Posted on 07/06/2005 10:50:06 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
Several bloggers have drawn attention to a strange lead in a Washington Post story about the Terri Schiavo autopsy results. The June 16 Post story by David Brown said that "Terri Schiavo died of the effects of a profound and prolonged lack of oxygen to her brain on a day in 1990, but what caused that event isn't known and may never be, the physician who performed her autopsy said…"
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
You do that quite well.
Still here trying to annoy decent people, I see.
I mean no "assaults on (y)our sensibilities." I'm also not bumping this thread, only responding to posts made to me (not even all of them).
I have never said that anyone else wasn't a decent person. I expected the same courtesy in return. Perhaps I was mistaken.
I don't appreciate being called a liberal because I was not in favor of the government inserting itself into an all-too-common medical decision made by a woman's legal guardian.
Thank you for your kind words and your sense.
Terri's family wanted MS to move on and GET A DIVORCE so they could care for TS.
They did not encourage him to copulate out of wedlock and raise bastard children while forging ahead with Terri's death.
Get your facts straight.
It wasn't second-hand, and it wasn't, legally, 'hearsay'.
Assisted suicide. Illegal, immoral, a denial of basic civl rights under the US Constitution.
That's your opinion. I happen to think that the right to refuse medical treatment is pretty fundamental. There is no qualitative difference between the state forcing a person to have a feeding tube, and the state forcing schoolchildren to take ritalin. Either both are acceptable, or neither are acceptable.
I have been reading your posts and simply think you should learn. I did not call you a liberal. Don't be so sensitive. Your tone is clear.
Thank you for the bump.
I'll bump your bump...
After the settlement, they wanted him to get a divorce. Before then, it was a different story.
Correcting an obvious factual error is annoying?
I think that sums this thread up very well.
They encouraged him to date, and even met a number of his girlfriends.
It was legally hearsay. Thea application of the legal term "hearsay" was like the application of the term "clear and convincing" by the Judge. Arbitrary, sunjective and questionable.
It was legally hearsay. The [non-]application of the legal term "hearsay" in this case was like the application of the term "clear and convincing" by the Judge. Arbitrary, subjective and questionable.
I think your statement sums up your attempts to dog this thread very well.
And to you, as well, I thank you for keeping this thread healthy and alive by providing contrast.
Another no argument and called a troll to boot. Can any of you put together a coherent thought that is not a personal attack or completely off the subject? I am conservative just not a Republican. The party is too liberal for my tastes. Has been for years. And don't jump on that statement and think that I am for any of the nonsensical Amendments those pandering for votes advocate. Flag burning, homosexual unions, marriage amendments, and any other nonsense you faux conservatives can think up (including civil cases over guardianship) are issues that are meant to be handled at the state level and not at the federal level. Don't say I agree with any of them it's just they're not federal issues.
I am Old Right (minus the protectionism among a few other things).
And people who willingly spread those factual errors are the (only?) "decent people."
Go figure.
Newbie, you have lots to learn. First, when you quote someone, you ping them out of courtesy.
Then, you can twist words to fit your thoughts.
Not an attack but do you know the situation surrounding the quote from Jefferson?
I would be glad to hear.
8mm
It was legally hearsay. Not. MS testified that Terri said something, he testified to what he heard, he testified that he based certain of his own actions on what he heard. He did not testify as to the truth of her statement, so it's not testimonial.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7295732/
'Scarborough Country' for March 24
Alan Dershowitz:...But Florida has said essentially that a statement made to a spouse and repeated in court may be enough. By the way, I want to correct one thing. I don‘t want to be technical about it. But the statement is not hearsay. Let me tell you why. It‘s called in law a verbal act. That is, it is a statement allegedly made by Terri Schiavo simply testified to by her husband. It‘s not testimonial. It is a statement.
And he is not describing something that is hearsay. He is an eyewitness to that statement. Now, I still think it‘s a thin read personally on which to take a life in the face of what ought to be a very, very strong presumption of life, instead of death. But the two issues here are, one, is Florida right or wrong? I think it‘s wrong. Second, does it have the power under federalism to make that mistake, and do the federal courts have the right to intervene?
Thank you for the ping correction. I shall remember that in the future.
Twisting your words? I think not. Do you think that I am not a "decent person"? What about malakhi? Is he a "decent person"?
Or do only people who share your views on this subject qualify?
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.