OT: Civil War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case

[Rich The Newsgropup Wacko]

Interesting story about how Jeb Bush might have the power to "freeze"
supreme court ruling:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=1&u=/krwashbureau/20050326/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_braindamagedwoman_seize_exclusive_wa

That would have been something to see - cops against feds.

Is it a "sign"? Cops fighting Cops, while Death Valley Blooms?

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Rich The Newsgropup Wacko wrote:

Interesting story about how Jeb Bush might have the power to "freeze"
supreme court ruling:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=1&u=/krwashbureau/20050326/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_braindamagedwoman_seize_exclusive_wa

That would have been something to see - cops against feds.

Is it a "sign"? Cops fighting Cops, while Death Valley Blooms?

Cheers!
Rich

I am sick of hearing about the Shiavos. They have been in the local
news for almost ten years with their legal battles and name calling.
She's dead, so just let it go.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:25:30 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Rich The Newsgropup Wacko wrote:

Interesting story about how Jeb Bush might have the power to "freeze"
supreme court ruling:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=1&u=/krwashbureau/20050326/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_braindamagedwoman_seize_exclusive_wa

That would have been something to see - cops against feds.

Is it a "sign"? Cops fighting Cops, while Death Valley Blooms?

Cheers!
Rich


I am sick of hearing about the Schiavos. They have been in the local
news for almost ten years with their legal battles and name calling.
She's dead, so just let it go.

The best part is that Jeb Bush will NEVER be elected to another
office... good riddance to god-squad oriented politicians.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in
<9hst411vdaf5k0b0plj6n7ksvtj5h98iv8@4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Civil War
Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Sat, 2 Apr 2005:

The best part is that Jeb Bush will NEVER be elected to another
office... good riddance to god-squad oriented politicians.

Doesn't he have eight years as President still to come, before being
crowned Emperor?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Reg Edwards]

Doesn't he have eight years as President still to come, before being
crowned Emperor?
--
-----------------------------------------------

He has little authority of his own.

He is under the control, a puppet, of the Multi-national, mainly USA,
Corporations. Especially the all-powerful Energy and Oil Corporations,
and the Bankers.

His personal objective is for his name to be recorded in history
alongside Ghengis Khan, Attilla the Hun and Caligua. None of whom
were Americans.

 

[Pooh Bear]

Jim Thompson wrote:

The best part is that Jeb Bush will NEVER be elected to another
office... good riddance to god-squad oriented politicians.

Ohhh. I heard the PNAC nuts etc were considering grooming him for President Bush III.


Graham

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:30:36 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

The best part is that Jeb Bush will NEVER be elected to another
office... good riddance to god-squad oriented politicians.

Ohhh. I heard the PNAC nuts etc were considering grooming him for President Bush III.


Graham

He's dead-meat politically... intervening in private family matters is
a big NO-NO.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Robert Monsen]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:30:36 +0100, Pooh Bear
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:


The best part is that Jeb Bush will NEVER be elected to another
office... good riddance to god-squad oriented politicians.

Ohhh. I heard the PNAC nuts etc were considering grooming him for President Bush III.


Graham


He's dead-meat politically... intervening in private family matters is
a big NO-NO.

...Jim Thompson

When GW Bush was Gov of Texas, he signed a law called "The Texas Futile
Care Law" that allowed hospitals to cut off life support if a person has
been judged to be a lost cause, and can't pay, against the family's
wishes. Sadly, it appears not to have hurt his political career.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21571/

However, NOT intervening in personal family matters appears to be the
real no-no, at least with respect to the Republicans' current power base.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <p3fu41lnq7codeadr84a520dcm375vhkar@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> writes:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:30:36 +0100, Pooh Bear
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:

The best part is that Jeb Bush will NEVER be elected to another
office... good riddance to god-squad oriented politicians.

Ohhh. I heard the PNAC nuts etc were considering grooming him for President Bush III.


Graham

He's dead-meat politically... intervening in private family matters is
a big NO-NO.

