Re: I finally realize why liberals want Terri Schiavo dead
Cqmman 29 March 2005 23:21:24
livingdjinn@yahoo.com wrote:> Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to> justify Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common> arguments:
Sounds fair.
Why doesn't everyone just leave her alone and not interfere in her life. Oh wait, that is what they are trying to do! It is her parents who want to keep her alive artifically.
-- Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" -Cecil Rhodes
"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times." George W Bush -Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalms 137:9.
Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces. Malachi 2:3.
"He who rises up to kill us, we will pre-empt it and kill him first," - Ariel Sharon 8th May 2002
livingdjinn@yahoo.com wrote:> 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.
For a real fun read, substitute "Iraqis" for "Terri". Also, "Fascism" for "Communism," "Rush Limbaugh" for "college professors," etc.
Listen to me very carefully, liberals. You do not have the authority to> decide what standard of living is acceptable for Terri.
No but the courts have decided, so that's that. It's the conservatives constantly trying to override the courts and find ways around the judicial decision that has been repeated over and over again.
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.
Oh, you DIDN'T just say that did you? You are the ones who are not respecting boundaries here. Specifically, you are ot respecting the legal boundary of the family unit of the Schiavos.
In particular, they think they have the right to dictate every single> detail of everyone's lives for them.
As opposed to the wholesale intervention by fundamentalist religions we witness in this case.
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. No, we want the families to make decisions for their own. Not churches making arbitrary decisions in matters that are none of their business.
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?
Oh yeah, I forgot, the liberal/communist connection. Tell me, just where in the manifesto does it dictate intervention in family medical matters?
Listen to me very carefully, liberals. You do not have the authority to> decide what standard of living is acceptable for Terri.
Neither do you. You, your church, your preacher and your carpet bagging politicians have no authority to tell anyone else what to do.
You do not> have the authority to decide that Terri is better off dead than alive. Nope, that's her husbands job.
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.>
Really, Hillary, Barbara and Diane have weighed in on this? Do tell.
-- Skydivers don't knock on death's door; they ring the bell and run away... It really pisses him off.
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808 EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
Russell B. Waters 30 March 2005 01:20:00 [ permanent link ]
"ugottarubmedariteway" <ugottarubmedariteway@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1112129037.571925.201000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> 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.>
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.
On 29 Mar 2005 11:17:29 -0800, livingdjinn@yahoo.com drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
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.
Which is why the courts have looked at the evidence, listened to the witnesses, and decided that Terri herself didn't want to live this way.
You do know that Judge Greer is a Republican and Baptist, right? --
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Just because someone wishes to expresses an opinion outside your scope> of understanding doesn't mean that, "Liberals are trying to impose> their will on you". The liberal demons are not out to get you. The> only views Liberals 'force' on their conservative counterparts is> this thing called "Freedom". This little principle our country was> founded on. The freedom to have the morals, the opinions and the> religion you want, without interference from governments or churches.> God's way is not my way and that is my choice, which is my freedom,> which is our liberty, and is my right.>
____________________> Carl Melander (2005)> ____________________>
Just because someone wishes to expresses an opinion outside your scope>> of understanding doesn't mean that, "Liberals are trying to impose>> their will on you". The liberal demons are not out to get you. The>> only views Liberals 'force' on their conservative counterparts is>> this thing called "Freedom". This little principle our country was>> founded on. The freedom to have the morals, the opinions and the>> religion you want, without interference from governments or churches.>> God's way is not my way and that is my choice, which is my freedom,>> which is our liberty, and is my right.>>
____________________>> Carl Melander (2005)>> ____________________>>
Did I get it right flipper? Is that the way we used to say that?
Evil Sideshow Bob 30 March 2005 02:18:19 [ permanent link ]
livingdjinn@yahoo.com, sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!
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.
Apparently we do. Deal with it.
--
Marty DiBergi: It's very pretty.
Nigel Tufnel: Yeah, I've been fooling around with it for a few months.
Marty DiBergi: It's a bit of a departure from what you normally play.
Nigel Tufnel: It's part of a trilogy, a musical trilogy I'm working on in D minor which is the saddest of all keys, I find. People weep instantly when they hear it, and I don't know why.
Marty DiBergi: It's very nice.
Nigel Tufnel: You know, just simple lines intertwining, you know, very much like - I'm really influenced by Mozart and Bach, and it's sort of in between those, really. It's like a Mach piece, really. It's sort of...
Marty DiBergi: What do you call this?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, this piece is called "Lick My Love Pump".
On 29 Mar 2005 12:43:57 -0800, "ugottarubmedariteway" <ugottarubmedariteway@hotmail.com> wrote:
Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to justify>Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common arguments:
You've got it wrong before your horse is even out of the gate.
Support for the decision to withdraw the feeding tube cuts right across the political spectrum.
Condemnation of Bush, Rove, Delay et. al. for attempting to subvert the constitution by making the entire affair a Federal matter cuts right across the political spectrum.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:17:29 -0800, livingdjinn wrote:
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">
You conveniently omitted the one that goes: "While Terri was alive, she indicated that if she ever suffered a massive brain injury, she would not want to be kept alive as a vegetable."
