Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Legalized Murder
Author Message
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #21
 
HorseGlue Wrote:Here is a fact that I've seen spun 100 ways from Sunday simply by using semantics: Is she brain dead? Yes, no, maybe, kinda, etc. The answer is techincally she is not entirely brain dead, but ALL of the areas of higher function (the Cerebrum) in her brain are dead. This is an indisputable fact. All you have to do is look at a brain scan, it is all black and shows no activity.
Have you seen the brain scan?

Because this is disputed plenty. PLENTY.
03-22-2005 08:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
fsquid Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 81,357
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 1835
I Root For: Memphis, Queens (NC)
Location: St Johns, FL

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesMemphis Hall of Fame
Post: #22
 
The husband's doctors and the court appointed doctors have said that she is gone. I'll believe the court appointed ones over the doctors of either side any day.
03-22-2005 09:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #23
 
fsquid Wrote:The husband's doctors and the court appointed doctors have said that she is gone. I'll believe the court appointed ones over the doctors of either side any day.
Well a Doctor by the name of Hammensfahr, who was nominated for the Nobel, says that she's not.
03-22-2005 10:10 AM
Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #24
 
fsquid Wrote:The husband's doctors and the court appointed doctors have said that she is gone. I'll believe the court appointed ones over the doctors of either side any day.
Why? You don't think the court and its doctors might have had a pre-conceived opinion?

Look at how at least one judge completely ignored a Congressional directive.

When it's Roy Moore, this is a "travesty", when it's someone else, it's his prerogative?
03-22-2005 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wpblazer Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 517
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #25
 
DrTorch Wrote:Look at how at least one judge completely ignored a Congressional directive.

When it's Roy Moore, this is a "travesty", when it's someone else, it's his prerogative?
I msut have missed this part. Can you explain what you mean by this statement?
03-22-2005 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #26
 
wpblazer Wrote:
DrTorch Wrote:Look at how at least one judge completely ignored a Congressional directive.

When it's Roy Moore, this is a "travesty", when it's someone else, it's his prerogative?
I msut have missed this part. Can you explain what you mean by this statement?
At the end of last week, a judge ignored a Congressional subpeona for Schaivo and ordered the tube removed.

That's supposed to be a problem. Yet there is no outrage expressed at this judge's contempt for due process.

In contrast, when Roy Moore did his thing, it came into the national spotlight, and he received much criticism.
03-22-2005 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #27
 
DrTorch Wrote:
fsquid Wrote:The husband's doctors and the court appointed doctors have said that she is gone.  I'll believe the court appointed ones over the doctors of either side any day.
Why? You don't think the court and its doctors might have had a pre-conceived opinion?

Look at how at least one judge completely ignored a Congressional directive.

When it's Roy Moore, this is a "travesty", when it's someone else, it's his prerogative?
04-bow
03-22-2005 10:54 AM
Quote this message in a reply
HorseGlue Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 267
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For: CMU
Location:
Post: #28
 
DrTorch Wrote:
HorseGlue Wrote:Here is a fact that I've seen spun 100 ways from Sunday simply by using semantics:  Is she brain dead? Yes, no, maybe, kinda, etc.  The answer is techincally she is not entirely brain dead, but ALL of the areas of higher function (the Cerebrum) in her brain are dead.  This is an indisputable fact.  All you have to do is look at a brain scan, it is all black and shows no activity.
Have you seen the brain scan?

Because this is disputed plenty. PLENTY.
Yup, it was only on the evening news last night. I mean how in the world could I have found it? They even compaired it to a regular brain scan.

It just goes to show how some people love to jump to conclusions without getting their facts straight first.
03-22-2005 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wpblazer Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 517
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #29
 
DrTorch Wrote:
wpblazer Wrote:
DrTorch Wrote:Look at how at least one judge completely ignored a Congressional directive.

When it's Roy Moore, this is a "travesty", when it's someone else, it's his prerogative?
I msut have missed this part. Can you explain what you mean by this statement?
At the end of last week, a judge ignored a Congressional subpeona for Schaivo and ordered the tube removed.

That's supposed to be a problem. Yet there is no outrage expressed at this judge's contempt for due process.

In contrast, when Roy Moore did his thing, it came into the national spotlight, and he received much criticism.
Actually the subpeona calls for them to appear on March 25, 2005. - <a href='http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/HouseSubpoenas.pdf' target='_blank'>Link</a>

The judge hasn't said anything about the subpeona. The judge did dismiss a motion to intervene filed by the committee, stating that there were no grounds for intervention. That dismissal is his decision to make, and he can't be forced to do anything by Congress.

