Posted on 04/05/2005 2:22:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
VANITY NOTICE: I've just learned that I am an "EXTREMIST!" WOO HOO!!
Nicest compliment I've received in a long time.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Y'all might want to be careful who you hang out with. If you are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-Liberty, pro-America and post to FreeRepublic.com, you risk being labeled as an "extremist."
That puts you in the company of extremist folks like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, & Co.
As extremists, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Speaking of quotes from our extremist forefathers, someone sent me these this morning:
George Washington - "..And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."
John Adams - "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
James Madison - "We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
Noah Webster - "No truth is more evident to any mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."
See you at the March for Justice!!
May God continue to bless and watch over America and all her extremists!
With great restraint, I'll refuse to answer this rant. I suspect that you are merely trying to provoke with such cruel words.
I'll say a prayer for you.
"The state was not ordering death. It was simply determining whether TS's legal guardian had the power to order her feeding tube removed."
The judge ordered her to have NO FOOD or HYDRATION! What do YOU think that means?????? If he ordered you no food or hydration, you would die. Removing the feed tube would not necessarily killer her, removing all food and hydration did! The state ordered her long, slow, cruel death.
Oh, I'm agreeing with you. I'd only give it about a 99.9% probability it's bogus. (Nice job, BTW, catching that).
It appears Barton's book is full of fake quotes. It makes you wonder why. In general, the founders were mostly religious men, albeit not always conventionally religious, and it's not hard to make the case that most of them had a less strict view of separation of church and state than we do now. But Madison was an exception. Why did Barton feel it necessary to find a dubious quote to try to pretend somehow Madison didn't believe in the separation of church and state, when he so obviously did? All it did was bring discredit on what would otherwise have been a strong case.
Really? My first lesson in Philosophy 104 was that moral relativism doesn't mean anything. Of course that's probably because my prof was a zanny MacArthur fellow just like yours truly ;).
Any place on a sphere can be a centre but there is only one centre to all spheres.
MAY THE EXTREME BE EXALTED!!!!
This post one of the most refreshing and yet one of the most unfortunate.
It's great to see that I'm not the only abnormal one here. However it's unfortunate that I'll have less normalcy to laugh at :(
Normal people are hilarious!!
What about the other quotes?
If a 3 out of 5 vote of radiologists was good enough to kill Terri, 4 out of 5 founder's quotes not being bogus should more than suffice for proving the point of what they were saying.
You're the only one in a fantasy world! Many, many very competent neurologists have looked at that cat scan and have come to very different conclusions. So just save the 'dead on fact' pronouncements. It makes you look like a kook!
Actually, she had three. Your comment is a perfect validation of the point I was making.
In a reality-based world, that would be the case. But I don't really think that anyone who buys into Barton's premise would have their conviction shaken in the least by knowing that he used bogus information to make his points.
Just on this thread, we've had people state that Terri didn't have a trial, that she didn't have an attorney, that no court other than Greer reviewed the facts of the case, etc. All of those things are demostrably untrue, yet those who have adopted a position ostensibly supported by those falsehoods have absolutely no hesitation about repeating them ad nauseum.
Facts, schmacts is the rule of the day.
Thank goodness this is not an opus! That would cause the rest of us a problem, I think. We'd have to keep on followin' you where ever you went!
Nothing validates your position...which amounts to nothing more than the Felos talking points.
She never had her own advocate. They were all in fact representing her alleged husband, not Terri.
Not only did Greer order the tube removed, he ordered no hydration or nutrition by natural means - that goes way beyond refusing a medical treatment.
In forbidding anyone from giving Terri anything by mouth, Greer ordered Terri killed by starvation and dehydration. (Yes, starvation, too. The breaking down of fat and muscle aggravated her dehydration as the kidneys would have worked to put out the acid by products. That would also cause her to breathe more rapidly, as was reported by her family on the last day.
Thank you.
Richard Pearse represented Michael? You must not have read his report.
John Pecarek represented Michael?
You are flat wrong, and I suspect you know it. And you slander these good men by stating that they had Michael interests above Terri's, and that they didn't dutifully fulfill their role.
Just on this thread, we've had people state that Terri didn't have a trial..
She never did have a trial, in the only sense that matters...the sense of the Fifth Amendment and Article One, Section Two of the FL constitution.
Which capital crime did Terri commit? When was she charged? Which attorney or attorneys represented her? When did a jury of her peers convict her of the same?
Since when do county probate judges have the power to issue death warrants?
Additionally, it must be said that this innocent woman also was killed by cruel and unusual means, which is also blatantly unconstitutional.
I'll check back in tonight to see your lack of a coherent response...
Prior to March 8, as far as I can find, Florida considered food and water via a feeding tube "medical treatment." Greer ruled that giving Terri anything by natural means would constitute an experimental procedure and a medical treatment.
Second, if you are concerned with the lack of a jury trial, you may need to consider why one wasn't demanded. That's all it takes - a demand. The first time, though. You can't waive it and then change your mind after the trial.
Third, you still have not responded to my post. Terri had three guardians ad litem, whose sole charge was to represent Terri's interests. Why do you ignore their service by claiming that she had no one representing her?
The checks and balances should work for all three branches. The Executive Branch carries out the law. If the court "screwed up," how should the law be enforced?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.