On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:41:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to
match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo

You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure
(in
the
House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the
Senate.
Any
good reason for that?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same
sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on
Friday.

It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be
simply
seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional
rights.


Which constitutional rights would those be, moron?


Would this one cover it?

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2
of the
14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.

Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?"

One may also ask how long we will put up with people interfering in family
decisions. If you had communicated to your wife what that woman told her
husband, but you had not put it in writing yet, and you were in her
condition, your wife would be going through this exact same bull****. And
that's EXACTLY what it is.


"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life..."

*You* don't know what she said, if anything, to her husband. Apparently 19
Florida judges couldn't figure it out for sure, unless the last one is always
right.

Almost half the Democrats who voted in the House voted *for* the measure. Why
are there no complaints against them?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

So riddle me this:

Democratic administration. Elio Gonzales is living with some relatives
in FLA. Father is demanding return of Elio to his home in Cuba.
Democratic AG Janet Reno steps in and says the federal government has
the power to intervene in this family issue between the Dad and the FLA
relatives.......and the conservatives are so po'd they can't see
straight. The right wing says this is a family matter, should be
covered by state law, and the FEDGOV has no business interfering.

Republican administration. Terri Sciavo's husband and *nineteen* judges
in FLA state courts have said her brain dead body should no longer be
kept alive with a feeding tube. Congress
passes an emergency bill overriding the husband and the nineteen
decisions made by FLA state judges, and Bush flies back from Texas, in
his pajamas at 1:00 AM, to sign it.

What happened to being PO'd at the Federal government for intervening
in a family matter and the insistence that this should be decided at
the state level, not federal? Why is BIGGUMINT
suddenly better than carefully considered local decisions?

Could it be that there was political hay to be made by opposing the
FEDGOV in the Gonzales case, but that political haymaking is more
lucrative on the other side of the issue in the Sciavo situation?

Values should be consistent, not merely expedient.

Welcome to politics 101.

wrote in message
ups.com...
So riddle me this:

Democratic administration. Elio Gonzales is living with some relatives
in FLA. Father is demanding return of Elio to his home in Cuba.
Democratic AG Janet Reno steps in and says the federal government has
the power to intervene in this family issue between the Dad and the FLA
relatives.......and the conservatives are so po'd they can't see
straight. The right wing says this is a family matter, should be
covered by state law, and the FEDGOV has no business interfering.

Republican administration. Terri Sciavo's husband and *nineteen* judges
in FLA state courts have said her brain dead body should no longer be
kept alive with a feeding tube. Congress
passes an emergency bill overriding the husband and the nineteen
decisions made by FLA state judges, and Bush flies back from Texas, in
his pajamas at 1:00 AM, to sign it.

What happened to being PO'd at the Federal government for intervening
in a family matter and the insistence that this should be decided at
the state level, not federal? Why is BIGGUMINT
suddenly better than carefully considered local decisions?

Could it be that there was political hay to be made by opposing the
FEDGOV in the Gonzales case, but that political haymaking is more
lucrative on the other side of the issue in the Sciavo situation?

Values should be consistent, not merely expedient.

On 21 Mar 2005 18:13:59 -0800, wrote:

So riddle me this:

Democratic administration. Elio Gonzales is living with some relatives
in FLA. Father is demanding return of Elio to his home in Cuba.
Democratic AG Janet Reno steps in and says the federal government has
the power to intervene in this family issue between the Dad and the FLA
relatives.......and the conservatives are so po'd they can't see
straight. The right wing says this is a family matter, should be
covered by state law, and the FEDGOV has no business interfering.

Republican administration. Terri Sciavo's husband and *nineteen* judges
in FLA state courts have said her brain dead body should no longer be
kept alive with a feeding tube. Congress
passes an emergency bill overriding the husband and the nineteen
decisions made by FLA state judges, and Bush flies back from Texas, in
his pajamas at 1:00 AM, to sign it.

What happened to being PO'd at the Federal government for intervening
in a family matter and the insistence that this should be decided at
the state level, not federal? Why is BIGGUMINT
suddenly better than carefully considered local decisions?

Could it be that there was political hay to be made by opposing the
FEDGOV in the Gonzales case, but that political haymaking is more
lucrative on the other side of the issue in the Sciavo situation?

Values should be consistent, not merely expedient.

Anything that is bad for the other side is good. Anything good (or potentially
good) for the other side is bad.

Simple values.

It's the same rationale used for the posting of soldiers getting killed in Iraq.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:41:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to
match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo

You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure
(in
the
House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the
Senate.
Any
good reason for that?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same
sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise
on
Friday.