Roy Moore disobeyed a federal court order, which put him in contempt.
03-22-2005 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #30
 
Are there NONE of you death supporters that are the LEAST bit concerned that they are going to starve her TO DEATH!!!???
03-22-2005 11:24 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Lethemeul Offline
Fancy Pants
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Pirates!
Location: Boogie all the time

NCAAbbs LUGDonatorsFolding@NCAAbbs
Post: #31
 
This is coming from someone who really doesn't have an opinion due to the fact that I'm not familiar with all the details of this case. There is one question I have that has not been answered, at least I've not seen it answered -

The husband is her legal guardian and wants to let her pass. The parents want to keep her alive and have asked the husband to divorce his wife so that they can take over legal guardianship. As it seems the husband has moved on, why doesn't he grant the parent's request? Is there money (and if that's it, as is purported in the first post, it seems to me that issue could be worked out in a divorce settlement, especially if the parent's only concern is her life) or something involved or does he simply feel that strongly that his wife would want to die?

Quote:Are there NONE of you death supporters that are the LEAST bit concerned that they are going to starve her TO DEATH!!!???

I don't think that's fair. How else is she to be let go? If the hospice injected her with drugs or smothered her with a pillow or provided some other means of escape, they'd be in a world of poo. The only 'legal' way to let her pass is to remove the feeding tube. If she is, as the courts have said, brain dead, she'll not know what is happening and cannot feel. While it seems like a horrible way to go to us, she'll have no concept of pain, dehydration or starvation.
03-22-2005 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JTiger Offline
Grand Master Sexaaayyyy
*

Posts: 16,068
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 282
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Germantown
Post: #32
 
Lethemeul Wrote:The husband is her legal guardian and wants to let her pass. The parents want to keep her alive and have asked the husband to divorce his wife so that they can take over legal guardianship. As it seems the husband has moved on, why doesn't he grant the parent's request? Is there money (and if that's it as is purported in the first post, it seems to me that issue could be worked out in a divorce settlement, especially if the parent's only concern is her life) or something involved or does he simply feel that strongly that his wife would want to die?
As long as Mrs. Schaivo is alive, she is married to her husband. She cannot sign divorce papers to grant him his wish. That whole till death do us part thing can be adjusted in this case according to the husband. He has other motive, which MAY not be pure. He stands to collect a life insurance policy from this and marry his baby mama. I'm just not sure this guy has the best intentions. I do know that he had no problem shacking up with his common law wife.
03-22-2005 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #33
 
JTiger Wrote:
Lethemeul Wrote:The husband is her legal guardian and wants to let her pass.&nbsp; The parents want to keep her alive and have asked the husband to divorce his wife so that they can take over legal guardianship.&nbsp; As it seems the husband has moved on, why doesn't he grant the parent's request?&nbsp; Is there money (and if that's it as is purported in the first post, it seems to me that issue could be worked out in a divorce settlement, especially if the parent's only concern is her life) or something involved or does he simply feel that strongly that his wife would want to die?
As long as Mrs. Schaivo is alive, she is married to her husband. She cannot sign divorce papers to grant him his wish. That whole till death do us part thing can be adjusted in this case according to the husband. He has other motive, which MAY not be pure. He stands to collect a life insurance policy from this and marry his baby mama. I'm just not sure this guy has the best intentions. I do know that he had no problem shacking up with his common law wife.
The parents agreed to let the divorce go through. I think it's something more sinister. Cha-Ching.
03-22-2005 12:07 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Lethemeul Offline
Fancy Pants
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Pirates!
Location: Boogie all the time

NCAAbbs LUGDonatorsFolding@NCAAbbs
Post: #34
 
RebelKev Wrote:
JTiger Wrote:
Lethemeul Wrote:The husband is her legal guardian and wants to let her pass.  The parents want to keep her alive and have asked the husband to divorce his wife so that they can take over legal guardianship.  As it seems the husband has moved on, why doesn't he grant the parent's request?  Is there money (and if that's it as is purported in the first post, it seems to me that issue could be worked out in a divorce settlement, especially if the parent's only concern is her life) or something involved or does he simply feel that strongly that his wife would want to die?
As long as Mrs. Schaivo is alive, she is married to her husband. She cannot sign divorce papers to grant him his wish. That whole till death do us part thing can be adjusted in this case according to the husband. He has other motive, which MAY not be pure. He stands to collect a life insurance policy from this and marry his baby mama. I'm just not sure this guy has the best intentions. I do know that he had no problem shacking up with his common law wife.
The parents agreed to let the divorce go through. I think it's something more sinister. Cha-Ching.
If it is a case of the man wanting to make sure he gets Cha-Ching, then the whole case changes in my mind. To me, it becomes a contract killing and such a thing is truly disgusting, especially if it's approved by the judicial system.
03-22-2005 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wpblazer Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 517
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #35
 
