Drudge has Audio of Terri responding

[Apollo5600]

DRUDGE RADIO to present audio of Terri Schiavo 'responding to her father on Friday, immediately following the removal of her feeding tube'.... Check local listings...

www.drudgereport.com (http://www.drudgereport.com/)

He notes it could be either old, or fake according to "some reports", listining to drudge on the radio right now. (10:32 Ct) I started listining because I saw the link, was going to skip this sunday because I was tired... So I don't know everything. However in a bit he is going to play it again, and probably discuss it.

It seems I also recall a post around here quoting an article from "The Empire Journal" mentioning this aswell (not that Drudge has it, but of Terry respondong to her father on Friday).

Edit: Drudge just said the family says it is real.. I think it was recorded by the father?

[FatherTime]

"If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?"

-WS

Why is everyone RACING to kill her, all of a sudden...?

Had she committed some fanatical crime of hate, I could understand.
(as someone who supports the death penalty for the worst of the worst)

But she is not guilty of anything...

[RuffhouseFarm]

"If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?"

-WS

Why is everyone RACING to kill her, all of a sudden...?

Had she committed some fanatical crime of hate, I could understand.
(as someone who supports the death penalty for the worst of the worst)

But she is not guilty of anything...

She's a witness and/or a subject of criminal acts, imo, and that of many others close to the case.

[MichaelS]

She's a witness and/or a subject of criminal acts, imo, and that of many others close to the case.

RFH, since when have you been "close to the case", unless of course you were a party in it or an officer of the court? But, I gotta tell ya, your conspiracy theories do make me smile. Were you the 3rd gunman on the grassy knoll?

[Rink]

:rolleyes:

[RuffhouseFarm]

RFH, since when have you been "close to the case", unless of course you were a party in it or an officer of the court? But, I gotta tell ya, your conspiracy theories do make me smile. Were you the 3rd gunman on the grassy knoll?

I didn't say I was close to the case. To be more clear, I should say "....imo and that of other people who are close to the case." I obviously lack your semantic gymnastic superiority.

Now say something relevant.:prolife:

[Apollo5600]

RFH, since when have you been "close to the case", unless of course you were a party in it or an officer of the court? But, I gotta tell ya, your conspiracy theories do make me smile. Were you the 3rd gunman on the grassy knoll?

The family claims that there is some evidence of prior injuries that were healing up (when they took a scan of some kind), some guy, a doctor, whoever the hell, says the current explanation for what has happened to her did not add up and it should of been further investigated.

Though perhaps RHF knows more exactly then I do. Plus, he never said he was close to the case.... But I am sure he is following it.

[MichaelS]

I didn't say I was close to the case. To be more clear, I should say "....imo and that of other people who are close to the case." I obviously lack your semantic gymnastic superiority.

Now say something relevant.:prolife:

Actually, it couldn't be more relevant. Your "grammatical" error demonstrates the primary fallacy of this entire situation, an assumption that those who are not factually close to the case can possibly know more than those that have heard the arguments, testimony, and evidence over the course of seven years and have the background, experience, expertise, and mandate to decide on such matters.

To see Congressional representatives up there dismissing the authority of the state courts based on nothing but emotional hearsay from a single, biased individual to the extent that many couldn't even pronounce Terri Schiavo's name correctly, much less get the facts of the case correct (many of the proponents even contradicted each other), was disgusting.

Though no one specifically called it out, the foundation for this entire proceeding is a belief that David Gibbs is an awful attorney. After all, were the conflicts of interest and the misdeeds and misdiagnoses as egregious as you and others would have us believe, either there truly is a conspiracy afoot (and it would have to extend through local, state, and federal courts) or David Gibbs should disbar himself. The only other conclusion would be that such perceived conflicts, misdeeds, and misdiagnoses were indeed given their due consideration by the court.

But that can't possibly be the case, right? After all, we should accept such claims on their face as beyond question and, with them in mind, acknowledge that no court, much less 10, could possibly have ruled in the manner of those in Florida.

So, I ask you the same questions I asked TIU...

