Brittany Maynard is dead now...

The article said the doctor wrote a prescription for the lethal dose of barbiturates...

Yet many states can't get the right barbiturates for the death penalty.

Why do some of you scream about giving control of your life to the State? Why not scream for more personal freedom in Federal , State and local municipalities? Originally Posted by WTF

Got a link to someone screaming for that? Or did you make it up just now?

States right means that some powers are reserved to the states and NOT to the federal government.

That is not a scream to have the state control your life.

It is a scream for federal power to be trimmed.

I wonder if Brittany will be voting Democrat today?

I wonder if I will be voting Democrat today? Originally Posted by gnadfly

States right means that some powers are reserved to the states and NOT to the federal government.



Originally Posted by ExNYer

Wow...

I could not of made the point of how brain washed you State righters are any better than you just did.

"We don't want the Fed's telling us what to do , we want the States!"

Amazing , simply amazing.

That Constitution you so cherish , cost hundred of thousands of men their lives fighting a Civil War because some of the nation thought like me. Which is some rights should not be granted to State or Federal government. Unfortunately way to few still think that way.

Look NY'er just because you were off on the Ebola hype does not mean you need to try and twist my words here. You should just admit you fell for the hype and ignored the science on that one.

States rights is more an argument about which government should have the final say and interpretation of rights. In the states rights argument, each state shouldn't be overruled by the Feds. It renders the individual states, with their elected legislatures and governors, as powerless and the Feds supreme, in contravention of the original desires of the states to be more autonomous and freely exercise their rights as they understand them. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

JL, I think you have accurately framed the question. I believe it is hard to accept either end of the spectrum as the answer. Personally, I do not trust federal legislators and federal judges any more or any less than state or local legislators and judges. There can be honest ones at any level, and stupid/corrupt ones at any level. The arguments for/against consolidation hold no water when they argue the inherent “goodness” of one over the other.

I also have a problem with automatically assuming that a 1776 world view when transportation and communication made states far more isolated—and thus semi-autonomous—entities is inherently the right world view for 2014. The division of state/local/federal should be more an issue of where is the inherent impact of such decisions. Clearly not every issue has national import, but some do—and I wish that factor was more in play when deciding if it should be a federal issue or not. If students who receive a lousy education in one city or state because that locality is inept and refuses to spend money, and if that locality suffered the down-stream impact, I would be more in favor of local control of education. But I have seen too many communities consciously be short sighted—and in some cases vindictive—and then funnel the under educated “graduates” on to neighboring locals and states via their laws and policies. In the age of the internal combustion engine and the internet there are far, far fewer “local” decisions than many people wish to acknowledge.

But back to the original topic, death is usually sad, but I do support a person’s right to go with dignity and as they wish if it does not harm others. Some here might be interested in these links that talk to another young lady here in Ohio who is facing the same issue in a different way. It is a very major story here locally. Personally, I hope I have a fraction of her courage when it is my time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=NvBI_HlPyG8

and

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...ketball-season

Watch the opening of the movie "The Book Thief". Death is the narrator. He tells us that everyone dies at some time so remain calm. Getting excited does really seem to do much good.

Some people believe we need some basic rules in order for civilization to exist.
I agree that rights that do not hurt others should be universal. In the WTF utopia, do we need to state that as a rule or do we just assume it to be so? Originally Posted by boardman

so people are dumb, I think we all can agree on that.

so why do I have to pay for safety nets for someone else?


I'm all about people doing whatever they want to do, eat, drink, inhale, etc
as long as I DONT PAY FOR IT when they run to the ER(where they can't be denied) or other shit happens

http://www.obesitycampaign.org/obesity_facts.asp

21% of healthcare costs are cause you are FAT
http://www.thewire.com/national/2012...obesity/51138/

I have talked about this before in the vein of Cancer

Preventing cancer--

This is a bit of a rant against doctors and news sources.

I hear so much about men (and women) gettting cancer and "working" for a cure,etc
How much would cancer be reduced if people were not fat(BMI<25)? Originally Posted by bigcockpussylicker

but the idea is the same, people need a Dad who pays for them, to make the stupid rules.
If you dont want to be told by Dad what to do
1 move out
2 make Dad stop paying for you

basically the same thing that firefighters have been doing by not putting out fires when the home owner didnt pay into the system
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011...r-75-fee-again

Wow...

I could not of made the point of how brain washed you State righters are any better than you just did.

"We don't want the Fed's telling us what to do , we want the States!"

Amazing , simply amazing.

That Constitution you so cherish , cost hundred of thousands of men their lives fighting a Civil War because some of the nation thought like me. Which is some rights should not be granted to State or Federal government. Unfortunately way to few still think that way. Originally Posted by WTF

You need to learn to read. I suggest starting with the Constitution.

A power that is reserved to the states (or to the people - See the 10th Amendment0) does NOT mean the power is necessarily exercised by the states. It means the federal government CANNOT exercise it.

And "states rights" is a mismoner. States don't have rights, they have powers. Only people have rights.

So the demand that the federal government stop encroaching on state powers or the people's rights, as the case may be, it not a call for the individual states to exercise more control over people, no matter how many times you say it.

