Pulling the life support or not assisting to keep someone alive (living will) is different then assisted suicide.

Yes, it probably was an over simplification of a very complicated matter. When does life begin and where does it end. Defining suffering would be an issue here. If someone is suffering from depression and want to commit suicide, is that justification to aid that person with it? Or are they in constant physical pain? The there would have to be some kind of measurement to decide if an assisted suicide is warranted. Then who would make that decision on said suffering?

Since someone(s) justified abortion to pass the highest court, why not assisted suicide? They are akin to taking a life IMO. It's just the circumstances that differ.

Folks don't seem to mind killing them while they are in the womb, so why wouldn't it be valid to do the same for someone who is actually suffering?

The slippery slop here is who is responsible, because it will be challenged. You are of sound mind and body, but then a grandchild will take the doctor/hospital to court, because there is no way grandma would kill herself. Talk about having a super-iron-clad-irrefutable contract requirement.

Stop confusing people with historical facts. It's easier to forget the past and blame the present. Really, it's best to blame the present not learning from the past failures.

It makes me a little sad that I will be able to tell my grandchildren how much fun it was to be a teenager at one time.

How do you teach personal responsibility when you are always being watched and judged?

Who's getting the rights to Uranus?

So you want to revert to the tax code from 1944-1960's era is what you are saying? I'd be fine with that, but we'll have to make sure we get rid of subsidy programs as well.

However, I don't understand something with those tax codes of yesteryear or the request you are making now of a %50 rate for folks making 1million or more. I'm guessing you want it stepped so folks making 900k would pay just shy of 50% correct? If you earn $1,000,000 and give 50% of that income to the federal government, what is left for the State Government, or City Government, or county government? So out of that 1 million, there may be 200k left on the table that you can take home correct? So who are you working and earning money for? Your family or those who didn't work as hard as you to earn that money? And hell, if you got lucky and earn that much, why penalize that person's station?

It's also foolish to think that the folks in power that already have wealth are going to give it away to the Government. This would be just another means to keep people from earning wealth. You won't pay taxes on dollars you already have, only on what you earn. So these types of old tax policies keep the wealthy, wealthy.

I don't think he works for the system anymore. And why not talk in the clear about his opinions. He's afforded his opinion is he not? Right or wrong, that is/was the beauty of the free speech thing we tried for a while...You could have an opinion.

It is strange that you hear this on whomever is in office at the time. "The press is the mouthpiece of Yaya Adminstration."

I guess there must be some magic key that controls the press when you get elected to the highest office to serve the people.

How many CEOs don't even have a degree?

You could apply the apprentice/journeymen/expert to the IT guild as much with most any other learned trade.

How about defund both and give me my money back. I don't want to pay to listen to phone calls and could care less about paying for someones birth control.

You obviously don't understand how the system is supposed to work. Yes, Obama won in 2012. As did those elected to the House of Representatives in 2012. And don't forget that laws are supposed to originate in the House, not from the Presidents desk. Should a law get passed that the voters disagree with, they replace as many Representatives as possible in the two year cycle of elections. That is why it's only two years. To correct those items that the voters didn't want to happen. And that is what is going on here. If you want the President to call all the shots, then put forth an effort to eliminate the House/Senate and Grand Jury. Those are the three branches with equal power (supposedly at one time they did). As for the Senate elections, for some reason, the Senate's appointed duty changed a while back. They used to be appointed by each state's legislature to represent the state's elected body. But now, they are not responsible to the state's elected body, but a representative like those in the House except with 6 year terms.

All I know is this, if you follow either party it doesn't really matter. Both are going to screw the populace.

Pick your side of the news (CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, BBC, Al-Jazeera) and repeat the quote.

I don't think there is an unbiased news source out there left in the world. A touch of fact with a huge helping of opinion equals news now days.

Wow. What a nice person you are. Did I even mention those things? Perhaps you should ask my opinion on those things as well before projecting what my opinion is of them. The US has been creeping away from the true source of the U.S. Constitution for many decades now.

There are many folks out there who don't understand, nor have no concern with, individual rights. And since he spent his formative years in England and Denmark that could have well formed his socialist view of the 5th amendment. The Bill of Rights are for INDIVIDUALS. He probably missed that understanding.

Agreed. It boils down to individual liberty. There are some who believe that you have none since you are part of a society and that is where your liberty is rooted. When the US system of government long ago (well, not so long ago...), it was the inverse where the liberty was rooted in the individual not the society.