The latest twist in the Schiavo case.......

[Guest thebigjig]

On Jeb Bush ordering that the feeding tube go back into Terri in 2003:

 

"I feel for her --- but what legal right does Jeb have to do this?

 

Far as I can tell, he has NO legal standing whatsoever to issue this order."

 

Also in a 2003 Schiavo thread:

 

"And, as has been pointed out previously, the only people who have claimed to see ANY noticeable recognition on her part are her parents. The doctors and nurses have never seen any recognition by her."

 

So, which liberal said this?

 

MikeSC did!

 

(nothing like checking the old Schiavo threads on CE)

 

links:

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...dpost&p=1068273

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...dpost&p=1069140

Gold, Jerry, Gold!

[CanadianChris 0]

Incidentally, the parents have just been granted another hearing, going on right now. Just saw it on the news.

[Guest MikeSC]

On Jeb Bush ordering that the feeding tube go back into Terri in 2003:

 

"I feel for her --- but what legal right does Jeb have to do this?

 

Far as I can tell, he has NO legal standing whatsoever to issue this order."

 

Also in a 2003 Schiavo thread:

 

"And, as has been pointed out previously, the only people who have claimed to see ANY noticeable recognition on her part are her parents. The doctors and nurses have never seen any recognition by her."

 

So, which liberal said this?

 

MikeSC did!

 

(nothing like checking the old Schiavo threads on CE)

 

links:

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...dpost&p=1068273

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...dpost&p=1069140

Yes, I thought he had no legal standing to force them to stick the tube back in. He still doesn't.

 

Congress lacks the power, too. Congress, to their credit, hasn't made the request.

 

But when you have two branches of the gov't asking the courts to actually review a case, it requires unbelievable arrogance on the part of the courts to simply ignore the request.

 

And I have learned of doctors who HAVE stated they see something different.

 

But, hey, feel free to ignore that somebody can change an opinion with more info. I know more info wouldn't change YOUR mind on anything.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Here's an interesting one: if someone is "allowed" to feed Terri orally (water, jello, whatever) and she can't swallow, so she chokes on it and dies, does that person get charged with manslaughter?

Eh, the worst you could get them for was involuntary manslaughter.

 

BTW, here's the best / worst thing I've seen all day:

 

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

At least some good came from all this -- holy crap is that funny.

 

(Wouldn't it have been a flawless victory?...)

[2GOLD 0]

At least some good came from all this -- holy crap is that funny.

 

(Wouldn't it have been a flawless victory?...)

 

You kidding?

15 years, she's like the Sonya of Mortal Kombat.

Plus she used up all the insurance money.

 

No flawless victory here.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Anyone else notice the wife murderer looks like that guy from the Wedding Singer?...

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Well, Coulter has weighed in with some of her usual inane, insane ramblings:

 

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

 

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

KKK, the guy who played Glen, or somebody else?

 

Yes, I thought he had no legal standing to force them to stick the tube back in. He still doesn't.

 

Congress lacks the power, too. Congress, to their credit, hasn't made the request.

 

True on both points. Since bills of attainder are pretty much unconstitutional.

 

But when you have two branches of the gov't asking the courts to actually review a case, it requires unbelievable arrogance on the part of the courts to simply ignore the request.

 

You mean to tell me that in almost a decade of litigation, that the courts are rushing to a conclusion. Feel free to mention any of the new evidence from the Schlinders which is being overlooked.

 

And I have learned of doctors who HAVE stated they see something different.

 

It's two doctors, right? including the one from the Mayo Clinic of Jacksonville (I forget if he was the same guy as the doctor nominated for a nobel prize by some congressman)

 

But, hey, feel free to ignore that somebody can change an opinion with more info. I know more info wouldn't change YOUR mind on anything.

 

Flip-flopper!

 

There's a difference between being convinced by good reliable information, and being convinced by one nurse who the Schlinders have never consulted and various doctors.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well, Coulter has weighed in...

 

I said the same thing earlier today, at least the Elian Gonzalez part. And just what if Janet Reno became Florida governor?

 

And Rob, the guy who was related to Sandler's character (the limo driver) who said he was lonely toward the end of the movie...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

hmm.. i'm not really too sure if there's a resemblance.

 

If it was Glenn, then somebody could use a Michael Schiavo picture with the caption of "You know, you should write a song about this. You could call it "I got hit in the nose for sticking my face in other people's business"."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It is PRECISELY what is happening. NOBODY is allowed to TRY to feed her or give her water (Michael is controlling access to Terri and has for years --- locking her family out of her room for long, long stretches of time). They are starving and dehydrating her to death and NOBODY, whatsoever, is permitted to try and feed/hydrate her.