-- MarkA (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message newsan.2005.03.29.22.24.30.617674@stopspam.net...> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:17:29 -0800, livingdjinn wrote:>
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">>
You conveniently omitted the one that goes: "While Terri was alive, she> indicated that if she ever suffered a massive brain injury, she would not> want to be kept alive as a vegetable."
Now, here is the tricky part. Prove that without it being hearsay.
Even Rev. Jackson...STAUNCH liberal...says her death is an injustice
"Evil Sideshow Bob" <evilsideshowbobYOURCLOTHES@gmail.com> wrote in message news:70lj415t45k6uq3rfgubitthebo21ccqhm@4ax.com...> livingdjinn@yahoo.com, sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle> Motion!>
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.>
Apparently we do. Deal with it.
And there is your admittance that liberals do think they have control over others.
The Arch Atheist 30 March 2005 03:10:24 [ permanent link ]
On 29 Mar 2005 11:17:29 -0800, livingdjinn@yahoo.com wrote:
Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of others.
Uhm. Buy a dictionary, Bubba. Who is it that discriminates minorities, homosexuals, atheists and others, starts wars of aggression, and passes laws that tells people what they're allowed to do behind closed curtains and bedroom doors?
I am for allowing Terri Schiavo to die, however, I'm not comfortable with the way it's happening. It's unworthy, and there's no way to tell if she's suffering. It would be better for everyone if she DID get an overdose morphine.
Gary L . Burnore 30 March 2005 03:14:36 [ permanent link ]
On 29 Mar 2005 12:43:57 -0800, "ugottarubmedariteway" <ugottarubmedariteway@hotmail.com> wrote:
(yeah, I know this is a troll, but wtf. It's fun)
Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to justify>Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common arguments:
You mean neocons pathateically attempting to usurp state law to keep a woman who wanted to die alive a little longer so her parents can "feel good"? Thought so.
"who would want to live that way"
Neocons.
"it's compassionate to kill her because she's supposedly a vegetable"
No one is killing her. She is in a persistant vegitative state.
"let her die, with whatever dignity she has left"
Her parents and the religious right threw her dignity out the window when they started this "fight"
"I certainly want to live that way so terri wouldn't either"
Try "Terri said she didn't want to live that way and I respect her wishes". Oops, you can't respect her wishes, you're a neocon.
Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of others.
And yet it's the republicans who want to cross the boundries of others.
In particular, they think they have the right to dictate every single>detail of everyone's lives for them.
And yet it's the neoconservatives who are trying to dictate every single detail of everyone's lifes.
That's where the whole "it takes a village to raise a child" thing comes from.
THat's a neoconservative phrase. Usually spoken by religious nutcases who want to get involved in the lives of others.
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.
She wanted to die. Neoconservatives want to stop her.
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.
And yet it's her parents who said they'd "keep her alive even though that's not what she would 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?
The neoconservatives always mock god by going against his word.
Listen to me very carefully, liberals.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Laugh at you very loudly, maybe.
You do not have the authority to decide what standard of living is acceptable for Terri.
Her husband does. That's the law of the state of Florida and the law of the bible. Too bad you haven't actually read the bible or know the law.
You do not have the authority to decide that Terri is better off dead than alive.
Her husband does. He also promised her he would keep her wishes.
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.
SHe's not being murdered. No matter how much you wish it were true, neocon.
Ok?
Nope, not ok.
I know this goes against everything Hillary>Clinton, Barbara Streisand, Dianne Feinstein and your college>professors have told you,
Let me guess. Those are all people who are smarter than you, right? Hillary is a dumbass and she's STILL smarter than you.
but you do not dictate other peoples lives and tell them what to do.
Says a necon while he supports other neocons trying to dictate other people's lives and tell them what to do.
-- gburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ | 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 article <1112129037.571925.201000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, ugottarubmedariteway says...>
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"
*nods* I have heard this from the politicians many times. Iraq comes to mind.>
"it's compassionate to kill..."
*nods again* We invaded Iraq with this in mind.
"let her die, with whatever dignity she has left"
Or let her live with whatever dignity she has left.
"I certainly want to live that way so terri wouldn't either"
Oh yes, this is VERY familiar. I heard this about those poor Iraqi's too. But we've killed a good many of them and now they live just like us! Wow, the liberals did all that?
Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of others.
hmmm, but...we invaded Iraq under a conservative administration. Surely he respects borders!
In particular, they think they have the right to dictate every single>detail of everyone's lives for them.
I think Bush agrees with this statement otherwise he wouldn't have sent our boys & girls to die with dignity in Iraq.
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.
Like kill civilians in Iraq and give them our wonderful lifestyle! But wait, wasn't that Bush, a conservative, who made that decision?
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?
If we trust Terri to God, how is that mocking God? Doesn't God ultimately have the say over whether she lives or dies?
Listen to me very carefully, liberals. You do not have the authority to>decide what standard of living is acceptable
Not even in Iraq? Sometimes you have to kill a few people to make things better for others or, at least, acceptable standard of living to you & me.
for Terri. You do not>have the authority to decide that Terri is better off dead than alive.
That's right! God has that final authority - whether Terri is on life support or off. Trust God!
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.
But, but we do when it comes to Iraq? Your ideas of mercy and killing seem...slippery & suspect. Are you sure you're not a liberal?