Murder (within a family) isn't justified by being a 'private' family matter.

The problem is NOT that it is reasonable/unreasonable to kill someone in
agony (no-one can withstand food/water being withheld), but that the
husband is NOT credible. For all practical purposes, the husband is an
ex-husband (even carrying on with effectively having a common law wife),
and it is reasonable to consider his first marriage to be a legal fiction.

I am NOT against letting a loved one die if they are in agony, but
considering feeding/hydration to be 'heroic' actions is a bit of a stretch.

So, it is fallacious to claim that Terry's treatment was purely a family
matter, but it is also interesting that those who tend to advocate government
involvement in family matters (e.g. the meddling of government programs
into families when there is assistance given) also seem to be against the
life sustaining provision of food/water to Terry. (These TEND also to be
the death-cult kind who TEND to advocate abortion as a primary form of
birth control.)

There is some amount of death cult mentality (abortion/killing terry), but
also perhaps not regarding the husbands' behavior as being bad. (He should
have divorced Terry, which would have given control to her parents.)

Don't suggest that I am a 'life at any cost' type person, because the more
humane treatment for her would have been a stronger dose of painkillers
earlier on, but that would have been illegal (assuming that her husband
was being honest in his miracle remembering of her wishes 7yrs after her
accident, and after his receipt of the money.) Being involved with the
end of life issues for a couple of family members, I am quite aware of
most of the issues and emotions. I wouldn't have entertained the murder
of a family member, however. Any witholding of food/water from a living
being where that is the primary cause of death would be little or no
different from witholding food/water from a child.

Her family are also not 100% 'pure', but they might have been a more
appropriate guardian.

This is definitely a case where the worst weasel has won by participating
in a death cult, and the weasel appeared to do everything legally, and
those politicians who were very worried that a murder might be occuring
(ethically/morally -- not legally) and acted politically unwisely will likely
be the losers.

This goes to show that the death cult can win, and those who believe
in the preciousness of life can easily lose.

John

 

[keith]

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:45:33 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in
9hst411vdaf5k0b0plj6n7ksvtj5h98iv8@4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Civil War
Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Sat, 2 Apr 2005:
The best part is that Jeb Bush will NEVER be elected to another
office... good riddance to god-squad oriented politicians.

Doesn't he have eight years as President still to come, before being
crowned Emperor?

That works for me, if just to see the more lib-heads explode. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Gary Richardson]

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:d2nh0c$2o9t$1@news.iquest.net...

In article <p3fu41lnq7codeadr84a520dcm375vhkar@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> writes:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:30:36 +0100, Pooh Bear
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:

The best part is that Jeb Bush will NEVER be elected to another
office... good riddance to god-squad oriented politicians.

Ohhh. I heard the PNAC nuts etc were considering grooming him for
President Bush III.


Graham

He's dead-meat politically... intervening in private family matters is
a big NO-NO.

Murder (within a family) isn't justified by being a 'private' family
matter.

The problem is NOT that it is reasonable/unreasonable to kill someone in
agony (no-one can withstand food/water being withheld), but that the
husband is NOT credible. For all practical purposes, the husband is an
ex-husband (even carrying on with effectively having a common law wife),
and it is reasonable to consider his first marriage to be a legal fiction.

I am NOT against letting a loved one die if they are in agony, but
considering feeding/hydration to be 'heroic' actions is a bit of a
stretch.

So, it is fallacious to claim that Terry's treatment was purely a family
matter, but it is also interesting that those who tend to advocate
government
involvement in family matters (e.g. the meddling of government programs
into families when there is assistance given) also seem to be against the
life sustaining provision of food/water to Terry. (These TEND also to be
the death-cult kind who TEND to advocate abortion as a primary form of
birth control.)

There is some amount of death cult mentality (abortion/killing terry), but
also perhaps not regarding the husbands' behavior as being bad. (He
should
have divorced Terry, which would have given control to her parents.)