It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be
simply
seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their
Constitutional
rights.


Which constitutional rights would those be, moron?


Would this one cover it?

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section
2
of the
14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the
laws.

Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?"

One may also ask how long we will put up with people interfering in family
decisions. If you had communicated to your wife what that woman told her
husband, but you had not put it in writing yet, and you were in her
condition, your wife would be going through this exact same bull****. And
that's EXACTLY what it is.


"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life..."

*You* don't know what she said, if anything, to her husband. Apparently 19
Florida judges couldn't figure it out for sure, unless the last one is
always
right.

Almost half the Democrats who voted in the House voted *for* the measure.
Why
are there no complaints against them?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Don't forget the 5th Amendment:

";nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law;"

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:51:48 -0500, HKrause wrote:

John H wrote:
On 21 Mar 2005 18:13:59 -0800, wrote:


So riddle me this:

Democratic administration. Elio Gonzales is living with some relatives
in FLA. Father is demanding return of Elio to his home in Cuba.
Democratic AG Janet Reno steps in and says the federal government has
the power to intervene in this family issue between the Dad and the FLA
relatives.......and the conservatives are so po'd they can't see
straight. The right wing says this is a family matter, should be
covered by state law, and the FEDGOV has no business interfering.

Republican administration. Terri Sciavo's husband and *nineteen* judges
in FLA state courts have said her brain dead body should no longer be
kept alive with a feeding tube. Congress
passes an emergency bill overriding the husband and the nineteen
decisions made by FLA state judges, and Bush flies back from Texas, in
his pajamas at 1:00 AM, to sign it.

What happened to being PO'd at the Federal government for intervening
in a family matter and the insistence that this should be decided at
the state level, not federal? Why is BIGGUMINT
suddenly better than carefully considered local decisions?

Could it be that there was political hay to be made by opposing the
FEDGOV in the Gonzales case, but that political haymaking is more
lucrative on the other side of the issue in the Sciavo situation?

Values should be consistent, not merely expedient.


Anything that is bad for the other side is good. Anything good (or potentially
good) for the other side is bad.

Simple values.

It's the same rationale used for the posting of soldiers getting killed in Iraq.


That's right. We shouldn't reminded that US men and women are dying
almost daily in Iraq, fighting Bush's dirty war.

BTW, the federal judge in Florida has turned down the request to
reinsert the brain-dead woman's feeding tube. Finally, a federal
official with a backbone.

Now, I suppose, the right-wing panderers will want the case certed to
the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta...

Stay tuned.

I'll try to respond to you without the offensive invective you find so
necessary.

Scott Peterson case will go as high as the Supreme Court, if not overturned
sooner. Why should Sciavo's not go as high?

She is entitled to due process, at least as much as Peterson.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:51:48 -0500, HKrause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On 21 Mar 2005 18:13:59 -0800, wrote:


So riddle me this:

Democratic administration. Elio Gonzales is living with some relatives
in FLA. Father is demanding return of Elio to his home in Cuba.
Democratic AG Janet Reno steps in and says the federal government has
the power to intervene in this family issue between the Dad and the FLA
relatives.......and the conservatives are so po'd they can't see
straight. The right wing says this is a family matter, should be
covered by state law, and the FEDGOV has no business interfering.

Republican administration. Terri Sciavo's husband and *nineteen* judges
in FLA state courts have said her brain dead body should no longer be
kept alive with a feeding tube. Congress
passes an emergency bill overriding the husband and the nineteen
decisions made by FLA state judges, and Bush flies back from Texas, in
his pajamas at 1:00 AM, to sign it.

What happened to being PO'd at the Federal government for intervening
in a family matter and the insistence that this should be decided at
the state level, not federal? Why is BIGGUMINT
suddenly better than carefully considered local decisions?

Could it be that there was political hay to be made by opposing the
FEDGOV in the Gonzales case, but that political haymaking is more
lucrative on the other side of the issue in the Sciavo situation?

Values should be consistent, not merely expedient.


Anything that is bad for the other side is good. Anything good (or
potentially
good) for the other side is bad.

Simple values.

It's the same rationale used for the posting of soldiers getting killed
in Iraq.


That's right. We shouldn't reminded that US men and women are dying
almost daily in Iraq, fighting Bush's dirty war.

BTW, the federal judge in Florida has turned down the request to
reinsert the brain-dead woman's feeding tube. Finally, a federal
official with a backbone.

Now, I suppose, the right-wing panderers will want the case certed to
the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta...

Stay tuned.

I'll try to respond to you without the offensive invective you find so
necessary.

