Mrs. Santorum

christiefan915 said:
He's a presidential candidate, numbnuts, and when his personal family matters clash with his stated positions, voters have every right to question where he's really coming from.

You must be their family member, the lengths you're going to in defending them.
Click to expand...

Then Michelle is fair game also. You just set the bar so don't complain about criticizing Michelle. HYPOCRITE.

Honestly, you have to be the biggest hypocrite I've come across on a political forum site.
 
bravo said:
Deck hand ?......Serving in the Navy has nothing to do with this subject....
Agnostic?.......My religious beliefs or lack of them have nothing to do with this subject......
Excommunication?....That has nothing to do with this subject......

If you say YOU are a Catholic, then you should know what your church teaches about childbirth and the health and care of both mother and baby during childbirth....
Try educating yourself and you'll see Santorum has nothing to explain about HIS or HIS WIFE's actions......

If you have a problem with the doctrine, rules, regulations or beliefs of the Catholic Church, join a different church that is more in line with your beliefs rather than
ridiculing the Church.....
You certainly don't like it when others ridicule the Muslims for their beliefs, yet you do the very same thing because of your not understanding what your own church teaches..
Click to expand...

The policy of the Catholic church is to save the innocent life, the child's life is considered the innocent life, iif it is a choice of one over the other, the mother loses.
 
bravo said:
Like I pointed out....one women got 2.9 million and a man, 500,000 for spilling hot McDonalds coffee on themselves......think that was more than enough to cover medical bills and "a little more" for pain and suffering......
But thats not really the point.......if Santorums legislation would have prevailed, his wife's lawsuit would have been limited....it wasn't and so neither was her lawsuit.....
what the fuck is your point......was the speeding ticket analogy over your head.?



Asswipe liberals demanding a share of other peoples hard earned wages as redistribution of wealth have no fuckin' right to accuse others of greed....or following the present rules, regulations and laws of hypocrisy......
Click to expand...

Wrong again. The woman's reward was reduced to less than $600K ( the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[SUP][19][/SUP]) And if this is the case you're referring to about a man's lawsuit, it was eventually dismissed.

In 1993, McDonald's was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving.

Interesting how rabid righties are so gung-ho about tort reform until one of their own files a lawsuit. And your speeding ticket analogy has nothing to do with what the santorums were shooting for so it didn't deserve a response.


 
christiefan915 said:
Wrong again. The woman's reward was reduced to less than $600K ( the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[SUP][19][/SUP]) And if this is the case you're referring to about a man's lawsuit, it was eventually dismissed.

In 1993, McDonald's was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving.

Interesting how rabid righties are so gung-ho about tort reform until one of their own files a lawsuit. And your speeding ticket analogy has nothing to do with what the santorums were shooting for so it didn't deserve a response.
Click to expand...

So filing a lawsuit has something to do with the Presidential campaign now. Do you know how many states are suing Obama?
 
Yurt said:
nice play on my jewish heritage jerk. of course racism is ok as long as a liberal does it.
Click to expand...

Funny how bigots show themselves sooner of late, huh Yurt

Thats probably what she was taught as Catholic growing up....
 
christiefan915 said:
Wrong again. The woman's reward was reduced to less than $600K ( the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[SUP][19][/SUP]) And if this is the case you're referring to about a man's lawsuit, it was eventually dismissed.

In 1993, McDonald's was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving.

Interesting how rabid righties are so gung-ho about tort reform until one of their own files a lawsuit. And your speeding ticket analogy has nothing to do with what the santorums were shooting for so it didn't deserve a response.
Click to expand...

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[SUP][15][/SUP] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[SUP][5][/SUP] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

Did I say 2.9 million.......I stand corrected....she was awarded 2.7 million according to wiki....and that is an undeniable fact......

but then, who the hell cares what the final disposition was or the final numbers.....the fact was she could sew for any amount she wanted and the jury cold award ANY amount they wanted, no matter how fair or unfair........and to even consider 2.7 dollars as fair for spilling coffee on yourself is ridiculous....THAT IS THE POINT, and not the final money amount.
 
bravo said:
A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[SUP][15][/SUP] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[SUP][5][/SUP] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.
Click to expand...

