 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / April 2005I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead
Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to justify Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common arguments: "who would want to live that way" "it's compassionate to kill her because she's supposedly a vegetable" "let her die, with whatever dignity she has left" "I certainly want to live that way so terri wouldn't either" Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of others. In particular, they think they have the right to dictate every single detail of everyone's lives for them. That's where the whole "it takes a village to raise a child" thing comes from. Liberals think they know what's best for you, better than you do. And they want to make all our important decisions for us. That's why liberals want Terri Schiavo to die. They see Terri in her condition, decide that they wouldn't want to live that way themselves, and go about murdering her because they want to make the decision for her that she's unfit to live, no matter what she herself would really want. It's sick, but what would you expect from a group of people so closely tied to communism and who mock the word of God? Listen to me very carefully, liberals. You do not have the authority to decide what standard of living is acceptable for Terri. You do not have the authority to decide that Terri is better off dead than alive. You do have the authority to not decide that murdering Terri by starving her to death is more merciful than not murdering her and allowing her to live. Ok? I know this goes against everything Hillary Clinton, Barbara Streisand, Dianne Feinstein and your college professors have told you, but you do not dictate other peoples lives and tell them what to do. > Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to justify > Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common arguments: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > professors have told you, but you do not dictate other peoples lives > and tell them what to do. I agree. Liberals also have trouble understanding the core issue which is that it is only Michael's word that she wanted to die, and on Larry King he said "I don't know what Terri would want....this is what we want." That's pretty clear that maybe he perjored himself about her wishes.  SignatureRusty www.rbwaters.com (...) > I agree. > Liberals also have trouble understanding the core issue which is that it > is only Michael's word that she wanted to die, and on Larry King he said > "I don't know what Terri would want....this is what we want." > That's pretty clear that maybe he perjored himself about her wishes. Michael Schiavo was not the only person who stated that Terri Schiavo expressed her wish to not be kept alive as she is. read the actual court papers. Jeff > (...) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > expressed her wish to not be kept alive as she is. read the actual court > papers. We'd have liked to, but the requirement for a "de novo" review of the case, passed into law by Congress and signed by the President, was IGNORED by a Federal judge. This is by far the most troubling aspect of this scenario: that the judiciary can express contempt of Congress with impunity. >> (...) >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > This is by far the most troubling aspect of this scenario: that the > judiciary can express contempt of Congress with impunity. Really? I find it far more troubling that the President thinks he can tell a court what to do. However, the court ruled on an emergency temporary restraining order request, not the case. If she lives long enough, the case will get reviewed. The actual court papers describe the testimoney from other people about Terri's wishes, not just her husband's. Jeff >> (...) >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > passed into law by Congress and signed by the President, was IGNORED by a > Federal judge. They were not ignored, but the facts of the case apparently failed to meet the requirements for de novo review under other existing law. No statute operates in a vacuum. By the way, do you know how often the Congress or the White House, or both, ignore the rulings of the federal courts? Jeff (a different one) >> (...) >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >We'd have liked to, It's public record. You're just to lazy to go get it. >but the requirement for a "de novo" review of the case, >passed into law by Congress and signed by the President, was IGNORED by a >Federal judge. As it should be. The federal government had no business sticking its nose in it. \ >>This is by far the most troubling aspect of this scenario: that the >judiciary can express contempt of Congress with impunity. No, the most troubling part is that the federal government can try to step on state courts just because some rightwing nutcase wants them to. Signaturegburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com =========================================================================== In Re: I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead on Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:32:04 -0500, by Gary L. Burnore, we read: >>> (...) >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >step on state courts just because some rightwing nutcase wants them >to. Tell it to the notorius traitor, Abraham Lincoln. >>> > I agree. >>> > Liberals also have trouble understanding the core issue which is that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It's public record. You're just to lazy to go get it. (sigh) Fine, will this settle things? http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf >>>This is by far the most troubling aspect of this scenario: that the >>judiciary can express contempt of Congress with impunity. > > No, the most troubling part is that the federal government can try to > step on state courts just because some rightwing nutcase wants them > to. There is a lot of anger here because no one could find an activist judge to rule against the two dozen previous decisions. >>>> > I agree. >>>> > Liberals also have trouble understanding the core issue which is that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >There is a lot of anger here because no one could find a judge to >rule against the two dozen activist decisions. fixed fucknugget >> (...) >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >This is by far the most troubling aspect of this scenario: that the >judiciary can express contempt of Congress with impunity. I agree. A lot of folks seem to think this is thawrt to the right to die. It is not at all. Conservitives believe that Terri has the right to die if that is really her choice. The reason conservitives are in such an up-roar over this is because this whole case SMELLS LIKE A MURDER !! I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions over the past 15 years strongly suggest that he is