I won't argue with your facts, just your personal judgments. It seems to me that everyone you mention is just trying to do the right thing in tragic circumstances.

I don't agree with the Schindler's taking this battle to the wall in the courts either, but they sincerely thought it was something they had to do.

By the theory of this thread, the only way Delay would have not been a hypocritical evil bastard was if he had tried to stop pulling the plug on his father by suing his mother. Correct me if I miss the point here.

Yeah, people say stupid things, just like right now: you keep saying the stupidest shit I've ever heard.

Evil:

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

Bastard:

1. A child born out of wedlock.
2. Something that is of irregular, inferior, or dubious origin.
3. Slang. A person, especially one who is held to be mean or disagreeable.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be the Evil Bastard Tom Delay.

The title of the thread is Proof that Tom Delay is an Evil Bastard. The "proof" is a recitation of the tragedy surrounding his father's death.

Personally, I find that entire line of reasoning to be disgusting.

"By the theory of this thread, the only way Delay would have not been a hypocritical evil bastard was if he had tried to stop pulling the plug on his father by suing his mother. Correct me if I miss the point here"

You missed the point here. By the theory of this thread, Delay, having experienced what he did, should have known that this decision is best handled by the family, and that using it to draw attention away from his ethics issues, or for other political gain was not kosher. He, of all people, should have had sympathy for the family on both sides, and understood how tough a decision this must be, and not tried to interject his political agenda into the middle. He should not have called Michael Schiavo's actions barbaric or terrorism, when he tooka similar stance not so long ago.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

It was not an option for Delay to allow the matter to be handled by the family. The matter was and is being handled by the courts.

I don't know what is in Delay's heart, but it could be as simple as he thought trying to preserve Schiavo's life was the right thing to do. He was in a position to try to do it, so he did. I don't approve the inflamed rhetoric he employed in a moment of passion, but it is not as bad as the rhetoric employed by the author of this thread.

For all I know, he may have been opposed to the decisions made relative to his father, but deferred to his mother. For all I know that is what is driving him here.

Maybe, once in a while, we can disagree with political figures without calling them evil or comparing them to Hitler or whatever. Maybe we can just disagree.

It was not an option for Delay to allow the matter to be handled by the family"

It was an option for Delay to not push to bring the issue through Congress, and to the federal courts.

I agree that one has to be careful about the words you use, but if the author of this thread thinks that allowing your father to pass without medical aid, and then years later, making political hay out of a similar decision, calling it an act of barbarism and medical terrorism is evil, then that's the author's prerogative. I can see why a person would look at that, see political opportunism at it's worst, and consider it an evil thing to do to a family that is clearly trying to do what each side thinks is right for their loved one.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

And sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

---

_______________________________________________

Maybe Delay just helped get a bill through Congress because he thought it was the right thing to do. The vote was pretty lopsided. If Delay didn't do it, someone else would have. There was a voice vote in the Senate. Any Senator could have blocked it. Why don't your direct your disapproval there?

Delay may well have had no ability to affect the situation with his father. For all you know, he didn't allow anything at all, except to elect to not oppose his mother. Maybe regrets over that situation in which he was powerless motivated his actions in this situation when he was not.

"Any Senator could have blocked it. Why don't your direct your disapproval there"

I would direct my disapproval to all the Congressmen who felt they had the need and right to interfere. However, Delay is the one who has the experience with this type of issue, and should have known better, from personal experience, than to interfere even further into the matter.

"Maybe Delay just helped get a bill through Congress because he thought it was the right thing to do. The vote was pretty lopsided. If Delay didn't do it, someone else would have"

Yes, it would have gone through regardless, so why did he have to make such a big deal out of the barbarism and terrorism? He could have quietly voted for the issue, it would have passed, and he wouldn't have needed to use the issue to grandstand.

"For all you know, he didn't allow anything at all, except to elect to not oppose his mother"

You're right, I don't know for sure. However, that's not what is indicated in any of the reports. His mother said he raised no objections, an odd stance to take if he actually believes this type of thing to be barbaric.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Fair enough. You are not in the "evil bastard" camp, but in with the disagree and don't like his rhetoric camp.

When I went through this I guarantee you I wouldn't have raised an objection with my mother had I disagreed. She needed support and got it.

"Maybe, once in a while, we can disagree with political figures without calling them evil......"

Well, you can probably trace the current popularity of the use of "evil" right back to George W. Bush and his broadsiding of the much of the third world as "the evil ones" - again and again and again and again. There was never any excuse for this, and you're right in that if you are going to use that word, you'd better make sure it applies perfectly.

As for Delay, I think terms such as "sanctimonious", "self-rigtheous", and "hypocritical" work perfectly; "smarmy" applies as well, come to think of it.

I agree you can trace it back to President Bush's Axis of Evil speech but I am not sure I understand your comment "his broadsiding of the much of the third world as "the evil ones" .



Do you mean 1/3 of the world or "third world?" Big difference. His comments were directed at three specific countries, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. They do not really constitute a 1/3 of the world and I think you could argue whether or not they are "third world."

Well, definitely not 1/3 of the world.....however, at the time that he began using "evil ones", he was playing on feelings of xenophobia, fear, and hatred. This maybe explains why people became nervous when boarding flights carrying persons who looked "ethnic", and why "ethnic profiling" became so prevalent. Do you think the average person can distinguish whether or not someone is Iranian, Korean (never mind North or South), or an Iraqi? I can't , you can't, and Bush can't --- and he knew that full well when he began to make "evil ones" part of his almost-everyday rhetoric.

I think you might make it to 1/3 of the world pretty quickly when you consider he said that those people against us were the Axis of Evil, and for the countries he didn't specifically name, he said if they weren't with us, they were against us, placing them in the evil category.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, yes, that would do it. Actually, I think it would bring it up to the range of 81.472%..........but I don't mean to split hairs.