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.
Something tells me that if it were Hillary, Barbara or Diane with a feeding tube in a vegetative state, you'd volunteer for the job.
"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:15qj41ld0i5519g227gof25ntqckillql6@4ax.com...> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:32:54 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>> wrote:>
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message> >newsan.2005.03.29.22.24.30.617674@stopspam.net...>
You conveniently omitted the one that goes: "While Terri was alive, she> >> indicated that if she ever suffered a massive brain injury, she would
want to be kept alive as a vegetable."> >
Now, here is the tricky part. Prove that without it being hearsay.>
Simple: Ask one of the people that she told this to directly.>
It's only hearsay if you heard about the conversation from somebody> else, not if you were actually involved in the conversation.
He must not even know the definition of "hearsay".
-- C The Shocker Never trust a big butt and a smile!
"Setzer" <setzer@setzertopia.net> wrote in news:7ai2e.349$wo1.57> @bignews6.bellsouth.net:>
Actually, I want her to die because she gave me herpes simplex.>
I want her to die because she did a REALLY bad cover of 'Immigrant> Song.' I heard her, she said> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
"ugottarubmedariteway" <ugottarubmedariteway@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1112129037.571925.201000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> 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.
You mean like how Pres. Bush is holding all those people in Gutamo Bay in Cuba?
It seems liberals were against the President and Governor of Florida. They were both going over the boundaries of their offices. Apparently, the idea of three seperate branches of government is a good one.
In particular, they think they have the right to dictate every single> detail of everyone's lives for them.
Actually, people want to see what Terry Schiavo's own wishes carried out.
It is conservatives who want to see Terry Schiavo's wishes overruled.
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.
No, that is conservatives.
And they want to make all our> important decisions for us.
No, they want to let other people make their own decisions.
That's why liberals want Terri Schiavo to die.
Liberals don't want Terri Schiavo to die. Unfortuantely, the reality is that Terri Schiavo has zero chance of ever doing anything again with her brain.
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 was Terri Schiavo's wish.
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?
Liberals don't mock the word of God.
How is Bush honoring the word of God when he goes in and causes the death of 100,000+ Iraqis?
How is he honoring the word of God (thou shall not kill) when he signed more death warrants than any other governor in recent years?
Listen to me very carefully, liberals. You do not have the authority to> decide what standard of living is acceptable for Terri.
Correct. Only Terri does. And she said she doesn't want to live like this.
You do not> have the authority to decide that Terri is better off dead than alive.
No, only Terri does. and she decided this.
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.
Again, Terri's choice. However, Terri is no longer in a condition where she can feel pain or anything.
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.
That is what conservatives try to do, not liberals. Liberals are more about live and let live.
It's my guess that if the parents told the new media that Terri had AIDS--the liberals (including the liberal judges that want to starve her to death) would change the views and demand that she be allowed to continue living. Do you agree or disagree with me?
In article <1112129037.571925.201000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "ugottarubmedariteway" <ugottarubmedariteway@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
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:
"ugottarubmedariteway" <ugottarubmedariteway@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:1112129037.571925.201000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>> 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.
Oliver Costich 30 March 2005 06:04:59 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:20:00 -0600, "Russell B. Waters" <russell.waters@gmail.com> wrote:
"ugottarubmedariteway" <ugottarubmedariteway@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:1112129037.571925.201000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>> 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.>>
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.
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.
Oliver Costich 30 March 2005 06:06:27 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:14:36 -0500, Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 12:43:57 -0800, "ugottarubmedariteway"><ugottarubmedariteway@hotmail.com> wrote:>
(yeah, I know this is a troll, but wtf. It's fun)>
Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to justify>>Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common arguments:>
You mean neocons pathateically attempting to usurp state law to keep a>woman who wanted to die alive a little longer so her parents can "feel>good"? Thought so.>
"who would want to live that way">
Neocons.
They're already brain dead.
"it's compassionate to kill her because she's supposedly a vegetable">
No one is killing her. She is in a persistant vegitative state.>
"let her die, with whatever dignity she has left">
Her parents and the religious right threw her dignity out the window>when they started this "fight" >
"I certainly want to live that way so terri wouldn't either">
Try "Terri said she didn't want to live that way and I respect her>wishes". Oops, you can't respect her wishes, you're a neocon.>
Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of others.>
And yet it's the republicans who want to cross the boundries of>others.>
In particular, they think they have the right to dictate every single>>detail of everyone's lives for them. >
And yet it's the neoconservatives who are trying to dictate every>single detail of everyone's lifes.>
That's where the whole "it takes a village to raise a child" thing comes from.>
THat's a neoconservative phrase. Usually spoken by religious nutcases>who want to get involved in the lives of others.>
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.>
She wanted to die. Neoconservatives want to stop her.>
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.>
And yet it's her parents who said they'd "keep her alive even though>that's not what she would 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?>
The neoconservatives always mock god by going against his word. >
Listen to me very carefully, liberals.>
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Laugh at you very loudly,>maybe.>
You do not have the authority to decide what standard of living is acceptable for Terri.>
Her husband does. That's the law of the state of Florida and the law>of the bible. Too bad you haven't actually read the bible or know the>law.>
You do not have the authority to decide that Terri is better off dead than alive.>
Her husband does. He also promised her he would keep her wishes.>
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.>
SHe's not being murdered. No matter how much you wish it were true,>neocon.>
Ok? >
Nope, not ok.>
I know this goes against everything Hillary>>Clinton, Barbara Streisand, Dianne Feinstein and your college>>professors have told you,>
Let me guess. Those are all people who are smarter than you, right?>Hillary is a dumbass and she's STILL smarter than you.>
but you do not dictate other peoples lives and tell them what to do.>
Says a necon while he supports other neocons trying to dictate other>people's lives and tell them what to do.