acting rather suspiciously. In fact he is on RECORD stating that he did not really know what Terri's wishes are, he has stated on the record that what is going on is 'his' wishes. IOWs he must have taken lessons from John Kerry. Conservitives believe that it is wrong to murder your wife, this whole thing smells like a murder case, thats why the concern. Even Jessie Jackson is concerned and he's a liberal, he like many other Americans believe it is wrong to murder especially starving ones wife to death with court backing. If feel that the only way we are going to get to the bottom of this, sort through all of the lies, and facts is to put Michael on trial for manslaughter after Terri dies. After all there are a ton of abuse claims being made by IIRC three nurses, one even claims that Michael tried to murder Terri by injecting her with insulin back in '96. Smells like a murder, perhaps the perfect murder. n. (...) > I agree. > > A lot of folks seem to think this is thawrt to the right to die. It is > not at all. Conservitives believe that Terri has the right to die if > that is really her choice. The reason conservitives are in such an > up-roar over this is because this whole case SMELLS LIKE A MURDER !! Have you read the actual court papers, including the report of the guardian ad litem? Jeff >(...) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Have you read the actual court papers, including the report of the guardian >ad litem? Of course not. He's basing his opinion on feelings and his sense of smell, just as any good neoconservitive right-wing nutcase would do. Signaturegburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com =========================================================================== >>> (...) >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >that is really her choice. The reason conservitives are in such an >up-roar over this is because this whole case SMELLS LIKE A MURDER !! No it doesn't. The fact is, several people heard her say she would never want to live in a PVS. >I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, That says it all, really. >the courts have >been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions >over the past 15 years strongly suggest that he is acting rather >suspiciously. Riiight. It's her FATHER that demanded half of the settlement money before it went to pay her bills. >In fact he is on RECORD stating that he did not really >know what Terri's wishes are, Liar. >he has stated on the record that what is >going on is 'his' wishes. IOWs he must have taken lessons from John >Kerry. > >Conservitives believe that it is wrong to murder your wife, Everyone does, dumbass. >this whole thing smells like a murder case, thats why the concern. Just because you have a warped sense of smell doesn't make it murder. The concern, as voiced by the spokesperson (the same loon who supported bombing abortion clinics) is that it will adversly affect the right-to-life movement. >Even Jessie Jackson is concerned and he's a liberal, Jessse's not concerned, he just needed the spotlight. He's talking abut civil rights again. Not Terri's life. >he like many other Americans believe it is wrong to murder especially starving ones >wife to death with court backing. Many != the majority and even that doesn't matter because the LAW says it doesn't. >If feel that the only way we are going to get to the bottom of this, >sort through all of the lies, and facts is to put Michael on trial for >manslaughter after Terri dies. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. (who cares what you feel?) > After all there are a ton of abuse claims being made by IIRC three nurses, one even claims that Michael >tried to murder Terri by injecting her with insulin back in '96. Yep, and the police investigated in 96 and found the charges to be totally false. The nurse making the claim was then fired. >Smells like a murder, perhaps the perfect murder. You smell like a moron, perhaps a neoconservitave moron. Oh, wait, that's redundant. Signaturegburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com =========================================================================== Here you go, all of these are for you. http://images.google.com/images?q=middle+finger&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search enjoy, n. In Re: I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead on Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:47:47 -0500, by North, we read: >>> (...) >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >A lot of folks seem to think this is thawrt to the right to die. It is >not at all. Agreed. >Conservitives believe that Terri has the right to die if >that is really her choice. But since this is not a right to die issue but a political tactic it will continue. >The reason conservitives are in such an >up-roar over this is because this whole case SMELLS LIKE A MURDER !! Now that's sound evidence. >I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have >been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. True. >Michael's actions >over the past 15 years strongly suggest that he is acting rather >suspiciously. In fact he is on RECORD stating that he did not really >know what Terri's wishes are, he has stated on the record that what is >going on is 'his' wishes. IOWs he must have taken lessons from John >Kerry. >Conservitives believe that it is wrong to murder your wife, this whole >thing smells like a murder case, thats why the concern. >Even Jessie Jackson is concerned and he's a liberal, he like many >other Americans believe it is wrong to murder especially starving ones >wife to death with court backing. Jackson is an opportunist who is depesperate for a cause. He brings nothing to this debate. >If feel that the only way we are going to get to the bottom of this, >sort through all of the lies, and facts is to put Michael on trial for >manslaughter after Terri dies. The grounds being a bad smell. >After all there are a ton of abuse >claims being made by IIRC three nurses, one even claims that Michael >tried to murder Terri by injecting her with insulin back in '96. > >Smells like a murder, perhaps the perfect murder. And I'm sure there'll be another ton before its over. If you analyze their testimony you'll find it all elements subjective, based on ignorance and wishful thinking. This is a political issue. There is no legal basis for a change in Shiavo's status. >n. > I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have > been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions > over the past 15 years strongly suggest that he is acting rather > suspiciously. Ms. Schiavo's brother is reporting that Michael Schiavo has denied the church permission to administer communion. Now even what comfort the church can provide is to be denied her. It just seems to get uglier by the minute. >> I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have >> been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >It just seems