GOP should change the party name

[rtwngAvngr]

But back to the topic. there are doctors who feel she could get better with rehab, but the husband has denied it, though he argued in court he needed money for her care. there is also some evidence that the husband may have put her here. The family is willing to take care of her and release the husband from all responsibilty. yet still the husband and liberals judges want to kill her.

I know in your mind the Christian Right is public enemy number one and you'll do whatever you can to oppose them, despite logic or the specifics in any given case. But think about this a bit, would you?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

But back to the topic. there are doctors who feel she could get better with rehab, but the husband has denied it, though he argued in court he needed money for her care. there is also some evidence that the husband may have put her here. The family is willing to take care of her and release the husband from all responsibilty. yet still the husband and liberals judges want to kill her.

You are showing complete ignorance in this case. The medical opinions are mixed, the families doctors have stated she could improve(obviously biased), the husbands doctors have said theres no hope(obviously biased), but the court appointed witnesses and doctors have said theres no hope(unbiased so i'm going with this one). The husband tried therapy for the first 3 or 4 years. When there was no improvement from terri, he stopped therapy. I'm sure this is something you wish to ignore. If there was ANY evidence that the husband was responsible for her condition(a baseless allegation from the family and biased parties of right to life extremists) there would still be a criminal investigation going on. There is no investigation because there was NO evidence to support one(shot down another of your desperate theories). The american tradition of spousal responsibility takes priority over familial wishes. Conservatives have traditionally sided with this, until now....go figure. With the husband insisting on letting terri pass, this is PROOF that he's trying to provide her with her last wish. He's turned down multi million dollar offers to 'just let go', so how do you explain that? On to the judge. He's a conservative judge picked by jeb bush. argument over. I win.

I know in your mind the Christian Right is public enemy number one and you'll do whatever you can to oppose them, despite logic or the specifics in any given case. But think about this a bit, would you?

it seems that logic has completely escaped you in this. You are operating completely on emotion. You feel something is wrong. You don't like things about this case, but logic has dictated that there has been no crime, the laws are being followed, and there has been due process, but because of the emotions of a group who pride themselves on 'logic', we have a judicial and legal fiasco prompted by irrational thinking ideologues.

You say that 'you know in my mind', if you truly did, you wouldn't even be trying to argue this, but whatever.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You are showing complete ignorance in this case. The medical opinions are mixed, the families doctors have stated she could improve(obviously biased), the husbands doctors have said theres no hope(obviously biased), but the court appointed witnesses and doctors have said theres no hope(unbiased so i'm going with this one). The husband tried therapy for the first 3 or 4 years. When there was no improvement from terri, he stopped therapy. I'm sure this is something you wish to ignore. If there was ANY evidence that the husband was responsible for her condition(a baseless allegation from the family and biased parties of right to life extremists) there would still be a criminal investigation going on. There is no investigation because there was NO evidence to support one(shot down another of your desperate theories). The american tradition of spousal responsibility takes priority over familial wishes. Conservatives have traditionally sided with this, until now....go figure. With the husband insisting on letting terri pass, this is PROOF that he's trying to provide her with her last wish. He's turned down multi million dollar offers to 'just let go', so how do you explain that? On to the judge. He's a conservative judge picked by jeb bush. argument over. I win.

it seems that logic has completely escaped you in this. You are operating completely on emotion. You feel something is wrong. You don't like things about this case, but logic has dictated that there has been no crime, the laws are being followed, and there has been due process, but because of the emotions of a group who pride themselves on 'logic', we have a judicial and legal fiasco prompted by irrational thinking ideologues.

You say that 'you know in my mind', if you truly did, you wouldn't even be trying to argue this, but whatever.

Nice rant. Exactly, the opinions are mixed. the husband can walk away. why does he insist on death? When due process railroads the innocents to their graves, there's a problem. The brother believes the husband was involved.

 

[Gunny]

Hey smarter .... I see you're STILL trying to prove you aren't a conservative by going overboard the other way.

I want to see one of these staunch advocates of removing her feeding tube do the right thing, grow some damned balls and be the one to stick the needle in her arm.

Or is letting her slowly starve over a period of weeks the humane thing to do?

Try doing that to your dog and see what happens if the SPCA finds out. Something's wrong when housepets have more rights than people.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Nice rant. Exactly, the opinions are mixed. the husband can walk away. why does he insist on death?

because he says thats what his wife wanted. to NOT live on artificial means. would you abandon your spouse if she didn't want to live artificially?

When due process railroads the innocents to their graves, there's a problem.

nobody was railroaded. all sides were heard. the only one being railroaded now is terri and congress is the body doing the railroading.

The brother believes the husband was involved.

an emotional rant with no substance, proof, or a shred of physical evidence whatsoever. are you now going to rely on 'emotional beliefs'?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

because he says thats what his wife wanted. to NOT live on artificial means. would you abandon your spouse if she didn't want to live artificially?


nobody was railroaded. all sides were heard. the only one being railroaded now is terri and congress is the body doing the railroading.

an emotional rant with no substance, proof, or a shred of physical evidence whatsoever. are you now going to rely on 'emotional beliefs'?