Oliver Costich 30 March 2005 06:08:51 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:05:21 GMT, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
"ugottarubmedariteway" <ugottarubmedariteway@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:1112129037.571925.201000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>> 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.>
You mean like how Pres. Bush is holding all those people in Gutamo Bay in >Cuba?>
It seems liberals were against the President and Governor of Florida. They >were both going over the boundaries of their offices. Apparently, the idea >of three seperate branches of government is a good one.>
In particular, they think they have the right to dictate every single>> detail of everyone's lives for them.>
Actually, people want to see what Terry Schiavo's own wishes carried out.>
It is conservatives who want to see Terry Schiavo's wishes overruled.>
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.>
No, that is conservatives.>
And they want to make all our>> important decisions for us.>
No, they want to let other people make their own decisions.>
That's why liberals want Terri Schiavo to die.>
Liberals don't want Terri Schiavo to die. Unfortuantely, the reality is that >Terri Schiavo has zero chance of ever doing anything again with her brain.>
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 was Terri Schiavo's wish.>
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?>
Liberals don't mock the word of God.>
How is Bush honoring the word of God when he goes in and causes the death of >100,000+ Iraqis?>
How is he honoring the word of God (thou shall not kill) when he signed more >death warrants than any other governor in recent years?>
Listen to me very carefully, liberals. You do not have the authority to>> decide what standard of living is acceptable for Terri.>
Correct. Only Terri does. And she said she doesn't want to live like this.>
You do not>> have the authority to decide that Terri is better off dead than alive.>
No, only Terri does. and she decided this.>
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.>
Again, Terri's choice. However, Terri is no longer in a condition where she >can feel pain or anything.>
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.>
That is what conservatives try to do, not liberals. Liberals are more about >live and let live.>
Jeff >
Liberals? Conservatives? Why live with a label? Why not just think for yourself instead of following some label's ideology?
"j r sherman" <jrst@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:d2cj2u0d9j@drn.newsguy.com...
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?
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message news:MPG.1cb3ac53576826a6989923@news.comcast.giganews.com...> In article <ueOdneg_VqMrS9TfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey said...>
Now, here is the tricky part. Prove that without it being hearsay.>
How it hearsay?
Did the testimony come directly out of her mouth?
Answer: No
It's hearsay. Read Federal Rule of Evidence 801c
To fall within the hearsay rule, the declarant's statement must be an assertive statement offered as proof that the subject matter of the statement is true. An assertive statement is one in which the declarant intends to communicate his thoughts or beliefs.
Examples: Witness W testifies: "My brother (X) told me that he shot my dad because he thought my dad was planning to kill him." This is hearsay and not admissable, as this is an assertive statement. There is no opportunity to test the accuracy of this statement by cross-examination unless the brother is brought into court. However, if the brother is the defendent in this trial, this would be an incriminating statement that would be admissible under Federal Rule 807 (d) (2)
Witness W testifies: "I heard my brother (X) mutter, 'I killed my dad' in his sleep. " This is not hearsay because X, while sleeping, did not intend to communicate. It is not hearsay if X is a defendent in this action charged with killing his dad.
Nonverbal Communication can be assertive
The Hearsay Rule forbids only statements offered to prove the TRUTH of that statement
McCormick on Evidence, second edition, points out there are "an almost infinite variety of other purposes" to take a statement out of the hearsay rule and permit the statement to be used as evidence. The following examples illustrate only a few of the numerous other purposes that would take an out-of-court statement out of the hearsay classification.
Knowledge Feelings or state of mind Insanity Effect on hearer
There is a LOT more to the rules of evidence.
The bottom line is, Terri did NOT communicate this directly to the court and her statement was not on record with her signature. It was in fact, hearsay.
If you say to me, "I do not want mechanical life support to be> used on me if I become irreversibly vegetative," I can testify> about your statement in court, because I'd be presenting first-> hand knowledge about something you said. That's not hearsay.> (Think of other situations: If you tell me you intend to> strangle your gardener because he crushed your peonies, you'd> better believe the D.A. will be calling me as a witness if> you're later arrested for the gardener's murder.)>
By contrast, my wife couldn't testify about you, because her> knowledge would be second-hand: "Brian told me that Osprey told> him that he didn't want extreme measures to be used on him.">
I agree that we cannot know what Terri really *thought*, but> unless we have reason to believe she lied when she explained her> wishes to her husband and friends, is it not reasonable to> assume she meant what she said?
The courts decided that what Michael said was true, and that's how it goes sometimes. His statement met the qualifications. They felt it was relevant, reliable, and competent
Just because something is hearsay, doesn't mean it isn't admissable.