to get uglier by the minute. If you looked up the word 'a.shole' it would say "See: Michael Schiavo" I've never in my life seen someone go so far out of the way to show the world just how big of an a.shole he is...it's unreal. n. >>> I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have >>> been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I've never in my life seen someone go so far out of the way to show > the world just how big of an a.shole he is...it's unreal. I would suggest that you reserve judgement on Michael Schiavo until: A) You have walked in his shoes. B) You know the whole story. Jeff > n. >>>> I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have >>>> been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Jeff C) Take a good look at the nutcase parents that claim "there is nothing wrong with her". >> n. >>>>> I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have >>>>> been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >C) Take a good look at the nutcase lawyer that claim "she is not suffering". fixed.. (...) > C) Take a good look at the nutcase parents that claim "there is > nothing wrong with her". While I don't believe that her parents' claims that she can get better (they never claimed, AFIK, that there was nothing wrong with her) were correct, I understand how this is an emotional issue on which her parents never saw clearly. But I don't blame them for loving their daughter or doing what they though was best for her. Jeff >>>> I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have >>>> been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >A) You have walked in his shoes. I'd kick that punks a.s with his own shoes. >B) You know the whole story. You never will because he wont tell it and his wife is dead.. >Jeff > >> n. >>> I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have >>> been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I've never in my life seen someone go so far out of the way to show >the world just how big of an a.shole he is...it's unreal. he's also a 6'7 pussy.. he asked the cops to make her brother leave the room this morning as she was breathing her last breaths because "He was afraid something would happen to him if he stayed".. chicken sh.t.. >> I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have >> been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >church permission to administer communion. Now even what comfort the church >can provide is to be denied her. If the report were true, which it is not. >It just seems to get uglier by the minute. And stupider, and continues to be fueled by people too stupid to get the facts. >>> I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have >>> been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >And stupider, and continues to be fueled by people too stupid to get >the facts. you are their spokesperson ..moron > > I could care less what the court(S) have said on this, the courts have > > been used to commit evil in the past as we all know. Michael's actions [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It just seems to get uglier by the minute. It doesn't get any prettier by cross-posting this BS to rec.photo.digital. Please keep this nonsense confined to the rec.dimwitted.armchair.philosopher heirarchy. In Re: I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead on Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:20:08 -0800, by Felix D., we read: >> (...) >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >This is by far the most troubling aspect of this scenario: that the >judiciary can express contempt of Congress with impunity. As you can. Well, Congress is contempuous. More to the point, our republic is founded on a strict separation of powers. Those powers are the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. The Congress can impeach judges but since there are multiple judges involved in this case its clear that the Judiciary is defending the law as well as the principle. Then there is the argument by some grossly misinformed and malformed creatures believe that the president, through the power to "pardon", can sweep away all other considerations and "save" Terri Shiavo. In Re: I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead on Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:20:00 -0600, by Russell B. Waters, we read: >> Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to justify >> Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common arguments: <snipped superfluous BS> >I agree. >Liberals also have trouble understanding the core issue which is that it is >only Michael's word that she wanted to die, and on Larry King he said "I >don't know what Terri would want....this is what we want." >That's pretty clear that maybe he perjored himself about her wishes. "Michael's word" is all that is necessary. He is the spouse. Its his call. Its his responsibility to make the decision. Now that all the crap is out of the way you can concentrate of the facts. What's so difficult about that? >> Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to justify >> Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common arguments: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >don't know what Terri would want....this is what we want." >That's pretty clear that maybe he perjored himself about her wishes. It's false that only the husband's testimony about her wishes was presented to the court. Several other witnesses to her statements were also presented. AT least try to get the facts. > > Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to justify > > Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common arguments: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > don't know what Terri would want....this is what we want." > That's pretty clear that maybe he perjored himself about her wishes. Ah. So it's BAD BAD BAD for liberals to allow a person to die naturally without artificial aids to keep her alive, but in a coma for 13 years but it's OK to allow a person to buy guns and sell them to terrorists? >> I agree. >> Liberals also have trouble understanding the core issue which is that it is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >without artificial aids to keep her alive, but in a coma for 13 years >but it's OK to allow a person to buy guns and sell them to terrorists? blink blink...huh? Gunner Lathe Dementia. Recognized as one of the major sub-strains of the all-consuming virus, Packratitis. Usual symptoms easily recognized and normally is contracted for life. Can be very contagious. michael > >> I agree. > >> Liberals also have trouble understanding the core issue which is that it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > blink blink...huh? How come it's taken so long for the US to break links with the IRA? And America wonders why the Europeans think the you're is bonkers... When your opening premise is false, all that is derived therefrom is also not supportable. Dan -- "...our minds follow different rules than the real world does. A rational mind, based on the impressions that it receives from its limited perspective, form structures which thereafter determine what it further will and will not accept freely. From that point on, regardless of how the real world actually operates, this rational mind, following its self-imposed rules, tries to superimpose on the real world its own version of what must be." Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters >When your opening premise is false, all that is derived therefrom is also >not supportable. > >Dan Because DeLay and his cronies wanted to appease her family? "America's weakness is it's intellectual property laws, if other countries don't follow suit those laws become meaningless. Only a liberal will be able to intice other countries into following suit." > When your opening premise is false, all that is derived therefrom is also > not supportable. > > Dan Yeah, but your opening premise (that liberals want Schiavo dead) is also false, so all that you derive therefrom is not supportable. And i say this as someone who is not a liberal nor likes liberals. conservatives and liberals, ONE big pile of sh.t. The only thing worse are fascists and communists. .... > > Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of others. > > In particular, they think they have the right to dictate every single > > detail of everyone's lives for them. .... Only one group is trying to pass laws that decide what will be done. If no legislation is put in place, the husband & the parents duke it out to reach a decision. Passing a law will make the decision in Washington. Remember: Laws take rights away from people. nobody is trying to pass a law that will force Schiavo's husband to kill her, they are only trying to pass laws that will force him to keep her "alive". By the way, wonder who's paying for all this life support? Bet it's taxpayers or insurance ratepayers. >Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of others. If Liberals are the ones with the problem respecting the boundaries of others why are you the one trying to interfere with her and her husbands wishes? >In particular, they think they have the right to dictate every single >detail of everyone's lives for them. Lest we forget it is the conservatives who are trying to dicate here, no "liberal group" has butted into the case yet. >Liberals think they know what's best for you, better than you do. And >they want to make all our important decisions for us. No people who think they are doing the "Will of God" are the ones who want that. >That's why liberals want Terri Schiavo to die. Actually they don't want her to die, they don't think the government should get involved, however you seem to want that despite you accusations that the "liberals" want to. Liberal want the 'When he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush presided over 152 executions, more than took place in the rest of the country combined. In at least a few of these cases, reasonable doubts about the guilt of the condemned were raised. But Bush cut his personal review time for each case from a half hour to a mere 15 minutes (most other governors spend many hours reviewing each capital case to assure themselves that there's no doubt of guilt). His explanation was that he trusted the courts to sort through the life-and-death complexities. That's right: the courts.' See more here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7305206/site/newsweek >They see Terri in her condition, decide that they wouldn't want to live >that way themselves, and go about murdering her because they want to >make the decision for her Name a single liberal who has actually been behind a pull the plug movement against terri shiavo. It would be easier to say that conservatives, particularly conservative christians say I want to be plugged in forever so I am going to force her to be. >what would you expect from a group of people so closely tied to >communism and who mock the word of God? Yeah! Screw those commies! where in The Bible does it say share with others and help your neighbor! Commies, what a off the topic insult that has no purpose here. Also Whose "Word of God" are we speaking of? and whose translation? I will assume you are speaking of the Catholic Church because that is Terri's religion. >You do not have the authority to decide what standard of living is >acceptable for Terri. Then neither do you! >You do not have the authority to decide that Terri is better off dead >than alive. No but her husband does. See Florida state law. >You do have the authority to not decide that murdering Terri by >starving her to death is more merciful than not murdering her and >allowing her to live. Really, you are quite comic. I wonder if this is a set up or if you actually believe what you are saying. Anyways, You are making a command in this last sentence and trying to say how you believe the law should be. Say if Terri Shiavo should be kept on life support why not give universal health care to all? Oh wait. That's communist isn't it. but I guess you have the authority to ignore people in need who still have functioning brains. > know this goes against everything Hillary Clinton, Barbara Streisand, >Dianne Feinstein and your college professors have told you, but you do >not dictate other peoples lives and tell them what to do. You are making generalizations and accusations about why people believe what they believe. The Irony of these statements is that you probobly do not believe homosexuals should marry or that Harrp Potter should be allowed in schools. Nobody is telling Shiavo how to live, they are telling you to stay out of her and her husbands buisness. >>Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of >others. > >If Liberals are the ones with the problem respecting the boundaries of >others why are you the one trying to interfere with her and her >husbands wishes? What are her wishes? Michael has, by the fact that he's taken up with another woman and fathering children by her, divorced Teri. According to common law, he has remarried. What you pond scum liberals have accomplished is to allow an ex husband to dictate life or death for his ex wife. Divorced women had better beware in the future. Strider >>In particular, they think they have the right to dictate every single >>detail of everyone's lives for them. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >allowed in schools. Nobody is telling Shiavo how to live, they are >telling you to stay out of her and her husbands buisness. >>>Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of >>others. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fathering children by her, divorced Teri. According to common law, he > has remarried. Can you show me where in Florida Common Law where it says he has remarried. > What you pond scum liberals have accomplished is to allow an ex > husband to dictate life or death for his ex wife. He is still legally married to Terri Schiavo. If you don't like the choices, tough. When you have walked in his shoes, then you may criticize. > Divorced women had better beware in the future. Gee. What a thought. > Strider > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >>allowed in schools. Nobody is telling Shiavo how to live, they are >>telling you to stay out of her and her husbands buisness. >>>Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of >>others. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fathering children by her, divorced Teri. According to common law, he > has remarried. Bzzzt. Wrong answer. FL has abolished "common law" marriage. Adultery may violate one's moral principles or religious beliefs, but it is not a crime in FL. Moreover, it not only doesn't operate to dissolve the marriage, is irrelevant and immaterial to a FL dissolution of marriage action. > What you pond scum liberals have accomplished is to allow an ex > husband to dictate life or death for his ex wife. There is the issue of respect for the privity of marriage, or the lack thereof, as well as the fact that about 20 separate courts all ruled in favor of Mr. Schiavo. If not her husband, then who speaks for Ms. Schiavo? The State? [snip] Jeff >>>>Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of >>>others. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >thereof, as well as the fact that about 20 separate courts all ruled in >favor of Mr. Schiavo. Bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing. Greer ruled for Schiavo. 19 others ruled that Greer ruled properly. What if Greer's ruling was flawed? That makes 19 other courts equally flawed. >If not her husband, then who speaks for Ms. Schiavo? >The State? Blood relatives? Maybe the one that gave birth to her? >[snip] > >Jeff Rick Bowen TSRA Life Member lex talionis. > >>>>Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of > >>>others. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > What if Greer's ruling was flawed? That makes 19 other courts > equally flawed. Bzzt. Sorry, incorrect, but we have some lovely parting gifts for you . . . I have more or less given up on trying to explain legal and judicial procedure to laymen, regardless of how intelligent and well-informed they are otherwise. No, my statement that "about 20 separate courts all ruled in favor of Mr. Schiavo" is correct, largely because the OUTCOME was in his favor. Moreover, there wasn't 1 trial and 19 or so appellate reviews. It just didn't go down that way. Suffice it to say that when you can get that many different judges from so many diverse state and federal courts to all concur in a particular course of action, it's a fairly safe bet that it's because the law is pretty clear and unequivocal. > >If not her husband, then who speaks for Ms. Schiavo? > >The State? > > Blood relatives? Maybe the one that gave birth to her? "For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined (cleaved) to his wife and the two are united into one ." Genesis 2:24 and Florida Statutes 765.401 The proxy. - (1) If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed an advance directive, or designated a surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to make health care decisions, health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonably available, willing, or competent to act: (a) The judicially appointed guardian of the patient or the guardian advocate of the person having a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063, who has been authorized to consent to medical treatment, if such guardian has previously been appointed; however, this paragraph shall not be construed to require such appointment before a treatment decision can be made under this subsection; (b) The patient's spouse; (c) An adult child of the patient, or if the patient has more than one adult child, a majority of the adult children who are reasonably available for consultation; (d) A parent of the patient; (e) The adult sibling of the patient or, if the patient has more than one sibling, a majority of the adult siblings who are reasonably available for consultation; (f) An adult relative of the patient who has exhibited special care and concern for the patient and who has maintained regular contact with the patient and who is familiar with the patient's activities, health, and religious or moral beliefs; or (g) A close friend of the patient. (h) A clinical social worker licensed pursuant to chapter 491, or who is a graduate of a court-approved guardianship program. Such a proxy must be selected by the provider's bioethics committee and must not be employed by the provider. If the provider does not have a bioethics committee, then such a proxy may be chosen through an arrangement with the bioethics committee of another provider. The proxy will be notified that, upon request, the provider shall make available a second physician, not involved in the patient's care to assist the proxy in evaluating treatment. Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures will be reviewed by the facility's bioethics committee. Documentation of efforts to locate proxies from prior classes must be recorded in the patient record. (2) Any health care decision made under this part must be based on the proxy's informed consent and on the decision the proxy reasonably believes the patient would have made under the circumstances. If there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, the proxy may consider the patient's best interest in deciding that proposed treatments are to be withheld or that treatments currently in effect are to be withdrawn. (3) Before exercising the incapacitated patient's rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest. (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt the designation of persons who may consent to the medical care or treatment of minors established pursuant to s. 743.0645. Jeff > > >>>>Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of > > >>>others. [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > of persons who may consent to the medical care or treatment of minors > established pursuant to s. 743.0645. They want the legislature or the governor, or ANYONe to step beyond the limit of the law. -*MORT*- There were only four judges; Greer and three appelate judges. The case just went before them 19 or 20 times. >>Bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing. Greer ruled for >>Schiavo. 19 others ruled that Greer ruled properly. >>What if Greer's ruling was flawed? That makes 19 other courts >>equally flawed. > There were only four judges; Greer and three appelate judges. The case > just went before them 19 or 20 times. Incorrect. The following courts were involved: Florida Supreme Court (7 justicess) Florida 2nd Circuit (5 justices) Judge Greer US Supreme court (9 justices [Justice Kennedy had all nine justices polled]) US District Court (1 justice) US Court of Appeals (12 justices) I count 35 justices. http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/index.html Jeff >>>Bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing. Greer ruled for >>>Schiavo. 