 

 

When you won't permit anybody to try and give her food and water ---- then, yes, you're starving and dehydrating her to death.

 

 

When you REFUSE to give somebody food or water, which is happening, then you are murdering them.

You still seem to cling to the emotional of view of "starving to death." That carries the physical yearning for nourishment and the mental anguish of not being able to eat. Terri feels none of this, as her cerebral cortex is gone.

 

Stop using terms of art.

 

Nurses have stated she feels pain and discomfort, mentioning her menstrual cycle as a key part.

 

And yet, somehow, I feel the lack of a cerebral cortex is more of a telling sign as to whether she can recognize pain or not, than some nurse's guess as to what is going on.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, which liberal said this?

 

MikeSC did!

Once again proving that when our Great Well-Oiled Republican Machine is in jeopardy (and judging from how such even evangelicals seem to majorily support removing the tube, they are), guess whose there to convince us all that we're just simply wrong?

 

I really like to think he DOESN'T get all his stuff from some blog or radio host, but I'm having a hard time now. He seems to be just as inconsistant as they are.

[SuperJerk 0]

Well, Coulter has weighed in with some of her usual inane, insane ramblings:

 

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

 

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

Ann seems to want us to think that no Republican president ever used troops against other Americans, and no Democrat ever wanted to use military force against a foreign power. Maybe I'm reading too much into her statement, but that seems to be what she trying to convince us of.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well, Coulter has weighed in with some of her usual inane, insane ramblings:

 

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

 

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

Ann seems to want us to think that no Republican president ever used troops against other Americans, and no Democrat ever wanted to use military force against a foreign power. Maybe I'm reading too much into her statement, but that seems to be what she trying to convince us of.

You lost me at "Ann Coulter wants us to think........." As if anyone comes away from one of her rants, ready to think.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, which liberal said this?

 

MikeSC did!

Once again proving that when our Great Well-Oiled Republican Machine is in jeopardy (and judging from how such even evangelicals seem to majorily support removing the tube, they are), guess whose there to convince us all that we're just simply wrong?

 

I really like to think he DOESN'T get all his stuff from some blog or radio host, but I'm having a hard time now. He seems to be just as inconsistant as they are.

Because changes of opinion are impossible amongst conservatives.

 

Right, twit?

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Well, Coulter has weighed in with some of her usual inane, insane ramblings:

 

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

 

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

Ann seems to want us to think that no Republican president ever used troops against other Americans, and no Democrat ever wanted to use military force against a foreign power. Maybe I'm reading too much into her statement, but that seems to be what she trying to convince us of.

You lost me at "Ann Coulter trying to convince........." As if that is possible or something.......

Since I never uttered that particular phrase, it would be impossible indeed.

 

What I meant was that it seems like Ann's using the fact that Democrats have, from time to time, used armed federal agents against American citizens as proof that they only want to use armed federal agents against other Americans.

 

What she forgets, or at least wants US to forget, is that Democrats and Republicans have both found it necessary to exercise this power against Americans.

 

Acknowledging that Republican office holders have also done this (because some times it needs to be done) would render her only sliver of evidence (the fact that Democrats have done it) completely null and void, thus negating her totally idiotic point.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well, Coulter has weighed in with some of her usual inane, insane ramblings:

 

 

Since I never uttered that particular phrase, it would be impossible indeed.

 

Yeah you beat me before I could edit.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, Coulter has weighed in with some of her usual inane, insane ramblings:

 

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

 

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

Ann seems to want us to think that no Republican president ever used troops against other Americans, and no Democrat ever wanted to use military force against a foreign power. Maybe I'm reading too much into her statement, but that seems to be what she trying to convince us of.

You lost me at "Ann Coulter trying to convince........." As if that is possible or something.......

Since I never uttered that particular phrase, it would be impossible indeed.

 

What I meant was that it seems like Ann's using the fact that Democrats have, from time to time, used armed federal agents against American citizens as proof that they only want to use armed federal agents against other Americans.

 

What she forgets, or at least wants US to forget, is that Democrats and Republicans have both found it necessary to exercise this power against Americans.

 

Acknowledging that Republican office holders have also done this (because some times it needs to be done) would render her only sliver of evidence (the fact that Democrats have done it) completely null and void, thus negating her totally idiotic point.

She's actually saying that Dems have a history of using federal troops to engage in some truly horrific acts against innocent people, not that Republicans have never used federal troops when needed.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Well, Coulter has weighed in with some of her usual inane, insane ramblings:

 

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

 

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

Ann seems to want us to think that no Republican president ever used troops against other Americans, and no Democrat ever wanted to use military force against a foreign power. Maybe I'm reading too much into her statement, but that seems to be what she trying to convince us of.