"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:15qj41ld0i5519g227gof25ntqckillql6@4ax.com...> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:32:54 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>> wrote:>
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message>>newsan.2005.03.29.22.24.30.617674@stopspam.net...>
You conveniently omitted the one that goes: "While Terri was alive, she>>> indicated that if she ever suffered a massive brain injury, she would >>> not>>> want to be kept alive as a vegetable.">>
Now, here is the tricky part. Prove that without it being hearsay.>
Simple: Ask one of the people that she told this to directly.
Did she say it directly to the court? Answer: No
It's hearsay
It's only hearsay if you heard about the conversation from somebody> else, not if you were actually involved in the conversation.
Wrong, you need to read up on the Federal Rules of Evidence on hearsay. Start with 801 (c)
"Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.net> wrote in message news:mPadnfGma5C-kNffRVn-iw@comcast.com...>
"j r sherman" <jrst@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:d2cj2u0d9j@drn.newsguy.com...>
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.
Gary L . Burnore 30 March 2005 06:32:53 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:21:25 -0800, "Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.net> wrote:
"j r sherman" <jrst@earthlink.net> wrote in message>news:d2cj2u0d9j@drn.newsguy.com...>
like those Republican liberals in congress? and the liberal president?>>
They wanted a new review of the case;
They wanted to extend her life by a while to gain political points. Nothing more. The case was reviewed by several levels of court in the state of Florida, where it belonged.
-- gburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ | 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 ===========================================================================
Gary L . Burnore 30 March 2005 07:37:22 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:32:35 GMT, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in message >news:d2d3sp$rvr$5@fluffy.databasix.com...>(...)>
And the 9 or 10% who agreed with Bush and Congress are whining>> neocons.>
I disagree.>
They have as much right to an opinion as the majority.
I didn't say they didn't have a right to an opinion and yes, they have the same right the majority has. That doesn't mean they're not whining. -- gburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ | 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 ===========================================================================
"North" <north@the_shack.com> wrote in message news:re7k41t43ju8f7o4aq07cmvcufjmvgh68j@4ax.com...
(...)
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?
Gary L . Burnore 30 March 2005 07:57:43 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:53:44 GMT, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
"North" <north@the_shack.com> wrote in message >news:re7k41t43ju8f7o4aq07cmvcufjmvgh68j@4ax.com...>
(...)>
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?
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.
-- gburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³º³³Ýۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ºÝ³ÝÛ³ | 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 ===========================================================================
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:18:19 -0500, Evil Sideshow Bob <evilsideshowbobYOURCLOTHES@gmail.com> wrote:
livingdjinn@yahoo.com, sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle>Motion! >
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.>
Apparently we do. Deal with it.
Odd that neocons have no problem with authority when they're the ones wielding it, but when the other side has the upper hand, they scream bloody murder.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:46:25 -0500, Bryan S. Slick <onyx_hokie@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Cary Kittrell (cary@afone.as.arizona.edu)]>[Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:32:17 +0000 (UTC)]>
<snip>>
Duh.. they want her dead so she can vote in '06 and '08!
Actually, the neocons want to keep her warm and breathing because they want to run her in '08. These days, being brain dead qualifies you to be president. <G>
Brian E . Clark 30 March 2005 08:44:55 [ permanent link ]
In article <2ICdnTRJb-trkNffRVn-sw@comcast.com>, Osprey said...
Did the testimony come directly out of her mouth?> Answer: No> It's hearsay. Read Federal Rule of Evidence 801c
Okay, I see what you're saying: if the testimony is being given to establish the *truth or falsity* of Terri's desire to avoid extraordinary medical means, then her husband's testimony would amount to hearsay. Agreed.
Bryan S . Slick 30 March 2005 09:00:00 [ permanent link ]
[John Baker (nunya@bizniz.net)] [Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:11:24 GMT]
:On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:46:25 -0500, Bryan S. Slick :<onyx_hokie@yahoo.com> wrote: : :>[Cary Kittrell (cary@afone.as.arizona.edu)] :>[Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:32:17 +0000 (UTC)] :> :><snip> :> :>Duh.. they want her dead so she can vote in '06 and '08! : :Actually, the neocons want to keep her warm and breathing because they :want to run her in '08. These days, being brain dead qualifies you to :be president. <G>
Thanks for making it crystal clear that any future opinion of yours is to be ignored.
-- Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message news:MPG.1cb3f8d275bb9559989930@news.comcast.giganews.com...> In article <2ICdnTRJb-trkNffRVn-sw@comcast.com>, Osprey said...>
Did the testimony come directly out of her mouth?>> Answer: No>> It's hearsay. Read Federal Rule of Evidence 801c>
Okay, I see what you're saying: if the testimony is being given> to establish the *truth or falsity* of Terri's desire to avoid> extraordinary medical means, then her husband's testimony would> amount to hearsay. Agreed.