19 others ruled that Greer ruled properly. >>>What if Greer's ruling was flawed? That makes 19 other courts >>>equally flawed. > There were only four judges; Greer and three appelate judges. The case > just went before them 19 or 20 times. Incorrect. The following courts were involved: Florida Supreme Court (7 justicess) Florida 2nd Circuit (5 justices) Judge Greer US Supreme court (9 justices [Justice Kennedy had all nine justices polled]) US District Court (1 justice) US Court of Appeals (12 justices) I count 35 justices. http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/index.html Jeff >>>Bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing. Greer ruled for >>>Schiavo. 19 others ruled that Greer ruled properly. >>>What if Greer's ruling was flawed? That makes 19 other courts >>>equally flawed. In Re: I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead on Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:24:39 GMT, by Jeff McCann, we read: >>>>Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of >>>others. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Bzzzt. Wrong answer. FL has abolished "common law" marriage. It codified common law and instead uses statutory law. >Adultery may >violate one's moral principles or religious beliefs, but it is not a crime >in FL. Moreover, it not only doesn't operate to dissolve the marriage, is >irrelevant and immaterial to a FL dissolution of marriage action. Even in those states that do recognize common law marriage the existance of marriage in another state nullifies any claim to the contrary. >> What you pond scum liberals have accomplished is to allow an ex >> husband to dictate life or death for his ex wife. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >favor of Mr. Schiavo. If not her husband, then who speaks for Ms. Schiavo? >The State? Some say her parents but this changed when she reached majority status and entered marriage with Mr. Shiavo. I note that those who are priming this political pump ignore the Christian emphasis on the marriage vows and the primacy of spousal duty and responsibility. >[snip] > >Jeff >I note that those who are priming this political pump ignore >the Christian emphasis on the marriage vows and the >primacy of spousal duty and responsibility. Is that before or after shacking up with some broad and having 2 bastards? Rick Bowen TSRA Life Member lex talionis. > >>Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of > >others. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What you pond scum liberals have accomplished is to allow an ex > husband to dictate life or death for his ex wife. She's been dead for over a decade. -*MORT*- No common law marriage exists unless both parties are free to marry. Michael is not free to marry. He has no common law wife, he merely has a girlfriend he is shacking up with. > Michael has, by the fact that he's taken up with another woman and > fathering children by her, divorced Teri. According to common law, he [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] >>allowed in schools. Nobody is telling Shiavo how to live, they are >>telling you to stay out of her and her husbands buisness. There is a big difference between removing life support where the patient instantly dies, and a slow painful death by dehydration. This woman survived 15 years without life support and is not in a coma. She was merely being fed and given fluid. Withdrawing fluid is tantamount to torture. > >Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of > others. [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > allowed in schools. Nobody is telling Shiavo how to live, they are > telling you to stay out of her and her husbands buisness. > There is a big difference between removing life support where the patient > instantly dies, and a slow painful death by dehydration. This woman > survived > 15 years without life support and is not in a coma. No. She is in a persistant vegitative state. And she was on life-support. She had a hole put in her stomach and through her abdominal wall. That is definitely life support. Jeff > She was merely being fed > and given fluid. Withdrawing fluid is tantamount to torture. [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >> allowed in schools. Nobody is telling Shiavo how to live, they are >> telling you to stay out of her and her husbands buisness. And you have a hole in your face through which you are fed and hydrated . . . it is called your mouth, hers is called a stoma. > And she was on life-support. She had a hole put in her stomach and through > her abdominal wall. That is definitely life support. > > Jeff > And you have a hole in your face through which you are fed and hydrated . > . . it is called your mouth, hers is called a stoma. Which is an artificial hole that is put in through a surgery. That is life support. Jeff >> And she was on life-support. She had a hole put in her stomach and >> through her abdominal wall. That is definitely life support. >> >> Jeff And my husband has a hole in his neck for a permanent trache to help him breathe, but he is not on life support. Would you suggest I starve him because he has an artificial hole in his body? >>And you have a hole in your face through which you are fed and hydrated . >>. . it is called your mouth, hers is called a stoma. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> >>>Jeff > And my husband has a hole in his neck for a permanent trache to help him > breathe, but he is not on life support. Would you suggest I starve him [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >>> > >>>Jeff his neck for a permanent trache to help him > breathe, but he is not on life support. Would you suggest I starve him > because he has an artificial hole in his body? Can he express himself? Can he swallow? Terri Schaivo could do niether. Her body has finally stopped breathing 15 years after her mind left the building. -*MORT*- In Re: I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead on Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:26:40 -0500, by Phyllis, we read: >And my husband has a hole in his neck for a permanent trache to help him >breathe, but he is not on life support. Would you suggest I starve him >because he has an artificial hole in his body? No but if his brain dissolves wait fifteen years and then ask us. >>>And you have a hole in your face through which you are fed and hydrated . >>>. . it is called your mouth, hers is called a stoma. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>> >>>>Jeff > And my husband has a hole in his neck for a permanent trache to help him > breathe, but he is not on life support. Would you suggest I starve him > because he has an artificial hole in his body? No. Please don't put words in my mouth. Putting tube down that hole and using it for breathing or feeding would be artificial life support, though. Jeff >>>And you have a hole in your face through which you are fed and hydrated . >>>. . it is called your mouth, hers is called a stoma. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>> >>>>Jeff > There is a big difference between removing life support where the patient > instantly dies, and a slow painful death by dehydration. This woman survived > 15 years without life support and is not in a coma. She was merely being fed > and given fluid. Withdrawing fluid is tantamount to torture. Bull f.cking sh.t. You're the kind of fucktard who'd rush to her aid with bottled water and a loaf of bread. Any way you could try to "feed" it to her terminate her living corpse. The pain center in her brain was absorbed by her body a long time ago, along with the part that was Terri Scaivo. -*MORT*- > > There is a big difference between removing life support where the patient > > instantly dies, and a slow painful death by dehydration. This woman [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > her terminate her living corpse. The pain center in her brain was absorbed > by her body a long time ago, along with the part that was Terri Scaivo. Well, as a medical doctor I think I know best. Her condition is not much different than a person with cerebral palsy. A vegetative state is not the same as being "brain dead". The pain centre was "absorbed" haha If I were to employ the tests to determine if a patient is dead every one of them would show that she is quite alive. A "hole" in your stomach is not life support. This woman lasted 15 years without any aid for breathing or circulation. > -*MORT*- > > > There is a big difference between removing life support where the > patient [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > support. This woman lasted 15 years without any aid for breathing or > circulation. Your license should be yanked. -*MORT*- >> > There is a big difference between removing life support where the > patient [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Well, as a medical doctor I think I know best. Her condition is not much > different than a person with cerebral palsy. A person with cerebral palsy is able to think. She isn't. > A vegetative state is not the > same as being "brain dead". The pain centre was "absorbed" haha No, there is no one pain center. But the parts of her brain that allowed her to think and enjoy life are gone. Forever. > If I were > to employ the tests to determine if a patient is dead every one of them > would show that she is quite alive. Correct. But, she expressed the wish that no artificial support be used to keep her alive. > A "hole" in your stomach is not life > support. Yeah, it is. > This woman lasted 15 years without any aid for breathing or > circulation. Just a hole in her stomach, though her abdominal wall through which they had to pump things to feed her. Jeff >> -*MORT*- Similar to your arms conveying food to you face. > Just a hole in her stomach, though her abdominal wall through which they had > to pump things to feed her. > > Jeff > >>>-*MORT*- >Similar to your arms conveying food to you face. His face is a hole in the abdominal wall? Musta had a hard time getting dates in high school? >> Just a hole in her stomach, though her abdominal wall through which they had >> to pump things to feed her. BTW: Do you see why you shouldn't top post> Hard to keep the flow going in a coherent manner (not that coherency has been a big priority in this debate on any side)( -- Here in California, US immigrants do the really dirty jobs nobody else wants to do. Cleaning toilets. Being governor. SBH > Similar to your arms conveying food to you face. Phyllis, I understand your passion on this issue, but if you crosspost your replies, you are just going to increase all the crossposted stuff we are getting here lately. ed In Re: I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead on Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:44:18 GMT, by Avenger, we read: >> > There is a big difference between removing life support where the >patient [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >support. This woman lasted 15 years without any aid for breathing or >circulation. Seen the CAT scan? The brain is gone. >> -*MORT*- >In Re: I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead on >Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:44:18 GMT, by Avenger, we read: >>Well, as a medical doctor I think I know best. Pardon me, but I doubt seriously that you are an MD,, being one myself, BTW. > Her condition is not much different than a person with cerebral palsy. Dead Wrong > A vegetative state is not the same as being "brain dead". Wrong, assuming that "brain dead" means cortically-dead, the usual medical definition. YMMV, naturally. >> The pain centre was "absorbed" haha If I were >>to employ the tests to determine if a patient is dead every one of them >>would show that she is quite alive. True, her body is/was alive. It is just that her brain is dead. >Seen the CAT scan? The brain is gone. She also had no EEG, also definitive for "brain dead". Dr P >>> -*MORT*- In Re: I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead on Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:33:46 -0600, by Peter H Proctor, we read: >>In Re: I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead on >>Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:44:18 GMT, by Avenger, we read: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Pardon me, but I doubt seriously that you are an MD,, being one >myself, BTW. Not my post. >> Her condition is not much different than a person with cerebral palsy. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >She also had no EEG, also definitive for "brain dead". That was my post. >Dr P Yer kind of mixing up responses. I suppose that many believed that her animated states, the "islands of consciousness", indicated awareness and thus a potential for revcovery. That group argued against "brain dead" despite the EEG readings. After learning that she was oxygen deprived 15 years ago combined with the flat EEG and a braincase scan that was essentially vacuous, I concluded that she was running on the autonomic nervous system with some subcortical nerve connections intact. >>>> -*MORT*- >> There is a big difference between removing life support where the patient >> instantly dies, and a slow painful death by dehydration. This woman [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >bottled water and a loaf of bread. Any way you could try to "feed" it to >her terminate her living corpse. >The pain center in her brain was absorbed >by her body a long time ago, Really? Then why did they give her morphine twice on Saturday? And according to Schiavo's lawyer, she looks "peaceful". If she is in a PVS, how can she "look" anything? Rick Bowen TSRA Life Member lex talionis. She was being fed? I don't recall seeing a single plate of food being brought into the room. Could she cut a steak