JTiger Wrote:I do know that he had no problem shacking up with his common law wife.
One tiny correction...there's no such thing as a common law marriage in Florida
03-22-2005 12:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wpblazer Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 517
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #36
 
Lethemeul Wrote:
RebelKev Wrote:
JTiger Wrote:
Lethemeul Wrote:The husband is her legal guardian and wants to let her pass.  The parents want to keep her alive and have asked the husband to divorce his wife so that they can take over legal guardianship.  As it seems the husband has moved on, why doesn't he grant the parent's request?  Is there money (and if that's it as is purported in the first post, it seems to me that issue could be worked out in a divorce settlement, especially if the parent's only concern is her life) or something involved or does he simply feel that strongly that his wife would want to die?
As long as Mrs. Schaivo is alive, she is married to her husband. She cannot sign divorce papers to grant him his wish. That whole till death do us part thing can be adjusted in this case according to the husband. He has other motive, which MAY not be pure. He stands to collect a life insurance policy from this and marry his baby mama. I'm just not sure this guy has the best intentions. I do know that he had no problem shacking up with his common law wife.
The parents agreed to let the divorce go through. I think it's something more sinister. Cha-Ching.
If it is a case of the man wanting to make sure he gets Cha-Ching, then the whole case changes in my mind. To me, it becomes a contract killing and such a thing is truly disgusting, especially if it's approved by the judicial system.
This man has reportedly been offered $10 million to walk away, and refused.

There is no way he stands to make that much from her death, so its hard to see how money plays into the equation.
03-22-2005 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #37
 
wpblazer Wrote:Actually the subpeona calls for them to appear on March 25, 2005. - <a href='http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/HouseSubpoenas.pdf' target='_blank'>Link</a>

The judge hasn't said anything about the subpeona. The judge did dismiss a motion to intervene filed by the committee, stating that there were no grounds for intervention. That dismissal is his decision to make, and he can't be forced to do anything by Congress.
I don't believe the date is what's at issue. My understanding is that when you've been issued a subpoena, you are entitled to certain protections. After all, it's much harder to testify after you're dead (especially since John Edwards isn't in office anymore). Ergo, when the judge ordered the removal of the feeding tube, he did indeed go against the expectations of Congress.

And if we're talking about separation of powers and checks and balances, I do wonder why folks are following orders of some judge. It's the executive branch that is in charge of enforcement...and Jed is the chief executive of the state.
03-22-2005 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #38
 
HorseGlue Wrote:Yup, it was only on the evening news last night. I mean how in the world could I have found it? They even compaired it to a regular brain scan.

It just goes to show how some people love to jump to conclusions without getting their facts straight first.
Odd, b/c I think I asked a question instead of coming to a conclusion.

Mrs. Schaivo's state has been debated for years. Perhaps most recently she is in a true vegetative state. There is abundant video evidence that this has not always been the case, yet the same assertions were made.

Or perhaps you were shown a non-representative brain scan. You know, sort of like a certain memo CBS used.

Regardless, do you have a link to the info? I'd be interested in seeing it.
03-22-2005 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #39
 
wpblazer Wrote:This man has reportedly been offered $10 million to walk away, and refused.

There is no way he stands to make that much from her death, so its hard to see how money plays into the equation.
Someone else tried to get me with that. However, they couldn't prove it either. As of now, it's just unsubstantiated BS.
03-22-2005 12:55 PM
Quote this message in a reply
wpblazer Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 517
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #40
 
DrTorch Wrote:Ergo, when the judge ordered the removal of the feeding tube, he did indeed go against the expectations of Congress.

And if we're talking about separation of powers and checks and balances, I do wonder why folks are following orders of some judge.&nbsp; It's the executive branch that is in charge of enforcement...and Jed is the chief executive of the state.
First of all...the order to remove the tube on March 18, 2005, was issued on February 25, 2005. So, the judge didn't go against the expectations of Congress when he ordered the removal. Now, I do not know if that subpoena should require him to reverse his order or not, but that is another question.

Also, it should be noted that the fact that the judge doesn't serve at the will of congress (i.e. separation of powers), is a cornerstone of our system of government and should be protected at all costs.

Second, we are talking about separation of powers, and the courts have determined that Jeb has no constitutional right to interfere in this case. In other words, his executive powers do not allow him to assert his will in this case.

Also, the video evidence you think is crucial, can also be questioned just like everything else can. I don't remember where I saw this (therefore I can't provide a source, so take it for what its worth), but I read the video snippets that have been shown amount to about 4.5 minutes of 4.5 hours of tape available.
03-22-2005 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.