And that is basically what the rule says. Hearsay is not always admissable, we have what's called Rules of Evidence. It's fascinating, yet very detailed. In my opinion, lots of loop holes. But in the case with Terri, it was admissable, considered relevant, reliable, and competent
David W. Barnes 30 March 2005 09:40:24 [ permanent link ]
In article <ueOdneg_VqMrS9TfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message > newsan.2005.03.29.22.24.30.617674@stopspam.net...> > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:17:29 -0800, livingdjinn wrote:> >
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"> >>
You conveniently omitted the one that goes: "While Terri was alive, she> > indicated that if she ever suffered a massive brain injury, she would not> > want to be kept alive as a vegetable.">
Now, here is the tricky part. Prove that without it being hearsay.
Not tricky at all. You can always count on Osprey to screw things up when it comes to the law.
Osprey, you don't even understand the law. Stop pretending to understand the rules of evidence.
David W. Barnes 30 March 2005 09:40:25 [ permanent link ]
In article <2ICdnTRJb-trkNffRVn-sw@comcast.com>, Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message > news:MPG.1cb3ac53576826a6989923@news.comcast.giganews.com...> > In article <ueOdneg_VqMrS9TfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey said...> >
Now, here is the tricky part. Prove that without it being hearsay.> >
How it hearsay?>
Did the testimony come directly out of her mouth?>
Answer: No>
It's hearsay. Read Federal Rule of Evidence 801c>
To fall within the hearsay rule, the declarant's statement must be an > assertive statement offered as proof that the subject matter of the > statement is true. An assertive statement is one in which the declarant > intends to communicate his thoughts or beliefs.>
Examples:> Witness W testifies: "My brother (X) told me that he shot my dad because he > thought my dad was planning to kill him." This is hearsay and not > admissable, as this is an assertive statement. There is no opportunity to > test the accuracy of this statement by cross-examination unless the brother > is brought into court. However, if the brother is the defendent in this > trial, this would be an incriminating statement that would be admissible > under Federal Rule 807 (d) (2)>
Witness W testifies: "I heard my brother (X) mutter, 'I killed my dad' in > his sleep. " This is not hearsay because X, while sleeping, did not intend > to communicate. It is not hearsay if X is a defendent in this action > charged with killing his dad.>
Nonverbal Communication can be assertive>
The Hearsay Rule forbids only statements offered to prove the TRUTH of that > statement>
McCormick on Evidence, second edition, points out there are "an almost > infinite variety of other purposes" to take a statement out of the hearsay > rule and permit the statement to be used as evidence. The following > examples illustrate only a few of the numerous other purposes that would > take an out-of-court statement out of the hearsay classification.>
Knowledge> Feelings or state of mind> Insanity> Effect on hearer>
There is a LOT more to the rules of evidence.>
The bottom line is, Terri did NOT communicate this directly to the court and > her statement was not on record with her signature. It was in fact, > hearsay.
Notice how Osprey READS that there are "numerous other purposes that would take an out-of-court statement out of the hearsay classification," but then concludes, "Terri did NOT communicate this directly to the court and her statement was not on record with her signature. It was in fact, hearsay." He reads one thing (there are many exceptions, then concludes the opposite, she didn't communicate directly with the court, so it is hearsay.)
People like Osprey are dangerous. He has NO understanding of the rules of hearsay. The fact is, hearsay is a very complicated subject and in this case I can think of a number of ways to get this into evidence.
(And by the way, he is also wrong about the "signature" thing.)
If you say to me, "I do not want mechanical life support to be> > used on me if I become irreversibly vegetative," I can testify> > about your statement in court, because I'd be presenting first-> > hand knowledge about something you said. That's not hearsay.> > (Think of other situations: If you tell me you intend to> > strangle your gardener because he crushed your peonies, you'd> > better believe the D.A. will be calling me as a witness if> > you're later arrested for the gardener's murder.)> >
By contrast, my wife couldn't testify about you, because her> > knowledge would be second-hand: "Brian told me that Osprey told> > him that he didn't want extreme measures to be used on him."> >
I agree that we cannot know what Terri really *thought*, but> > unless we have reason to believe she lied when she explained her> > wishes to her husband and friends, is it not reasonable to> > assume she meant what she said?>
The courts decided that what Michael said was true, and that's how it goes > sometimes.> His statement met the qualifications.> They felt it was relevant, reliable, and competent>
Just because something is hearsay, doesn't mean it isn't admissable.>
David W. Barnes 30 March 2005 09:40:26 [ permanent link ]
In article <MPG.1cb3f8d275bb9559989930@news.comcast.giganews.com>, Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <2ICdnTRJb-trkNffRVn-sw@comcast.com>, Osprey said...>
Did the testimony come directly out of her mouth?> > Answer: No> > It's hearsay. Read Federal Rule of Evidence 801c>
Okay, I see what you're saying: if the testimony is being given > to establish the *truth or falsity* of Terri's desire to avoid > extraordinary medical means, then her husband's testimony would > amount to hearsay. Agreed.
Brian: Let me give you a BIG clue here. Don't ever, and I mean EVER, listen to Osprey when it comes to the law. Now he is trying to move to the next step. The Federal Rules of Evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence are fairly complicated and it must be the subject Osprey is studying in his junior college.
Here, Osprey is simply WRONG.
The fact that the "testimony" did not come "directly out of her mouth" doesn't mean it is hearsay.