You lost me at "Ann Coulter trying to convince........." As if that is possible or something.......

Since I never uttered that particular phrase, it would be impossible indeed.

 

What I meant was that it seems like Ann's using the fact that Democrats have, from time to time, used armed federal agents against American citizens as proof that they only want to use armed federal agents against other Americans.

 

What she forgets, or at least wants US to forget, is that Democrats and Republicans have both found it necessary to exercise this power against Americans.

 

Acknowledging that Republican office holders have also done this (because some times it needs to be done) would render her only sliver of evidence (the fact that Democrats have done it) completely null and void, thus negating her totally idiotic point.

She's actually saying that Dems have a history of using federal troops to engage in some truly horrific acts against innocent people, not that Republicans have never used federal troops when needed.

-=Mike

 

No, that couldn't have been her point, since her second example was not a "horrific act against innocent people".

 

 

 

Wait...she thinks the Branch Davidians were innocent people?

 

No wonder I missed her point.

[NoCalMike 0]

BREAKING NEWS

 

BOMB THREAT!!!!

 

Outside the courthouse.........Geez, that is how you show you are comitted to fight for LIFE........

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

BREAKING NEWS

 

BOMB THREAT!!!!

 

Outside the courthouse.........Geez, that is how you show you are comitted to fight for LIFE........

Ok, finally this story is newsworthy.

[Vyce 0]

BREAKING NEWS

 

BOMB THREAT!!!!

 

Outside the courthouse.........Geez, that is how you show you are comitted to fight for LIFE........

Ok, finally this story is newsworthy.

It's the story that just keeps giving.

[SuperJerk 0]

BREAKING NEWS

 

BOMB THREAT!!!!

 

Outside the courthouse.........Geez, that is how you show you are comitted to fight for LIFE........

Ok, finally this story is newsworthy.

No shit.

 

I have to admit, the only reason I'm even remotely paying attention to this idiotic saga is to watch the display of contortionist-like reasoning the conservatives are using to justify doing anything to keep the woman "alive". I find the obvious hypocrisy too deliciously amusing to completely ignore.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Obviously, if you do not allow for a culture of life, you will be killed.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, Coulter has weighed in with some of her usual inane, insane ramblings:

 

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

 

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

Ann seems to want us to think that no Republican president ever used troops against other Americans, and no Democrat ever wanted to use military force against a foreign power. Maybe I'm reading too much into her statement, but that seems to be what she trying to convince us of.

You lost me at "Ann Coulter trying to convince........." As if that is possible or something.......

Since I never uttered that particular phrase, it would be impossible indeed.

 

What I meant was that it seems like Ann's using the fact that Democrats have, from time to time, used armed federal agents against American citizens as proof that they only want to use armed federal agents against other Americans.

 

What she forgets, or at least wants US to forget, is that Democrats and Republicans have both found it necessary to exercise this power against Americans.

 

Acknowledging that Republican office holders have also done this (because some times it needs to be done) would render her only sliver of evidence (the fact that Democrats have done it) completely null and void, thus negating her totally idiotic point.

She's actually saying that Dems have a history of using federal troops to engage in some truly horrific acts against innocent people, not that Republicans have never used federal troops when needed.

-=Mike

 

No, that couldn't have been her point, since her second example was not a "horrific act against innocent people".

 

 

 

Wait...she thinks the Branch Davidians were innocent people?

 

No wonder I missed her point.

No. While I shed no tears about the death of Koresh, she is apparently a part of the school of thought where the ATF agents ended up doing something idiotic, like storming the compound, when they could have arrested Koresh when he went into town --- which he did frequently.

 

I don't know if it's true or not --- and, more precisely, I can't bring myself to care --- but there are those who believe that the gov't abused its authority and shot innocent people and then burned the compound down a month or so later.

-=Mike

[bobobrazil1984 0]

this whole thing is so idiotic. the politician scumfucks have no place in this matter. what the fuck, i imagine stuff like this happens hundreds of times a year, and now they care? No, each scumfuck side sees an opportunity to push their political agenda. Meanwhile, they remain... wait for it... scumfucks. i cant believe this is a media story.

Sickening.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Quality of life > quantity of life.

 

I don't think it's a stretch that someone who has only 20% of her brain has zero quality of life.

 

Keep the tube out. Give her a needle and make it quick.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Because changes of opinion are impossible amongst conservatives.

 

Right, twit?

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

[because changes of opinion are impossible amongst conservatives.

 

Right, twit?

-=Mike

They're certainly possible. Shit, I'm less and less eager to say I'm conservative with every passing day of this mess.