Don't suggest that I am a 'life at any cost' type person, because the more
humane treatment for her would have been a stronger dose of painkillers
earlier on, but that would have been illegal (assuming that her husband
was being honest in his miracle remembering of her wishes 7yrs after her
accident, and after his receipt of the money.) Being involved with the
end of life issues for a couple of family members, I am quite aware of
most of the issues and emotions. I wouldn't have entertained the murder
of a family member, however. Any witholding of food/water from a living
being where that is the primary cause of death would be little or no
different from witholding food/water from a child.

Her family are also not 100% 'pure', but they might have been a more
appropriate guardian.

This is definitely a case where the worst weasel has won by participating
in a death cult, and the weasel appeared to do everything legally, and
those politicians who were very worried that a murder might be occuring
(ethically/morally -- not legally) and acted politically unwisely will
likely
be the losers.

This goes to show that the death cult can win, and those who believe
in the preciousness of life can easily lose.

John

For more of George W. Bush's view of the preciousness of life see
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670

 

[Robert Monsen]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <p3fu41lnq7codeadr84a520dcm375vhkar@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> writes:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:30:36 +0100, Pooh Bear
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:


The best part is that Jeb Bush will NEVER be elected to another
office... good riddance to god-squad oriented politicians.

Ohhh. I heard the PNAC nuts etc were considering grooming him for President Bush III.


Graham

He's dead-meat politically... intervening in private family matters is
a big NO-NO.


Murder (within a family) isn't justified by being a 'private' family matter.

Much better when it's carried out by the state, as in "The Texas Futile
Care Law".

The problem is NOT that it is reasonable/unreasonable to kill someone in
agony (no-one can withstand food/water being withheld), but that the
husband is NOT credible.

This goes against all the evidence.

For all practical purposes, the husband is an
ex-husband (even carrying on with effectively having a common law wife),
and it is reasonable to consider his first marriage to be a legal fiction.

I am NOT against letting a loved one die if they are in agony, but
considering feeding/hydration to be 'heroic' actions is a bit of a stretch.

So, it is fallacious to claim that Terry's treatment was purely a family
matter, but it is also interesting that those who tend to advocate government
involvement in family matters (e.g. the meddling of government programs
into families when there is assistance given) also seem to be against the
life sustaining provision of food/water to Terry. (These TEND also to be
the death-cult kind who TEND to advocate abortion as a primary form of
birth control.)

Ah, like GW Bush, in the texas law cited above. Perhaps the needless war
in Iraq was yet another cult initiation for him? (see below)

There is some amount of death cult mentality (abortion/killing terry), but
also perhaps not regarding the husbands' behavior as being bad. (He should
have divorced Terry, which would have given control to her parents.)

He did this because he respected her wishes, and knew what the parents
would do. He is a hero. He got nothing out of this except pain and
anguish. Any money went to her support long before. He could have walked
away years ago. He did it to honor her memory, which is all that was
left for those long years.

Don't suggest that I am a 'life at any cost' type person, because the more
humane treatment for her would have been a stronger dose of painkillers
earlier on, but that would have been illegal (assuming that her husband
was being honest in his miracle remembering of her wishes 7yrs after her
accident, and after his receipt of the money.) Being involved with the
end of life issues for a couple of family members, I am quite aware of
most of the issues and emotions. I wouldn't have entertained the murder
of a family member, however. Any witholding of food/water from a living
being where that is the primary cause of death would be little or no
different from witholding food/water from a child.

Her family are also not 100% 'pure', but they might have been a more
appropriate guardian.

This is definitely a case where the worst weasel has won by participating
in a death cult, and the weasel appeared to do everything legally, and
those politicians who were very worried that a murder might be occuring
(ethically/morally -- not legally) and acted politically unwisely will likely
be the losers.

This goes to show that the death cult can win, and those who believe
in the preciousness of life can easily lose.

Ok, count with me: 152 executions in texas. "The Texas Futile Care Law".
20 thousand dead Iraqis.