Look NY'er just because you were off on the Ebola hype does not mean you need to try and twist my words here. You should just admit you fell for the hype and ignored the science on that one. Originally Posted by WTF

I was never "off" on the Ebola "hype" as I never believed it would break out here the way it did in Africa.

What I objected to was the stupidity and arrogance of your guarantees in that thread. Do you see how that is different?..

The article said the doctor wrote a prescription for the lethal dose of barbiturates...
Originally Posted by gnadfly

I wonder if her insurance plan required a generic?

I would have loved to have seen what the prescription bottle said on it.

No Refills?

I was born, a free human... as was Brittany. No government; State or Federal can change that fact. Every day of my life, I do as I choose... no government; State or Federal can change that fact. Anyone here can argue against the level of freedom I have... but only I have the power to choose my next decision. This is not just my opinion... it is fact!

And... whether any of you here disagree with me or not... you ALL have the same power of freedom as I do.
Any one of you have the freedom to walk up to me, put a pistol to my head, and pull the trigger. I am not sure what my next "decision" would be at that exact moment... but until that last remaining, functional, brain synapse fires, only I have the power to choose it. Get it?

Brittany made her last decision in this realm... who are we to argue it's merit?

WPF doesn't understand because he does not want to understand. He thinks he is sounding smart, which only adds to his stupidity.

You need to learn to read. I suggest starting with the Constitution....


....What I objected to was the stupidity and arrogance of your guarantees in that thread. Do you see how that is different?..


Originally Posted by ExNYer

You're the one who could not comprehend what is written, Constitution or other.

Concerning Ebola, I proposed a bet, that is not a guarantee. So you are purposely lying because I have explained that to you numerous times.

Concerning "State Rights" , I no more want to give the states power that limit my rights than I do the Federal Government. Do I really have to explain that concept to you?

WPF doesn't understand because he does not want to understand. He thinks he is sounding smart, which only adds to his stupidity. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

How do you know wtf I think old man? Who is adding to their stupidity saying something like that. The best you can do is speculate. Kinda like you do with 9/11.

JL, I think you have accurately framed the question. I believe it is hard to accept either end of the spectrum as the answer. Personally, I do not trust federal legislators and federal judges any more or any less than state or local legislators and judges. There can be honest ones at any level, and stupid/corrupt ones at any level. The arguments for/against consolidation hold no water when they argue the inherent “goodness” of one over the other.

I also have a problem with automatically assuming that a 1776 world view when transportation and communication made states far more isolated—and thus semi-autonomous—entities is inherently the right world view for 2014. The division of state/local/federal should be more an issue of where is the inherent impact of such decisions. Clearly not every issue has national import, but some do—and I wish that factor was more in play when deciding if it should be a federal issue or not. If students who receive a lousy education in one city or state because that locality is inept and refuses to spend money, and if that locality suffered the down-stream impact, I would be more in favor of local control of education. But I have seen too many communities consciously be short sighted—and in some cases vindictive—and then funnel the under educated “graduates” on to neighboring locals and states via their laws and policies. In the age of the internal combustion engine and the internet there are far, far fewer “local” decisions than many people wish to acknowledge.

But back to the original topic, death is usually sad, but I do support a person’s right to go with dignity and as they wish if it does not harm others. Some here might be interested in these links that talk to another young lady here in Ohio who is facing the same issue in a different way. It is a very major story here locally. Personally, I hope I have a fraction of her courage when it is my time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=NvBI_HlPyG8

and

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...ketball-season Originally Posted by Old-T

Thanks for your post old-T. In my mind, the beauty of the states rights issue lies in the distribution of powers, obviously the idea underlying the three branches of government. Although Assup correctly pointed out the former association with segregation, I don't think it needs to be ignored solely for that reason. I too distrust many politicians and their motives, so I hate to see them get too much power, though sometimes, as you point out, the local idiots need to be slapped down.

I was born, a free human... as was Brittany. No government; State or Federal can change that fact. Every day of my life, I do as I choose... no government; State or Federal can change that fact. Anyone here can argue against the level of freedom I have... but only I have the power to choose my next decision. This is not just my opinion... it is fact!

And... whether any of you here disagree with me or not... you ALL have the same power of freedom as I do.
Any one of you have the freedom to walk up to me, put a pistol to my head, and pull the trigger. I am not sure what my next "decision" would be at that exact moment... but until that last remaining, functional, brain synapse fires, only I have the power to choose it. Get it?

Brittany made her last decision in this realm... who are we to argue it's merit? Originally Posted by MrGiz

No, you weren't born free, why do you think that?
I bet one of the first ways you expressed yourself was by getting a drivers license, right?
Why did you do that if you were born free? Why not just drive out into the country, seeing as you were born free?
exactly, you are born into a society that has rules.
How much of your resistance has been you reacting without thought?

I agree that Brittany should be allowed to end her life anyway, anywhere she wanted as long as she didn't harm others, but you are sadly mistaken to think you can do whatever you want because you are "free".

I bet if someone put a gun to your head, you would involuntarily shit your pants.