Generally, hearsay is an out of court statement or assertive conduct being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. However, there are a great many exceptions. One example: Declarant's State of Mind. It would certainly come in under the state of mind exception. Also, it can be offered to show sanity or fear. It can be used for impeachment (unlikely here), it could come in as an admission (that might work here, depending on the case.) It could be a spontaneous or excited utterance. That might work here depending on the circumstances. It might have been a "dying declaration" (and, no, the fact that she didn't die isn't an issue). It might have been a declaration against interest. There are MANY exceptions. In fact, MOST hearsay comes in.
So, Osprey, put away your little text book and stop playing lawyer. You don't even understand the law. How could you understand the Federal Rules of Evidence?
But if you insist, look up FRE 803(24) and 804(b)(5).
And here is an interesting question to ponder: You are on the witness stand. The lawyer asks you, "Brian, what did you tell the cab driver when you got into the cab?" You answer, "I said, 'this cab stinks.' "
Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to justify> Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common arguments:
1) Bush, as governor of Texas, signed the "Futile Care" law, a law which allowed the life support to be removed from patients like Terri Schiavo EVEN AGAINST THEIR WISHES & THE WISHES OF THEIR FAMILY... if they couldn't afford to pay their medical expenses.
Even as you lunatic right-wingers were thumping your chests, pretending to be oh so concerned for Terri Schiavo, a six month old baby boy had his breathing tube removed AGAINST HIS MOTHER'S WISHES. He died, of course.
Terri Schiavo has been in her state for 15 years already.
2) Senate Majority leader -- and moralizing chest-thumper -- Tom Delay, watched his own father removed from life support back in 1988. He had no problems with it back them, back when he wasn't desperately trying to invent issues in congress.
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ScednXG99aJW3tffRVn- gg@comcast.com:
<livingdjinn@yahoo.com> wrote>
Reading these posts and seeing liberals pathetically attempt to justify>> Schiavo being starved to death, I came across a few common arguments:>
1) Bush, as governor of Texas, signed the "Futile Care" law, a> law which allowed the life support to be removed from patients> like Terri Schiavo EVEN AGAINST THEIR WISHES & THE WISHES> OF THEIR FAMILY... if they couldn't afford to pay their medical> expenses.>
Even as you lunatic right-wingers were thumping your chests, pretending> to be oh so concerned for Terri Schiavo, a six month old baby boy had> his breathing tube removed AGAINST HIS MOTHER'S WISHES. He> died, of course.>
Terri Schiavo has been in her state for 15 years already.>
2) Senate Majority leader -- and moralizing chest-thumper -- Tom> Delay, watched his own father removed from life support back in> 1988. He had no problems with it back them, back when he wasn't> desperately trying to invent issues in congress.>
The neocon wingnuts are locked in a religious frenzy and in that state, they tend to believe their own lies and ignore their own hypocracy.
Any chance of Terri dying a dignified death has been eliminated by that circus of freaks protesting in Florida.
Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, David W. Barnes wrote:
The fact that the "testimony" did not come "directly out of her mouth"> doesn't mean it is hearsay.
Well, that's part of the dull, dry denotation of the word, yes.
Generally, hearsay is an out of court statement or assertive conduct> being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. However, there are> a great many exceptions. One example: Declarant's State of Mind. It> would certainly come in under the state of mind exception.
By your definition (which is the official FRE definition), Michael Schiavo's testimony about Terri's wishes is, definitely, hearsay; it is a statement, by her, not made in court, being offered to show that what she said about her desires not to be kept in a vegetative state were true.
The exceptions you cite are not exceptions to the definition of hearsay, but to the hearsay rule that says hearsay is generally inadmissible evidence in court. In other words, the "state of mind" exception would not make this testimony not hearsay, but it could make it admissible.
The point is moot anyway; regardless of whether hearsay-rule exceptions apply, the court has decided to hear this evidence, and courts do have the final authority in these matters.
The fact that a statement is hearsay does not make it false, bad, sneaky, or inadmissible. What Osprey is posting seems to be that the Michael Schiavo testimony is hearsay, and thus there must be something inherently wrong with it. It's trying to discredit something by hanging a label on it.
Much like the tactic of calling your opponent a "liberal" as if that it itself hopelessly invalidates anything that opponent could possibly have to say.
Or the way Oakland Raiders fans call anyone who disagrees with them a "faggot."
-- Any opinions expressed above are only that, and are my own. Pax vobiscum. estron@tfs.net Sugar Creek, Missouri
I thought it was because that, now that they have her dried out body on a morphine drip, they could buy the body from her husband and grind her up and freeze her to add a bit of Schiavo to the ole morning coffee for a quick fix.
GregoryD -- not too sure about that, but it's as plausible as all the other theories
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:38:48 -0500, Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
Condemnation of Bush, Rove, Delay et. al. for attempting to subvert>>>> the constitution by making the entire affair a Federal matter cuts>>>> right across the political spectrum.>>>
Reunite Gondwanaland 30 March 2005 19:20:09 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:22:57 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
2) Senate Majority leader -- and moralizing chest-thumper -- Tom> Delay, watched his own father removed from life support back in> 1988. He had no problems with it back them, back when he wasn't> desperately trying to invent issues in congress.
And then filed suit against the people identified as being responsible for his father's condition, although I don't know if this was actually a malpractice suit or not and googling isn't helping.