Who belongs to this death cult again?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm
http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=46865
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Robert Monsen]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <342dnbLYq9bVp83fRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote:

Murder (within a family) isn't justified by being a 'private' family matter.


Much better when it's carried out by the state, as in "The Texas Futile
Care Law".


Note that if there isn't money to provide care, then it might be best to
let someone go. Terry had adequate support.


The problem is NOT that it is reasonable/unreasonable to kill someone in
agony (no-one can withstand food/water being withheld), but that the
husband is NOT credible.

This goes against all the evidence.


Since he magically remembered after 7yrs of care (she is in essentially
the same state), he doens't have any credibilty. So, your claim that it
goes 'against all evidence' is disproven. (Geesh, he magically remembered
a few months after getting his cash prize.)

This isn't evidence, it's conjecture..

I am NOT against euthenasia, but this situation was very dangerous,
given that the indivdual who decided should have been divorced from
Terry. (If he didn't effectively have a common law marriage, then he
would have more credibility... Yes, I know that technically Florida
doesn't have common law marriage, but that is a legal fiction, just
like his marriage to Terry.)

John

Examine his motives. Why would he do this? If he was really after the
money, why not just walk away after he supposedly 'got it'? That
certainly would have been simpler than a years-long crusade. Without any
real evidence to the contrary, I find his own testimony compelling. He
simply appears to have loved her, and wanted what she wanted.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/schiavo24e_20050324.htm

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <342dnbLYq9bVp83fRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote:

Murder (within a family) isn't justified by being a 'private' family matter.


Much better when it's carried out by the state, as in "The Texas Futile
Care Law".

Note that if there isn't money to provide care, then it might be best to

let someone go. Terry had adequate support.

The problem is NOT that it is reasonable/unreasonable to kill someone in
agony (no-one can withstand food/water being withheld), but that the
husband is NOT credible.

This goes against all the evidence.

Since he magically remembered after 7yrs of care (she is in essentially

the same state), he doens't have any credibilty. So, your claim that it
goes 'against all evidence' is disproven. (Geesh, he magically remembered
a few months after getting his cash prize.)

I am NOT against euthenasia, but this situation was very dangerous,
given that the indivdual who decided should have been divorced from
Terry. (If he didn't effectively have a common law marriage, then he
would have more credibility... Yes, I know that technically Florida
doesn't have common law marriage, but that is a legal fiction, just
like his marriage to Terry.)

John

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <p3fu41lnq7codeadr84a520dcm375vhkar@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

He's dead-meat politically... intervening in private family matters is
a big NO-NO.

Jeb Bush wanted to make her into a ward of the state. This is more than
just intervening. It is outright control that was the intended result.

In attempting to through a bone to their nut case base, the republicans
have kicked a bit of a hornet's nest. Jeb Bush isn't the only one who
will suffer as a result. The moderate republicans (both of them) will be
tared with the same brush as the idiots who dragged the party into this.
The result will be an even more fractionated public in the next election.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Mark Jones]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <p3fu41lnq7codeadr84a520dcm375vhkar@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

He's dead-meat politically... intervening in private family matters is
a big NO-NO.


Jeb Bush wanted to make her into a ward of the state. This is more than
just intervening. It is outright control that was the intended result.

In attempting to through a bone to their nut case base, the republicans
have kicked a bit of a hornet's nest. Jeb Bush isn't the only one who
will suffer as a result. The moderate republicans (both of them) will be
tared with the same brush as the idiots who dragged the party into this.
The result will be an even more fractionated public in the next election.

I didn't hear anything of this... geez, Republicans sure know how to cover
their tracks...

 

[Clarence_A]

"Mark Jones" <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:tNydnekRw7LvqMzfRVn-vQ@buckeye-express.com...

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <p3fu41lnq7codeadr84a520dcm375vhkar@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

He's dead-meat politically... intervening in private family
matters is
a big NO-NO.

I didn't hear anything of this... geez, Republicans sure know
how to cover
their tracks...

Jurisdictional disputes are common, it's not a party thing!