Did I say 2.9 million.......I stand corrected....she was awarded 2.76 million according to wiki....and that is an undeniable fact......

but then, who the hell cares what the final disposition was or the final numbers.....the fact was she could sue for any amount she wanted and the jury cold award ANY amount they wanted, no matter how fair or unfair........and to even consider 2.7 million dollars as fair for spilling coffee on yourself is ridiculous....THAT IS THE POINT, and not the final money amount.

And of course the "speeding ticket" analogy is relevant....you pay what the law says at the time of the incident, not what you think or imagine is fair or reasonable, whether it happens to be more or less is irrelevant.......thus, Mrs. Santorum complied with the law in effect at the time, not what her or her husband thinks it should have been.....

Its like the asswipe liberal people that are supposedly saying "raise my taxes, raise my taxes"......what crap.....there is nothing to stop them from paying more than the law
requires, but do they?......Not on your pitiful life.....in reality, they pay as little as they possibly can, use every loophole, every scheme at their disposal to pay as little as they can....thats a hypocrite of the first order.....
 
Alias said:
Then Michelle is fair game also. You just set the bar so don't complain about criticizing Michelle. HYPOCRITE.

Honestly, you have to be the biggest hypocrite I've come across on a political forum site.
Click to expand...

You who have spent MONTHS calling the First Lady all kind of vile names now want to piss and moan because someone else is saying things you find offensive about Mrs Santorum?

Nice...but oh so typical...double standard.
 
Yurt said:
nice play on my jewish heritage jerk. of course racism is ok as long as a liberal does it.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself, you pompous ass. I don't know anything about your heritage, nor do I want to. My post referred to alias's snide posts on another thread.
 
bravo said:
Did I say 2.9 million.......I stand corrected....she was awarded 2.76 million according to wiki....and that is an undeniable fact......

but then, who the hell cares what the final disposition was or the final numbers.....the fact was she could sue for any amount she wanted and the jury cold award ANY amount they wanted, no matter how fair or unfair........and to even consider 2.7 million dollars as fair for spilling coffee on yourself is ridiculous....THAT IS THE POINT, and not the final money amount.

And of course the "speeding ticket" analogy is relevant....you pay what the law says at the time of the incident, not what you think or imagine is fair or reasonable, whether it happens to be more or less is irrelevant.......thus, Mrs. Santorum complied with the law in effect at the time, not what her or her husband thinks it should have been.....

Its like the asswipe liberal people that are supposedly saying "raise my taxes, raise my taxes"......what crap.....there is nothing to stop them from paying more than the law
requires, but do they?......Not on your pitiful life.....in reality, they pay as little as they possibly can, use every loophole, every scheme at their disposal to pay as little as they can....thats a hypocrite of the first order.....
Click to expand...

Even your spin is false. The undeniable FACT is that Liebeck's $2.7 million award was lowered to "an undisclosed amount less than $600,000." But in any case this isn't about an anonymous citizen at McDonald's, it's about a hypocritical pol who talks out of both sides of his mouth when his own family has the bad luck. The hoi polloi should be capped on damages but God forbid, not the santorum elites. A pox on them both.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Yes and so do I, having been brought up as a Catholic as I've already stated. Any doctor would try to save both but as Mott is saying, if there was a choice between saving the baby or the mother many would choose the baby.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
Err on the side of future life, save the mother... However such philosophies should be offered earlier in the Pregnancy than when they start to "push" so they can find a doctor that shares their view. "Many" would agree and choose one doctor, others would disagree and choose another.
Click to expand...

It appears as if you (Damo, not Tom) are saying that the doctor should save the mother. As if it were his choice. It's not. It's the woman's choice. What part of this are you people having trouble with? This must be the big daddy complex so ingrained in the right wing, authoritarian mind, rearing its hideous face.

Further, your reasoning is beyond offensive. Now, I'm surreeeeee I have misunderstood you, but you appear to be saying that it makes sense to save the woman's life because of the possibility of "future life". Meaning she might squirt out another kid or two. You have completely devauled the woman to the point where she does not even exist as a human being. As if a woman's life has no value unless she is going to be giving birth.

This is so offensive, so sick, that it makes me ill.
 
