I hope y'all are happy....

[Mr. P]

None of these arguments matter, the only thing that matters legally is that Mr. Schiavo is the spouse and he is the one whom the decision rests in this case. No way any federal court including SCOTUS is going to overturn anything the Florida courts have looked at every way from Sunday.

Now more importantly, and I say this respectfully as I respect everyone in this discussion except Bully who is lower than AIDS, Republicans, congressional Republicans have fucked us, interferring in this state matter and bringing the federal judicial system in is exactly the opposite we've been preaching for decades......completely hypocritical. We will pay down the road, nobody here seems to think of that now but we will rue the day we did this. Goes against every conservative political principle I know of.

Where have all the conservatives gone? Was Reagan the last?

I couldn't agree more OCA..In fact
this along with the massive social spending have me wondering if I may need to been Independant next time around.

 

[dilloduck]

I couldn't agree more OCA..In fact
this along with the massive social spending have me wondering if I may need to been Independant next time around.

CMON GUYS---------NOTHING HAS HAPPENED !!!!------DEMS VOTED TO HAVE THE FEDS CHECK THE SITUATION OUT TOO!!!------It WILL BE OVER SOON!!

 

[Mr. P]

CMON GUYS---------NOTHING HAS HAPPENED !!!!------DEMS VOTED TO HAVE THE FEDS CHECK THE SITUATION OUT TOO!!!------It WILL BE OVER SOON!!

Nothing happened? I guess I've been having a bad dream. The Repubs. came off of Easter break to pass a bill focused on one person, the Republican Pres. signed it at what 1 a.m., all for political reasons.
Man I'm glad that REALLY didn't happen, it would have been a MAJOR MISTAKE!

 

[dilloduck]

Nothing happened? I guess I've been having a bad dream. The Repubs. came off of Easter break to pass a bill focused on one person, the Republican Pres. signed it at what 1 a.m., all for political reasons.
Man I'm glad that REALLY didn't happen, it would have been a MAJOR MISTAKE!

and that means what??-----it's gonna happen all the time???----it's minor compared to what judges do don't hit the panic button

 

[Bonnie]

Nothing happened? I guess I've been having a bad dream. The Repubs. came off of Easter break to pass a bill focused on one person, the Republican Pres. signed it at what 1 a.m., all for political reasons.
Man I'm glad that REALLY didn't happen, it would have been a MAJOR MISTAKE!

Be more frightened of judges that legislate from the bench, and think they are God without anyone questioning their judgements and decisions.
That is going on all the time

 

[musicman]

The Repubs. came off of Easter break to pass a bill focused on one person, the Republican Pres. signed it at what 1 a.m., all for political reasons.

That's unfair, Mr. P. In the first place, this ain't based on one person. It's a question of due process. Federal intervention is indicated here, and to shrink from this would be gutless.

Second, we've got enough MSM whores and DU crackpots advancing the insane notion that this is all "political". Let's not give it any more unmerited credibility here.

 

[musicman]

Honestly, think about it. If the Republican attitude were, "We're about states' rights and against judicial activism, so we're going to let this case slide - never mind that it is the most clear-cut example of the appropriateness of federal intervention in a state matter in forty years" - THAT would be political. That would be gutless.

 

[musicman]

Hmm, seems to me the most of these threads have been started by the ones who are wishing to make it all about the republicans and not the true issue at hand. This case is more involved than just a matter of who is right or wrong, too bad most aren't seeing that.

Exactly, SE. I don't see anyone making this political but the Bush-hating opportunists. Who's going to believe THEIR sorry asses?

No matter how this case shakes out, due process is a plausible issue, and federal intervention is proper.

 

[MissileMan]

That's unfair, Mr. P. In the first place, this ain't based on one person. It's a question of due process. Federal intervention is indicated here, and to shrink from this would be gutless.

Second, we've got enough MSM whores and DU crackpots advancing the insane notion that this is all "political". Let's not give it any more unmerited credibility here.

I keep wondering how seven years in state courts doesn't equal due process. Are you trying to say that all matters must be heard in a federal court in order for due process to occur?

 

[dilloduck]

Exactly, SE. I don't see anyone making this political but the Bush-hating opportunists. Who's going to believe THEIR sorry asses?

No matter how this case shakes out, due process is a plausible issue, and federal intervention is proper.

IF they were planning on it I can GUARANTEE you we would have heard some blob of libs bitching about NOW while they can get more attention !

Lesson----- If you do not take responsiblilty for yourself (living will), then someone else HAS to. You may be gone but other people will argue about what to do with your sorry ass and you WILL be subjected to legal revue BY SOME FORM OF GOVERNMENT !!!!!