and chew? Lift a glass of wine? It was a breathing corpse in that room, Terri had left years ago. If tubes into flesh were involved, it was a MEDICAL procedure, aka artificial life support. > There is a big difference between removing life support where the patient > instantly dies, and a slow painful death by dehydration. This woman survived [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > allowed in schools. Nobody is telling Shiavo how to live, they are > > telling you to stay out of her and her husbands buisness. >Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to justify >Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common arguments: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of others. like those Republican liberals in congress? and the liberal president? >In particular, they think they have the right to dictate every single >detail of everyone's lives for them. YEAH! like those Republican liberals in congress, and the liberal president!!! >That's where the whole "it takes a >village to raise a child" thing comes from. Liberals think they know >what's best for you, better than you do. And they want to make all our >important decisions for us. YOU'RE RIGHT! like those Republican liberals in congress, and the liberal president!!! we should throw those liberals out of office! >That's why liberals want Terri Schiavo to die. They see Terri in her >condition, decide that they wouldn't want to live that way themselves, >and go about murdering her because they want to make the decision for >her that she's unfit to live, no matter what she herself would really >want. It's sick, but what would you expect from a group of people so >closely tied to communism and who mock the word of God? well, it's been proven in court, many times, that Terri Schiavo said that she did not want to be put on life support if she were ever in a vegatative state, like she is now. so, all those Republican liberals in congress, and the liberal president are intruding on her wishes by trying to keep her alive!!! we need to throw those communist bastards out!!! >Listen to me very carefully, liberals. ok. can us moderates just laugh at you? >You do not have the authority to >decide what standard of living is acceptable for Terri. YEAH! like those Republican liberals in congress, and the liberal president!!! those socialist sons of bitches need to GO! >You do not >have the authority to decide that Terri is better off dead than alive. see above. >You do have the authority to not decide that murdering Terri by >starving her to death is more merciful than not murdering her and >allowing her to live. Ok? Judge Greer is a moderate to conservative judge. most of the Florida judges who heard this case are conservatives. f.ck THOSE COMMUNIST BASTARDS! THROW OUT ALL THOSE CONSERVATIVE JUDGES! >I know this goes against everything Hillary >Clinton, Barbara Streisand, Dianne Feinstein and your college >professors have told you, but you do not dictate other peoples lives >and tell them what to do. YEAH! just like those.... oh forget it, you're just a moron. and i think you've just proven that. love and kisses, j r "he's god-fearin' and America lovin'" sherman Signature------------------------------------------------------------------ "I saw a werewolf drinkin' a pina colada at Trader Vic's And his hair was perfect." Warren Zevon ------------------------------------------------------------------ > like those Republican liberals in congress? and the liberal president? They wanted a new review of the case; by refusing to do so, the judiciary ignored the legislative and executive branch. Do you really think that's a good thing? >> like those Republican liberals in congress? and the liberal president? > > They wanted a new review of the case; by refusing to do so, the judiciary > ignored the legislative and executive branch. Do you really think that's > a > good thing? I don't think it is a good thing for the legislative and executive branches telling the courts what to do. Jeff > >> like those Republican liberals in congress? and the liberal president? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't think it is a good thing for the legislative and executive branches > telling the courts what to do. And the courts have no business doing the legislature's job, either. >> >> like those Republican liberals in congress? and the liberal president? >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And the courts have no business doing the legislature's job, either. According to the report on NPR, the US district court ruled that the action the president and congress took was unconstitutional. I didn't see the courts doing the legislature's job in this matter. They did their job. And they did it very well. Jeff >>> >> like those Republican liberals in congress? and the liberal president? >>> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >According to the report on NPR, liebral tripe from lieberal sources.. <snipped> >>>>>>like those Republican liberals in congress? and the liberal president? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > liebral tripe from lieberal sources.. <snipped> So maybe you'd care try reading the court's actual opinion? Try starting on page 3 http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdf TK -- Cogito ergo bibo >>>>>>>like those Republican liberals in congress? and the liberal president? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdf the court also said that blacks were 3/5 of a person and that integration is illegal.. that make those rulings right also..? >TK <snip> > >So maybe you'd care try reading the court's actual opinion? Try > >starting on page 3 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the court also said that blacks were 3/5 of a person and that > integration is illegal.. that make those rulings right also..? What is this, more outcome based education? The above assertion is plain ignorant. David ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >David Ah...Dave...review Dred Scott..then get back to us, ok? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" > ><snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > Ah...Dave...review Dred Scott..then get back to us, ok? Scott v. Sandford never refered to person has three fifths of a person: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=60&page=393 Good luck finding such a attribution in the text. David >> ><snip> >> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >David Ah...Dave? What was the decision of the court in this case? or do you wish to remain literal and ignore the implications? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" > >> ><snip> > >> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Gunner Concesssion accepted. David >> >> >"Samuel Goldstine" <HasidicJew@Temple Beth Israel.Org> wrote in >message [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >David You conceded? Odd way to do it. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message