huh, what reason?

You asked about the death penalty, and I said I thought your question was irrelevant. You simply reasserted that your question was "totally relevant" without saying why.

Come on, your position on Terri Schiavo is political.

No, it's really not. It's simply a tragedy this woman was murdered and tortured and starved to death. Ralph Nader's position on this isn't political either (exactly as I thought) -- I actually heard an interview with him on Wednesday, and took notes. He didn't bring politics into it at all. He called it a tradgedy that "we have a woman who is not terminally ill who is being killed", and he thinks that this tragedy devalues human life. He wished the husband could have simply walked away and let the family take care of Terri. He said it's "barbaric" that they have a police guard and that if the mother applies a sponge to Terri's lips she can be arrested, and he pointed out that convicted criminals have more rights. He said that "this has become politicized, but the reason you have people who usually don't agree is because they go to the core facts of the issue" (i.e. that a woman is being murdered by forced starvation).

Jesse Jackson supported not murdering Terri as well, calling this "a moral issue that transcends family and political disputes". Neither is this issue exclusively a Republican one, as prominent Democrats also supported not starving Terri. In short, this is not a political issue. People such as yourself may use this tragedy to try to score political points about some issue or another, but you shouldn't assume that others think like you do.

Note: any quotes above I'm paraphrasing, since they're taken from my notes.

I'm not trying to score political points. If your notes of Nader are accurate, then I agree with what he said (to my surprise as well). The Terri Schiavo case is very much a political issue - that of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the right to die. The right-wing is generally against those, the left for them. I agree with what Nader said, and I also disagree with a lot of the religious rhetoric coming from the religious right on this case. "religlious right" - that's a huge political platform. And numerous politicians, judges, and other people have involved themselves in the Terri Schiavo affair - it is political - people are voicing their opinion on morals, ethics, policy, interpreting laws, etc. Actually, I don't think the left got too excited about this whole thing.