But it is interesting that more was not made of it given the
liberal medias desire to attack conservatives of either party.
Perhaps it is because they agreed with Bush's efforts? Strange
given that the majority of Americans did not agree with the
intervention of state or federal government in the reported polls!

 

[Robert Monsen]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <p3fu41lnq7codeadr84a520dcm375vhkar@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

He's dead-meat politically... intervening in private family matters is
a big NO-NO.


Jeb Bush wanted to make her into a ward of the state. This is more than
just intervening. It is outright control that was the intended result.

In attempting to through a bone to their nut case base, the republicans
have kicked a bit of a hornet's nest. Jeb Bush isn't the only one who
will suffer as a result. The moderate republicans (both of them) will be
tared with the same brush as the idiots who dragged the party into this.
The result will be an even more fractionated public in the next election.

Last night on "The McLaughlin Group", Pat Buchannan (yes, that guy) made
a really good point. This case is going to start a war between congress
and a judiciary that could 'let this happen'. I believe that is why they
went after this one in the first place; they knew it would fail in the
courts, and that underscores the perception of need for packing the
courts with right wingers. That is their main agenda this term.
Everything else is fluff. If the courts get packed like this, in 10
years, we'll see an effective overturn of Roe V Wade, prayer in schools,
and 'intelligent design' being taught alongside evolution at major
public universities.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Clarence_A]

"Robert Monsen" wrote

Ken Smith wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
[...]
He's dead-meat politically... intervening in private
family matters is a big NO-NO.
Jeb Bush wanted to make her into a ward of the state.
This is more than just intervening.
It is outright control that was the intended result.
In attempting to throw a bone to their nut case base,
the republicans have kicked a bit of a hornet's nest.
Jeb Bush isn't the only one who will suffer as a result.
The moderate republicans (both of them) will be tarred
with the same brush as the idiots who dragged the party
into this.
The result will be an even more fractionated public
in the next election.

Last night on "The McLaughlin Group", Pat Buchannan
(yes, that guy) made a really good point.

This is amazing!

This case is going to start a war between congress
and a judiciary that could 'let this happen'.
I believe that is why they went after this one
in the first place; they knew it would fail in the
courts, and that underscores the perception of need
for packing the courts with right wingers. That is
their main agenda this term.
Everything else is fluff.

If the courts get packed like this, in 10 years,
we'll see an effective overturn of Roe V Wade,
prayer in schools, and 'intelligent design' being
taught alongside evolution at major public universities.

Then it "IS" time to change governments again!
I didn't sign on for a Theocracy or other government corruption!

 

[Terry Given]

Clarence_A wrote:

"Robert Monsen" wrote

Ken Smith wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
[...]

He's dead-meat politically... intervening in private
family matters is a big NO-NO.

Jeb Bush wanted to make her into a ward of the state.
This is more than just intervening.
It is outright control that was the intended result.
In attempting to throw a bone to their nut case base,
the republicans have kicked a bit of a hornet's nest.
Jeb Bush isn't the only one who will suffer as a result.
The moderate republicans (both of them) will be tarred
with the same brush as the idiots who dragged the party
into this.
The result will be an even more fractionated public
in the next election.

Last night on "The McLaughlin Group", Pat Buchannan
(yes, that guy) made a really good point.


This is amazing!


This case is going to start a war between congress
and a judiciary that could 'let this happen'.
I believe that is why they went after this one
in the first place; they knew it would fail in the
courts, and that underscores the perception of need
for packing the courts with right wingers. That is
their main agenda this term.
Everything else is fluff.


If the courts get packed like this, in 10 years,
we'll see an effective overturn of Roe V Wade,
prayer in schools, and 'intelligent design' being
taught alongside evolution at major public universities.



Then it "IS" time to change governments again!
I didn't sign on for a Theocracy or other government corruption!

Whats the difference between an ultra-orthodox Jew, a born-again
christian fundamentalist and a radical muslim?

Their hats.

Cheers
Terry