(1) Should the federal court system reach the same conclusion that Terri would not want to be sustained in her current condition, would you, at that point, agree that her right of due process has been fulfilled and agree that her choice should be honored and respected?

and

(2) Should the federal court system decide in agreement with the state courts (a process that could take several more years), would the additional months and years to which Terri has been subjected against her will as a result of these actions be considered cruel and unusual?

TIU dodged both questions. Will you do the same?

[jag]

(1) Should the federal court system reach the same conclusion that Terri would not want to be sustained in her current condition, would you, at that point, agree that her right of due process has been fulfilled and agree that her choice should be honored and respected?

and

(2) Should the federal court system decide in agreement with the state courts (a process that could take several more years), would the additional months and years to which Terri has been subjected against her will as a result of these actions be considered cruel and unusual?

TIU dodged both questions. Will you do the same?

You really are a one trick pony arent you??

1) Her choice, again will not have been heard if that would be the case. She never expressed the wish to be allowed to die. If that were the case - why do the courts and MS both indicated thats what they "feel" she would have wanted? MS lied about her stating so, 4 years after his first DNR in 1993.

They too, like you and so many others, will be instramental in a murder. What don't you understand??


2) No. Why would they?? The argument your ilk use to do her in is she is in a veg state (which is a lie) In that state the only cruelty would be to poor MS who still can't get married and collect the money. Man I feel for the dude.

On the other hand, since she is alive (in the same sense that Stephen Hawking "Thirty years ago I was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, and given two and a half years to live. I have always wondered how they could be so precise about the half.
BBC interview 1996 )- there is nothing cruel and unusual in living with a loving family. Which btw MS stopped being even prior to her "accident"

[Warlady]

MichaelS, you obviously lack basic reading comprehension skills. You need to reread Ruff's post again and slowly this time. He did NOT say he was close to the case. He was referring to those who were.

[RuffhouseFarm]

The family claims that there is some evidence of prior injuries that were healing up (when they took a scan of some kind), some guy, a doctor, whoever the hell, says the current explanation for what has happened to her did not add up and it should of been further investigated.

Though perhaps RHF knows more exactly then I do. Plus, he never said he was close to the case.... But I am sure he is following it.

He's not just some doctor. Michael Baden is the most highly esteemed forensic pathologist in the country.

[RuffhouseFarm]

Actually, it couldn't be more relevant. Your "grammatical" error demonstrates the primary fallacy of this entire situation, an assumption that those who are not factually close to the case can possibly know more than those that have heard the arguments, testimony, and evidence over the course of seven years and have the background, experience, expertise, and mandate to decide on such matters.

To see Congressional representatives up there dismissing the authority of the state courts based on nothing but emotional hearsay from a single, biased individual to the extent that many couldn't even pronounce Terri Schiavo's name correctly, much less get the facts of the case correct (many of the proponents even contradicted each other), was disgusting.

Though no one specifically called it out, the foundation for this entire proceeding is a belief that David Gibbs is an awful attorney. After all, were the conflicts of interest and the misdeeds and misdiagnoses as egregious as you and others would have us believe, either there truly is a conspiracy afoot (and it would have to extend through local, state, and federal courts) or David Gibbs should disbar himself. The only other conclusion would be that such perceived conflicts, misdeeds, and misdiagnoses were indeed given their due consideration by the court.

But that can't possibly be the case, right? After all, we should accept such claims on their face as beyond question and, with them in mind, acknowledge that no court, much less 10, could possibly have ruled in the manner of those in Florida.

So, I ask you the same questions I asked TIU...

(1) Should the federal court system reach the same conclusion that Terri would not want to be sustained in her current condition, would you, at that point, agree that her right of due process has been fulfilled and agree that her choice should be honored and respected?

and

(2) Should the federal court system decide in agreement with the state courts (a process that could take several more years), would the additional months and years to which Terri has been subjected against her will as a result of these actions be considered cruel and unusual?

TIU dodged both questions. Will you do the same?

1). No. I wouldn't agree with that. In this case, due process includes examination of the evidence which has to be supplemented with proper testing and medical evaluations.

2). Your premise is deficient.

[MichaelS]

You really are a one trick pony arent you??