Scott Peterson case will go as high as the Supreme Court, if not
overturned
sooner. Why should Sciavo's not go as high?

She is entitled to due process, at least as much as Peterson.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Krause is once again taking joy in reporting about death, this time of not
only of our troops but also of the death sentence of just handed down to
Terri Shiavo.

"John H" wrote in message
...


Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?"

One may also ask how long we will put up with people interfering in family
decisions. If you had communicated to your wife what that woman told her
husband, but you had not put it in writing yet, and you were in her
condition, your wife would be going through this exact same bull****. And
that's EXACTLY what it is.


"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life..."

*You* don't know what she said, if anything, to her husband. Apparently 19
Florida judges couldn't figure it out for sure, unless the last one is
always
right.

Almost half the Democrats who voted in the House voted *for* the measure.
Why
are there no complaints against them?

The party affiliation of those who voted for it is irrelevant. It is an
intrusion.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:51:48 -0500, HKrause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On 21 Mar 2005 18:13:59 -0800, wrote:


So riddle me this:

Democratic administration. Elio Gonzales is living with some relatives
in FLA. Father is demanding return of Elio to his home in Cuba.
Democratic AG Janet Reno steps in and says the federal government has
the power to intervene in this family issue between the Dad and the FLA
relatives.......and the conservatives are so po'd they can't see
straight. The right wing says this is a family matter, should be
covered by state law, and the FEDGOV has no business interfering.

Republican administration. Terri Sciavo's husband and *nineteen* judges
in FLA state courts have said her brain dead body should no longer be
kept alive with a feeding tube. Congress
passes an emergency bill overriding the husband and the nineteen
decisions made by FLA state judges, and Bush flies back from Texas, in
his pajamas at 1:00 AM, to sign it.

What happened to being PO'd at the Federal government for intervening
in a family matter and the insistence that this should be decided at
the state level, not federal? Why is BIGGUMINT
suddenly better than carefully considered local decisions?

Could it be that there was political hay to be made by opposing the
FEDGOV in the Gonzales case, but that political haymaking is more
lucrative on the other side of the issue in the Sciavo situation?

Values should be consistent, not merely expedient.


Anything that is bad for the other side is good. Anything good (or
potentially
good) for the other side is bad.

Simple values.

It's the same rationale used for the posting of soldiers getting killed
in Iraq.


That's right. We shouldn't reminded that US men and women are dying
almost daily in Iraq, fighting Bush's dirty war.

BTW, the federal judge in Florida has turned down the request to
reinsert the brain-dead woman's feeding tube. Finally, a federal
official with a backbone.

Now, I suppose, the right-wing panderers will want the case certed to
the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta...

Stay tuned.

I'll try to respond to you without the offensive invective you find so
necessary.

Scott Peterson case will go as high as the Supreme Court, if not
overturned
sooner. Why should Sciavo's not go as high?

She is entitled to due process, at least as much as Peterson.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Krause is once again taking joy in reporting about death, this time of not
only of our troops but also of the death sentence just handed down to
Terri Shiavo.


edit

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:01:20 -0500, HKrause
wrote:

It was her wish to die.

Not legally. There is no final legally binding document indicating
that was her wish. In fact, even if there was, she could have, at any
point, said to somebody that she wished for extraordinary measures and
you would have the same situation you have now.

It also is a matter of spousal perogative.

Sort of actually, but I won't argue the merits of that because it's
much to complicated for the sake of this argument..

More important though is that Ms. Schiavo has not, nor is, having her
interests protected by her own separate attorney. It would seem to me
that having her own attorney in this situation would speed things up
considerably.

Also, note that Ms. Schiavo's husband initiated all this long after
her initial treatment with a feeding tube. There is a rather large
settlement, he suddenly remembers about her wanting to die. It would
seem to me that if she had said to him about her desire to pass over,
he wouldn't have done the feeding tube bit to begin with.

I still am uncomfortable about the fact that she does not have her own
representation.

The right wing is, as usual, pandering to rile up its simple-minded masses.

No, Harry, they aren't. They are reacting to their constituencies
much like their Democrat brethren - like me in fact. I am represented
by Democrats and I made my thought known to them on this subject. Are
you going to call me simple?

I don't know if any of you have ever experienced something called
sleep paralysis, but it's a condition in which the mind wakes up, but
the body is still asleep. It's both fascinating, awesome and very
scary at the same time. You have no mouth and you must scream - if
only to wake yourself up.

I would hate to think that there is a mind in there trying to scream.

For me, I would error on the side of hope and life.

Later,

Tom