That was not his story when he arguing to get money for her support. This is fishy, but your apparent zeal for death is clouding your judgement.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Hey smarter .... I see you're STILL trying to prove you aren't a conservative by going overboard the other way.

what do you think I am?

I want to see one of these staunch advocates of removing her feeding tube do the right thing, grow some damned balls and be the one to stick the needle in her arm.

Or is letting her slowly starve over a period of weeks the humane thing to do?

Try doing that to your dog and see what happens if the SPCA finds out. Something's wrong when housepets have more rights than people.

with assisted suicide being illegal in florida, and a number of other states as well, anyone sticking a needle in her arm would then be prosecuted for murder. I'm sure that all of you right to life extremist wackos would LOVE to see schiavo prosecuted if he were to be humane and end her life quickly. you'd be all for death then, wouldn't you? its a bunch of hypocritical double talk from a bunch of hypocritical right to life activists.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

its a bunch of hypocritical double talk from a bunch of hypocritical right to life activists.

Yep. that's your story and you're sticking to it.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

That was not his story when he arguing to get money for her support. This is fishy, but your apparent zeal for death is clouding your judgement.

strawman argument. my argument is wholly logical and legal. your's is based on emotion, one that you've lost. my wife says "smooch", btw.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

strawman argument. my argument is wholly logical and legal. your's is based on emotion, one that you've lost. my wife says "smooch", btw.

Mine is based on facts as well. Emotion is condemning all rich people because you're not rich.

 

[Gunny]

what do you think I am?

We know each other pretty well. You just haven't done the math yet.

with assisted suicide being illegal in florida, and a number of other states as well, anyone sticking a needle in her arm would then be prosecuted for murder. I'm sure that all of you right to life extremist wackos would LOVE to see schiavo prosecuted if he were to be humane and end her life quickly. you'd be all for death then, wouldn't you? its a bunch of hypocritical double talk from a bunch of hypocritical right to life activists.

Please explain to those of us who don't get it just where I presented ANY "right to life whacko" ideology?

And who the Hell do you think you're calling a hypocrite, numbnuts? Because I find it absurd that "right to pull the plug whacko's" will sit and watch a human being, capable of conscious thought or not, starve to death over a period of weeks.

Who's the hypocrite again? We can't hang, fry, shoot or gas those sentenced to death because it's cruel and unusual punishment. As I stated before, you can't even starve your dog without facing punitive action, and last I checked, dogs aren't capable of conscious thought. Yet starving them is considered cruel and abusive.

Yet you advocate letting this woman starve to death.

My point is simply that those of you clamouring for this woman's death need to grow some damned stones and euthenize her since she has been deemed unworthy of life in your mind.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Mine is based on facts as well. Emotion is condemning all rich people because you're not rich.

what does one have to do with the other? and what are your facts?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

We know each other pretty well. You just haven't done the math yet.

I despise guessing games.

Please explain to those of us who don't get it just where I presented ANY "right to life whacko" ideology?

when I say 'you', im generalizing right to life groups, not identifying you specifically.

And who the Hell do you think you're calling a hypocrite, numbnuts? Because I find it absurd that "right to pull the plug whacko's" will sit and watch a human being, capable of conscious thought or not, starve to death over a period of weeks.

its much better than 40 more years of a barely cognizant existence, which has been determined to be terri's wishes.

Who's the hypocrite again? We can't hang, fry, shoot or gas those sentenced to death because it's cruel and unusual punishment. As I stated before, you can't even starve your dog without facing punitive action, and last I checked, dogs aren't capable of conscious thought. Yet starving them is considered cruel and abusive.

first off, i'm all for capital punishment, just in case you were confused on that issue, and its already been determined that euthanasia is perfectly acceptable for animals if they are vicious, maimed to the point of immobility, or too old to continue, so this has no real relevance to the issue at hand.

Yet you advocate letting this woman starve to death.

My point is simply that those of you clamouring for this woman's death need to grow some damned stones and euthenize her since she has been deemed unworthy of life in your mind.

It's NOT about determining who is worthy of life or not, its about honoring the wishes of terri schiavo. Not pandering to the sensibilities of the 'life at all costs' group.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

and what are your facts?

He DID argue for money for her, and ONLY LATER said she wanted to die. That's a fact.

 

[Gunny]

its much better than 40 more years of a barely cognizant existence, which has been determined to be terri's wishes.

You are rationalizing a horrible way to die?

And who made this determination? A judge? Please explain how it is he is privvy to this info. Or is this based solely on the husband's word?

I'm not about accusing him either. All I am saying is you can't get a conviction on court on one person's word; yet, you can get a ruling to KNOWINGLY terminate a life by one of the cruelest ways possible.

first off, i'm all for capital punishment, just in case you were confused on that issue, and its already been determined that euthanasia is perfectly acceptable for animals if they are vicious, maimed to the point of immobility, or too old to continue, so this has no real relevance to the issue at hand.

It only is irrelevant to you because it doesn't suit your argument. But let me spell it out for you .......convicted mass murderers and dogs are receiving more compassion from YOU and your crowd than this woman is.

I am not arguing for or against termination. I'm arguing against the cruel method and hypocritical mindset in regards to the manner of termination.

It's NOT about determining who is worthy of life or not, its about honoring the wishes of terri schiavo. Not pandering to the sensibilities of the 'life at all costs' group.

I'm not pandering to anyone. See above for my opinion on Terri Schiavo's "wishes."

You just come on down to San Antonio, smarter. You're so willing to believe the uncorroborated word of the husband I got some shit to sell you.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

You are rationalizing a horrible way to die?

while all humane forms of assistance are illegal, its unfortunately the only way left.

And who made this determination? A judge? Please explain how it is he is privvy to this info. Or is this based solely on the husband's word?

the husbands/wifes word has been good enough for centuries, you want to change that based on a feeling that M. schiavo is less that honorable. thats wrong.

I'm not about accusing him either. All I am saying is you can't get a conviction on court on one person's word; yet, you can get a ruling to KNOWINGLY terminate a life by one of the cruelest ways possible.

i call it fulfilling terri's desire to not have to live in her current irrepairable state.

It only is irrelevant to you because it doesn't suit your argument. But let me spell it out for you .......convicted mass murderers and dogs are receiving more compassion from YOU and your crowd than this woman is.

and as far as convicted murderers go, i'd love to change that.

 

[Merlin1047]

Why is it that both posters who oppose the court decision are unable to either recognize or acknowledge the basic point in the root post of this thread? Why do you feel the need to obfuscate the premise which was presented with arguments which do not relate to the question? Granted, Smarter indulged in some hyperbole in an effort to make his argument, but that too is beside the point.

Let me refresh your memories. Extracted from Smarter's original post:

After the Terri Schiavo case has worked its way through the florida courts for over 5 years and that florida court ruled in favor of the husband, Michael Schiavo, using decades and centuries of law based on spousal responsibility and legal precedents from all 50 states of this union, the GOP controlled house has put together legislation that will now allow the family of Terri Schiavo to appeal a legal and lawfully correct judicial decison to a federal judge

The objection is to the unwarranted intrustion of the legislative branch of government into decisions by the judicial branch. I'm sure you recall that the basic premise of our form of government is that each branch is equal and separate.

How then can you justify the actions by DeLay and the House committee which subpoenaed Terri Schiavo to "testify" for a totally bogus and contrived "investigation"? Do you support this kind of underhanded power grabbing by the legislative branch? Do you fail to see the danger of these actions?

So put aside the arguments over whether it is appropriate to allow Terri Schiavo to starve to death. Because while that is certainly an issue worth discussing, it is not the issue presented here.

I believe that keeping life in Terri Schiavo's body through underhanded and devious manipulations like this may save Terri, but it will certainly kill our form of government.

Let's address that and leave the emotionalism and the name calling behind.

 

[Merlin]

I have no idea if Terri can or can not think, eat, talk, or anything else. It doesn't matter to me at this point. I don't believe her husband though. But to starve her to death???? I have let all my people know that I don't want to hang on to life by artificial means, but for God's sake, don't let me starve to death. Stick a needle in me, or get a gun, throw me off a building, but starve me to death? Not hardly!!!!!!! It is in my belief from the bottom of my being that this Judge should be arrested for murder and tried and put to death.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/20/102601.shtml

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I have no idea if Terri can or can not think, eat, talk, or anything else. It doesn't matter to me at this point. I don't believe her husband though. But to starve her to death???? I have let all my people know that I don't want to hang on to life by artificial means, but for God's sake, don't let me starve to death. Stick a needle in me, or get a gun, throw me off a building, but starve me to death? Not hardly!!!!!!! It is in my belief from the bottom of my being that this Judge should be arrested for murder and tried and put to death.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/20/102601.shtml

was this affidavit or testimony entered, in any way, to the florida courts?

i'm glad you have no power over the judicial system if thats what you think of a judge who ruled BY THE LAW!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gunny]

Let's address that and leave the emotionalism and the name calling behind.

You cannot escape the emotionalism. Most of the opinions on this issue are based on it.

Cognizant or not, she is a living being who cannot fend for herself. If we are going to decide to terminate her existence, then we should at least afford her the same rights we do criminals and dogs.

As far as the issue of the legislature being involved goes, I don't think even the judiciary should be involved unless medical professionals attending Terri Shiavo have a valid dispute. The judiciary has allowed the parents to usurp the husband's right and responsibility as primary next of kin by issuing a stay to begin with.

As far as the Fed legislature involving themselves, they are clearly out of bounds, but when has that ever stopped them?