1) Her choice, again will not have been heard if that would be the case. She never expressed the wish to be allowed to die. If that were the case - why do the courts and MS both indicated thats what they "feel" she would have wanted? MS lied about her stating so, 4 years after his first DNR in 1993.

They too, like you and so many others, will be instramental in a murder. What don't you understand??


2) No. Why would they?? The argument your ilk use to do her in is she is in a veg state (which is a lie) In that state the only cruelty would be to poor MS who still can't get married and collect the money. Man I feel for the dude.

On the other hand, since she is alive (in the same sense that Stephen Hawking "Thirty years ago I was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, and given two and a half years to live. I have always wondered how they could be so precise about the half.
BBC interview 1996 )- there is nothing cruel and unusual in living with a loving family. Which btw MS stopped being even prior to her "accident"

I won't argue the "facts" of the case with you, as neither one of us is a qualified party to determine fact from fiction, rumor from reality. That said, thanks for having the courage to answer the questions. Your answers reveal a considerable amount about this case.

Proponents of the legislation, including numerous Republicans speaking last night and Sensenbrenner in multiple instances, indicated that its entire purpose is to ensure that Terri's right of "due process" is preserved.

For that to be true, you must believe in the concept of "due process" and acknowledge and respect that the result from that process may be a variety of outcomes with equal validity.

However, if those same proponents feel as you do, the decision of the federal court is immaterial and predetermined and due process does not apply. In that case, this is NOT about due process but rather a subversion of the concept of due process to press a politicial ideology, which reaffirms the assertion that Terri is simply being used as a political pawn to push that agenda.

Quite audacious considering the accusations of so many on this board that Terri is being used to push a "liberal" agenda.

Now, if this truly is about due process, the discussions of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are simply ideological rhetoric that do not apply to the legislation being passed, as it is then simply a procedural issue. And as RHF has hastened to point out, the case has been reviewed exhaustively from a procedural perspective with the same result. Of course, you then question the validity of Congressional challenges to the federalist system when there are no apparent violations of process.

But, to give the benefit of the doubt, if there remains a procedural question, it appears the federal courts will now hear it. And if those pushing this legislation concur with the case's procedural focus, they must recognize and honor the result of that process, even if it is to their disliking. Which means, if the federal court agrees with the state that Terri would not have wanted to live in this manner, they would acknowledge and support that decision.

How many do you think will do just that as opposed to how many are politically grandstanding?

So, before you autocast your Republican vote in the next election, you may want to get your Congressional nominees' answer to that question to see on which side of the fence they fall. Did they abuse their power to push an ideological agenda, or do they respect the system which they used as justification for their actions?

[RuffhouseFarm]

I won't argue the "facts" of the case with you, as neither one of us is a qualified party to determine fact from fiction, rumor from reality. That said, thanks for having the courage to answer the questions. Your answers reveal a considerable amount about this case.

Proponents of the legislation, including numerous Republicans speaking last night and Sensenbrenner in multiple instances, indicated that its entire purpose is to ensure that Terri's right of "due process" is preserved.

For that to be true, you must believe in the concept of "due process" and acknowledge and respect that the result from that process may be a variety of outcomes with equal validity.

However, if those same proponents feel as you do, the decision of the federal court is immaterial and predetermined and due process does not apply. In that case, this is NOT about due process but rather a subversion of the concept of due process to press a politicial ideology, which reaffirms the assertion that Terri is simply being used as a political pawn to push that agenda.

Quite audacious considering the accusations of so many on this board that Terri is being used to push a "liberal" agenda.

Now, if this truly is about due process, the discussions of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are simply ideological rhetoric that do not apply to the legislation being passed, as it is then simply a procedural issue. And as RHF has hastened to point out, the case has been reviewed exhaustively from a procedural perspective with the same result. Of course, you then question the validity of Congressional challenges to the federalist system when there are no apparent violations of process.

But, to give the benefit of the doubt, if there remains a procedural question, it appears the federal courts will now hear it. And if those pushing this legislation concur with the case's procedural focus, they must recognize and honor the result of that process, even if it is to their disliking. Which means, if the federal court agrees with the state that Terri would not have wanted to live in this manner, they would acknowledge and support that decision.

How many do you think will do just that as opposed to how many are politically grandstanding?