 

[dilloduck]

IF they were planning on it I can GUARANTEE you we would have heard some blob of libs bitching about NOW while they can get more attention !

Lesson----- If you do not take responsiblilty for yourself (living will), then someone else HAS to. You may be gone but other people will argue about what to do with your sorry ass and you WILL be subjected to legal revue BY SOME FORM OF GOVERNMENT !!!!!

SO DO IT NOW OR DON"T BITCH!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Lets man up and meet, LETS GET ER DONE!

You must have been bullied terribly as a child, and now you're trying to compensate. The gods of inadequacy obviously ganged up on you at an early age.

 

[musicman]

I keep wondering how seven years in state courts doesn't equal due process. Are you trying to say that all matters must be heard in a federal court in order for due process to occur?

Questions remain - fair questions, apparently, in the opinion of the feds. A child -molesting serial murderer merits consideration for whether he's being deprived of his life without due process - why not Terri?

 

[Bullypulpit]

That's unfair, Mr. P. In the first place, this ain't based on one person. It's a question of due process. Federal intervention is indicated here, and to shrink from this would be gutless.

Second, we've got enough MSM whores and DU crackpots advancing the insane notion that this is all "political". Let's not give it any more unmerited credibility here.

<center><h1><a href=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=600937>GOP talking points on the federal version of the defunct "Terri's Law" passed by the FL legislature</a></h1></center>

<blockqoute><b>S. 529, The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act</b>

Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m.

The Senate needs to act this week, before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri's family will not have a remedy in federal court.

This is an important moral issue and the <b><i>pro-life base will be excited</i></b> that the Senate is debating this important issue.

<b><i>This is a great political issue</i></b>, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

The bill is very limited and defines custody as "those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment."

There is an exemption for a proceeding "which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or (sic) withdrawl (sic) of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances."

Incapacitated persons are defined as those "presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawl (sic) of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law."

This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy. (Emphasis mine)</blockquote>

It's not political? Think again boyo...It's ALL political.

 

[dilloduck]

Well the issue is pretty deep but it certainly appears that many are more interested in laying blame or why it's wrong for who to be involved. seems funny to me that the majority who are up in arms about the whole thing are those also against capitol punishment, sounds a little odd to me. The issue has no relation to one another but goes to show that most abger probably isn't pointed where it needs to be.

I'm beginning to see power over what to do with a helpless and incognizant person as the issue. There is also the question of when Terris' wishes should have been carried out. Why wasn't it done IMMEDIATELY if he husband feels so strong about it? Some people don't want government to have the power to do anything and love to bitch about anything the gov does. Then it's up to them to tke care of their own business!!

 

[dilloduck]

<center><h1><a href=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=600937>GOP talking points on the federal version of the defunct "Terri's Law" passed by the FL legislature</a></h1></center>

<blockqoute><b>S. 529, The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act</b>

Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m.

The Senate needs to act this week, before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri's family will not have a remedy in federal court.

This is an important moral issue and the <b><i>pro-life base will be excited</i></b> that the Senate is debating this important issue.

<b><i>This is a great political issue</i></b>, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

The bill is very limited and defines custody as "those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment."

There is an exemption for a proceeding "which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or (sic) withdrawl (sic) of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances."

Incapacitated persons are defined as those "presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawl (sic) of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law."

This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy. (Emphasis mine)</blockquote>

It's not political? Think again boyo...It's ALL political.

OK let the church take care of this one for us !!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bonnie]

Well the issue is pretty deep but it certainly appears that many are more interested in laying blame or why it's wrong for who to be involved. seems funny to me that the majority who are up in arms about the whole thing are those also against capitol punishment, sounds a little odd to me. The issue has no relation to one another but goes to show that most abger probably isn't pointed where it needs to be.

 

[Bonnie]

OK let the church take care of this one for us !!!!!!!!!!

LOL

 

[musicman]

Bully:

By whom was this memo "distributed"? Did Sandy Berger pull it out of his knickers? I don't see any specifics. I don't expect I will either. You know why? Cause it's BULLSHIT!

When are the MSM going to learn to stop obtaining exclusive memos? Does a memo have to actually blow a journalist's hand off before they get the idea?

 

[no1tovote4]

Bully:

By whom was this memo "distributed"? Did Sandy Berger pull it out of his knickers? I don't see any specifics. I don't expect I will either. You know why? Cause it's BULLSHIT!

When are the MSM going to learn to stop obtaining exclusive memos? Does a memo have to actually blow a journalist's hand off before they get the idea?

They keep forgetting to vet the information because they want it to be true so badly they quit thinking and print whatever is before them, kind of vegetable-like. I wonder if they are in danger if they set foot in FL.