"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?

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'?"
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"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.

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."

"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;"

"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.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:44:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

When Jimcomma started this, he stated, "Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo..."

I assumed you agreed with his position.

My question to you would be, "Why should Scott Peterson get a Supreme Court
hearing, and Schiavo not? Apparently some judges felt their was enough doubt
about the husbands motives and her desires to rule for leaving the feeding tube
in place.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"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'?"
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John, thanks for answering Kanter. He has once again shown why he lives
with the catfish and other bottom feeders by showing his ignorance of the
Constitution and replying with an insult.

I have him killfiled. You can now see why.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"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'?"
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John, thanks for answering Kanter. He has once again shown why he lives
with the catfish and other bottom feeders by showing his ignorance of the
Constitution and replying with an insult.

I have him killfiled. You can now see why.


Bull****. You have killfiled me and other plenty of times, but you keep
coming back to eat the insects off our asses, you dolt.