About 1% of all abortions are late-term. The right wing has made a cottage industry out of pretending that thousands of women are changing their selfish minds at the last moment and having this procedure. It’s not true. You couldn’t find a doctor who would perform it.

It’s used when going through with the birth would endanger the woman’s life. What part of that don’t you understand? The Santorums had a case where continuing the pregnancy would endanger the mother’s life. Do you understand the difference between the two? One must end the pregnancy by giving birth to a stillborn in order to save her life, the other must end the pregnancy without delivering a dead baby. It has to be removed.

Here is what the Supreme Court has held:

• even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;”
• “health” in this context includes both physical and mental health;
• only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and
• states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.

Now Congress, in the partial birth abortion ban act of 2003, found that late term abortion is never used to save the life or health of the mother.
CONGRESS found this. Do you understand that? Do you understand what that means?

I suggest you speak with a medical professional, not on the payroll of the anti-choice movement, who has an understanding of the tragic and catastrophic circumstances this procedure is used in. I find it laughable when righties whip the moral outrage about “the left” “using” the “worst thing that can happen to a parent”.

WE KNOW it’s one of the worst things that can happen to a parent. That is why we have always stated: BUTT OUT.

Now, there are many on the right who are always playing semantics. In fact, the entire right plays semantics. It’s murder if you terminate the pregnancy because delivering the baby would kill the mother (oh wait, that didn’t go over well! I got it, let’s claim that we know that NO late term abortions are ever used to save the life or health of the mother. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s it! That’s the ticket! The doctors and the women are lying! That’s it! Yeah!) but it’s “God’s will” if you induce labor so early that there is no chance the child will not be stillborn. You can claim “ a miracle may occur”. Yeah, well if you believe in miracles guess what? One may occur in a late term abortion too – in fact, isn’t the whole “Born alive” comedy series based on just that?

However, IMO, this is just semantics . That is my opinion. You can disagree, but to claim that I started this thread as an attack on the wife, is so hateful and dishonest. IT’s a claim made by alias, a hate-filled dope fiend who has been making racist and sexist posts about Michelle Obama since he got here and is now lying about this thread in order to justify them.

He’s a hateful little bastard who I have on IA because I can’t take the constant stream of hate. But that anyone here “thanks” his posts, says a lot about the people here.
If the article I posted was an attack on anyone (and it was), it was an attack on Rick Santorum. Not on his wife. On her husband who would force other husbands to watch their wives die if they were not medically able to go through with the delivery and give birth to a dead baby, but rather had to have it medically removed dead. And that is my opinion, if I may be so bold as to speak for myself.
 
leaningright said:
I understand the sentiment here. When I read your original statement I couldn't help but think of the situation of a former student (who later became a friend) and his wife in the 90's. She was pregnant with twins and toward the end of the pregnancy was having problems. The doctors assured her that there could be problems when it came time for delivery. During this time it could become possible for them to save the mother at the expense of the lives of the babies. The doctor made it very plain that this is exactly what they [the doctors] would do...essentially a late term abortion...should the situation arise as they said it might. This young couple had to make a difficult choice whether to have the procedure if things went awry. When they decided that everything was to be done to save the babies, even at the expense of the mother's life, they had a terrible time convincing the doctors to carry out things as they had decided. Finally with papers signed and all i's dotted and t's crossed, it came time for the babies to be born. While there were difficulties, fortunately mother and babies all eventually came out of it OK.

The decision should be the parents'. The parents should know up front the views of the doctor and proceed accordingly. When it it time to "push" as someone put it, is not the time to find out the views of the doctor. I am glad everything went well for your mom and sister. By the way, I'm a '66 model too.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this. I agree with this even knowing that Some women will be browbeaten into decisions by authoritarian husbands. Even by abusive husbands. I can agree with even knowing that some women will “decide” to save the child and let herself die because she was brought up in a fundamentalist environment and believes she has no value other than to make babies.

I would not agree with legislation forcing doctors to save the woman’s life at the expense of the unborn. That late into a wanted pregnancy it’s a child to the mother and I understand this. We don’t live in a perfect world and not all women will make a decision based on their own best interests (which btw, that late in a wanted pregnancy CAN include saving her child). And in order to have the best system, you are always going to have some few that this system fails.
Too bad the right can’t figure that out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top