Mary
-- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com or reunite.gondwana@gmail.com
livingdjinn@yahoo.com wrote:> 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.
Posts like this are why Livingdjinn is the most talented troll RSPW has had in months.
Courts don't have the right to sentence an innocent> woman to execution by starvation either.
According to Bush & Tom Delay, not only do the courts have that "Right," but the hospitals can do it without the courts.
Tom Delay's own father died in 1988, after they pulled the plug on him. No courts.
Bush, as governor of Texas, signed the "Futile Care" law, mandating the ripping out of life support on patients like Terri Schiavo, if they couldn't pay for their treatment. Even as Bush was pretending to be oh so concerned about Terri Schiavo, a six month old baby boy was killed in Texas -- AGAINST THE WISHES OF HIS MOTHER -- using Bush's law.
In fact, the mother of the baby went to court trying to keep her baby alive, but there's was nothing they could do. The Hospital was only following the law (Bush's "Futile Care" law), so it was totally legal to kill the baby against the mother's wishes.
Please stop believing what your gods in Washington are telling you. Please. For your own sake, please wake up.
The Arch Atheist wrote:> On 29 Mar 2005 11:17:29 -0800, livingdjinn@yahoo.com wrote:>
Liberals have always had a problem respecting the boundaries of>> others.>
Uhm. Buy a dictionary, Bubba. Who is it that discriminates minorities,> homosexuals, atheists and others, starts wars of aggression, and> passes laws that tells people what they're allowed to do behind closed> curtains and bedroom doors?>
I am for allowing Terri Schiavo to die, however, I'm not comfortable> with the way it's happening. It's unworthy, and there's no way to tell> if she's suffering. It would be better for everyone if she DID get an> overdose morphine.
Which is illegal here for some damned reason. But she is so medicated that even if she could think, she prolly wouldn't care she was starving.
"North" <north@the_shack.com> wrote in message news:re7k41t43ju8f7o4aq07cmvcufjmvgh68j@4ax.com...
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.
"Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.net> wrote in message news:ds-dneWBI85QFNbfRVn-tg@comcast.com...>
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:Rco2e.510$44.190@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>
"Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.net> wrote in message>> news:mPadnfGma5C-kNffRVn-iw@comcast.com...>> >
"j r sherman" <jrst@earthlink.net> wrote in message>> > news:d2cj2u0d9j@drn.newsguy.com...>> >
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.>
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.
Oliver Costich 31 March 2005 18:49:31 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:24:14 -0800, "Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.net> wrote:
"North" <north@the_shack.com> wrote in message>news:re7k41t43ju8f7o4aq07cmvcufjmvgh68j@4ax.com...>
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.
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.>
"Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.net> wrote in message newsr6dnQR3TKDgFNbfRVn-1A@comcast.com...>
"North" <north@the_shack.com> wrote in message> news:re7k41t43ju8f7o4aq07cmvcufjmvgh68j@4ax.com...>
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.
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.
Sammuel Goldstein 1 April 2005 01:37:26 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:05:22 GMT, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.net> wrote in message >news:ds-dneWBI85QFNbfRVn-tg@comcast.com...>>
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:Rco2e.510$44.190@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>>
"Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.net> wrote in message>>> news:mPadnfGma5C-kNffRVn-iw@comcast.com...>>> >
"j r sherman" <jrst@earthlink.net> wrote in message>>> > news:d2cj2u0d9j@drn.newsguy.com...>>> >
like those Republican liberals in congress? and the liberal president?>>> >>
They wanted a new review of the case; by refusing to do so, the>> judiciary>>> > ignored the legislative and executive branch. Do you really think>> that's>>> > a>>> > good thing?>>>
I don't think it is a good thing for the legislative and executive>> branches>>> telling the courts what to do.>>
And the courts have no business doing the legislature's job, either.>
"Oliver Costich" <olc-caNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message news:sg3o41phckj6m379hnfku5g2hft4f432ql@4ax.com... (...)
C) Take a good look at the nutcase parents that claim "there is> nothing wrong with her".
While I don't believe that her parents' claims that she can get better (they never claimed, AFIK, that there was nothing wrong with her) were correct, I understand how this is an emotional issue on which her parents never saw clearly. But I don't blame them for loving their daughter or doing what they though was best for her.
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:CsT2e.12060$S46.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
"Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.net> wrote in message> news:ds-dneWBI85QFNbfRVn-tg@comcast.com...> >
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message> > news:Rco2e.510$44.190@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...> >>
"Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.net> wrote in message> >> news:mPadnfGma5C-kNffRVn-iw@comcast.com...> >> >
"j r sherman" <jrst@earthlink.net> wrote in message> >> > news:d2cj2u0d9j@drn.newsguy.com...> >> >
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.> >
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
their job. And they did it very well.
And can we now start executing everyone on death row, using the same "dignified and humane" method applied to Ms. Schiavo?
Eastbound and down, loaded up and truckin', we're gonna do what they say can't be done. We got a long way to go, and a short time to get there. I'm eastbound, just watch ol' "Bryan S. Slick" run.
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."
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 08:00:51 -0700, "Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com> wrote:
When your opening premise is false, all that is derived therefrom is also>not supportable.>
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."