So, before you autocast your Republican vote in the next election, you may want to get your Congressional nominees' answer to that question to see on which side of the fence they fall. Did they abuse their power to push an ideological agenda, or do they respect the system which they used as justification for their actions?

LMAO. What a load.

[MichaelS]

1). No. I wouldn't agree with that. In this case, due process includes examination of the evidence which has to be supplemented with proper testing and medical evaluations.

2). Your premise is deficient.

The premise is hardly deficient. And I thought you were following the case. The legislation passed forces the federal court to hear the case de novo, which basically means all aspects of the state case are thrown out and treated as nonexistent. Which means the case could be in the federal system for a considerable amount of time (though they do tend to act quicker than their state-presiding colleagues).

Dismissing the inference from Congress that the state judiciary is incompetent (I'm sure that'll be remembered.), with the case being heard again, it is a viable possibility that the federal courts, once again charged to be objective, will concur with the state.

So, based on that fact, the questions above are altogether reasonable. Now that you've seen my response to jag, how do you answer them?

Rink, wanna respond as well?

[MichaelS]

LMAO. What a load.

That your best response? Speaks volumes.

[Apollo5600]

He's not just some doctor. Michael Baden is the most highly esteemed forensic pathologist in the country.

Ah yes, I remember now!

[MichaelS]

And just on a side note, many credit right-wing talk-show host Glenn Beck with bringing this case national attention.

So.....I asked him the question.....his response?

-------------------------
(To paraphrase) As long as Terri was given her own representation in the federal case, should the decision be made in concurrence with the state, I would agree that her right of due process had been met. I wouldn't like it, but I would agree with it.
-------------------------

So, to Glenn, it is about process. Of course he continues to discourse about pro-life/pro-choice which have no relation to this case, but, hey, they make for better radio than talking about legal topics.

[RuffhouseFarm]

The premise is hardly deficient. And I thought you were following the case. The legislation passed forces the federal court to hear the case de novo, which basically means all aspects of the state case are thrown out and treated as nonexistent. Which means the case could be in the federal system for a considerable amount of time (though they do tend to act quicker than their state-presiding colleagues).

Dismissing the inference from Congress that the state judiciary is incompetent (I'm sure that'll be remembered.), with the case being heard again, it is a viable possibility that the federal courts, once again charged to be objective, will concur with the state.

So, based on that fact, the questions above are altogether reasonable. Now that you've seen my response to jag, how do you answer them?

Rink, wanna respond as well?

I know what it means. But Schiavo's side is going to introduce the same evidence, so it's a moot point.

At least 53% of the country knows the FL courts are incompetent.

I didn't read your response to jag.

[MichaelS]

I know what it means. But Schiavo's side is going to introduce the same evidence, so it's a moot point.

At least 53% of the country knows the FL courts are incompetent.

I didn't read your response to jag.

I didn't think it was about what Schiavo's side introduced but what the Schindlers' side was unable to introduce.

Of course, from your current stance, it seems you've already judged the federal case handling as a farce, so remind me, what was the purpose of convening an emergency Congressional session?

As for avoiding the question......you sure you aren't running for office?

[RuffhouseFarm]

That your best response? Speaks volumes.

Your little epistles vary in their quantity of bullshit spin from post to post, although each is abundant. That particular one I responded to was 100% bullshit, so my reply was adequate and on point.

[MichaelS]

Your little epistles vary in their quantity of bullshit spin from post to post, although each is abundant. That particular one I responded to was 100% bullshit, so my reply was adequate and on point.

And next....THE MAMBA!!! Those dance lessons are really coming in handy, eh? If you don't want to answer the question, just say you don't want to answer the question.

No one will lose respect for you.

[Rink]

:rolleyes:

[MichaelS]

:rolleyes:

Rink, I was interested in your response to the question as well, or is an eye roll the best you have to offer?

[Rink]

Point of the matter is terry schiavo's due process has NOT been met, all we have is the facts from One side only, no other side but Michael schiavo's side only.

We have criminals whose court battles for their due process can run in the decaes till their due process has been met.

But because this one-sided view has been bought lock, stock and barrel by everyone irregardless of the fact that terry schiavo has every right to have INDEPENDENT medical reviews of her condition other than that of Michael schiavo's hand-picked doctors ONLY her rights and due process has NOT been met.

And untill she has this independent medical review (that means they are neither with Michael schiavo or terry's parents) take a medical look at all her medical conditions and have all the scans and examinations her Rights have NOT been met.

This is why its been put in the federal couts, as it is obvios the State courts in Florida are not interested in upholding terry schiavo's basic Constitutional right to live.

IRREGARDLESS of her mental condition she has a right to live.

And she as an American citizen has a right to due process which has been consistently denied all throughout the 15 years worth of legal fights.

There is absolutely no legal rock-solid evidence or proof that Terry schiavo wants to die other than what her 'husband' says.

And that is suspect, hence its not enough.

circumstantial evidence if I am correct is NOT enough to convict a murderer in a court of law, so why is it enough to murder a helpless woman here in a court of law?

They must do medical reviews and exams of this woman to determine exactly her medical condition and whether or not the allegations of abuse was correct or not i.e. they need to medically examine her to prove or disprove of abuse allegations in order to come clean by it all.

This is basic investigations that have been consistently and repeatedly denied.

Bones dont like no matter how many years after the fact of the matter, bones never lie and the evidence or lack thereof should be there.

This woman should have a right to have a througough medical review of her condition by a unattached outside independend party and her rights should be upheld and her due process also should be upheld.

Again this has not been done in the Florida State courts.

[Rink]

one more thing Michael schiavo's financial standings in this matter ala the money via insurance premiums has been locked away from review, these too muct be opened up to determine whether or not he stands to gain from her death.

[MichaelS]

OK, fair enough, let's say you successfully convinced me that the case belongs in federal court. So be it. And, based on the legislation passed, the case will be heard "from scratch".

Now, based on that, if the federal courts reach a decision consistent with that of the state of Florida, would you consider her right of due process satisfied and respect the decision of the court?

And, if you would respect the decision of the court, would the time Terri spent in her current condition against her court-determined will be considered "cruel and unusual"?

[Rink]

The only way her rights of due process will be satisfied is what I had stated above, go re-read it again please

[MichaelS]

The only way her rights of due process will be satisfied is what I had stated above, go re-read it again please

Read it, but it refers to the past. Now, assuming the investigations and reviews you reference are conducted in the course of the federal case (altogether possible), and the federal court agrees with the state decision, would you agree that her due process would have been met at that time?

I'm not talking about the present time. You've made your perspective very clear on that point.

[Rink]

I dont think you even understood my previous pist it has already dealt with this question of yours, again go re-read it.

it deals with the present argument that may be admitted now in a federal court of law.

.

[Wolfcounsel]

What due process must the courts go through before an innocent person can be murdered?

[MichaelS]

I dont think you even understood my previous pist it has already dealt with this question of yours, again go re-read it.

it deals with the present argument that may be admitted now in a federal court of law.

.

Reread it...again. Yep, still refers to the past. But, based on your statements, I think it is safe to assume that your opinion is as follows: Had the "proper" investigations been performed, in your opinion, it would be impossible for a court, any court, to decide that Terri is in a PVS state and made her wishes known to not remain in that state.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I have misspoken.

That doesn't really address the question, but so be it.

[MichaelS]

What due process must the courts go through before an innocent person can be murdered?

So, this is not about due process to you, and Terri's existence in her current state should be preserved "by all means necessary" including the subjugation of the government. That's a valid opinion.

It's an abuse of power to push an ideology but a valid opinion nonetheless.

[Wolfcounsel]

"So, this is not about due process to you,..." --MichaelS


There is no due process to murder an innocent human being. Prove to me there is!

[MichaelS]

There is due process in any legal proceeding. As long as there is a legal question, there is the related question of due process, regardless of subject matter.

[Wolfcounsel]

"As long as there is a legal question, there is the related question of due process, regardless of subject matter." --MichaelS


There is no legal proceeding involving some public servants doing some cold-blooded murder. Murder is murder, like abortion is murder. I wish to discuss nothing more of this with you. But keep blathering away if you desire.:flame: