LIBERALS HATE TERRI SCHIAVO: Yesterday a chap named Jake took exception to the my most recent column in the Illinois Leader. Sometimes not all of my syndicates allow all hyperlinks to be printed in the column. (Same column with links.) Which is too bad because the sources of information I use strengthen the conclusions I draw. But I thought the e-mail exchange with Jake is telling...
Jake started it all with this...
My god...how can you tell such bald-faced lies with a straight face? Your nobel prize winning Doctor lied to you...go re-read the court transcripts, you moron...Just curious....which uncle or close family friend touched you in a bad way when you were young? Something must have happened to make you so angry, bitter, and inconsolable. Hey, why don't I behave like the the conservative press and make sh*t up about you, as you and others did about Michael Schiavo....hmmm..."which conservative radio host and blogger has had several closeted gay rendezvous over the past ten years?".....Yeah, I can stoop to your level, you f*cking moron...
Jake Daab, Senior Vice President, J Land Company LLC
220 N. Smith Street, Suite 300, Palatine IL, 60067
847.215..5517
Trying to give him the benefit of the doubt I requested...
Be so kind Jake, point to one factual inaccuracy in the column.
He gave it his best shot...
With pleasure, Kev! Shall we start with reviewing the actual testimony, under path of ALL of the expert doctors? Not just your doc? For that matte let's look at his actual testimony....AND by the way, how he came to his observational conclusions. I'm left to conclude by your distorted take that every judge who reviewed the facts of this case ignored the medical facts, when, in fact every expert on record in the court transcripts agreed with the PVS diagnosis. Well, there are some foca who concluded otherwisq after looking at a video. You've never cared about the truth though. You pick and choose sources. Typical conservative blather, but hardly the real world. By the way, when does the family have the right to refuse care? In Tom Delays case? When does a husband lose that right? When you decide he's not a good husband? Does the law not apply if conservatives disagree? Come on, Kev, crystalize this issue for me. Aside from making political hay, what are the two main issues you have a problem with? Tell me your first hand knowledge. Tell me how many times you've spoken with MIchaell Schiavo. Tell me exactly which statute, or part thereof, that you think the court erred on. Otherwise I'm left to surmise that you're merelyn regurgitating erroneous right wing blather.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Given the nature of his response - again in answer to an inquiry to supply one factual inaccuracy - I was forced to reply...
As of the writing of this post - there has been no final response from Mr. Daab. The point of my showing you the back and forth of this however serves a valuable purpose. Jake is prototypical of most Liberals. They ask demands of proof, they question the motives, and they call conservatives names. They are unable to point out any specific grounds for criticism of those who stand for truth and justice...yet they call them liars, f*cking morons, right wing blather, and more.So not one factual inaccuracy can be pointed to.
Jake, medical doctors came to different conclusions in the case. Even Dr. Cranford indicates that Terri responds to stimulus and can see - then he goes into court to tout the PVS line that Michael SOUGHT.
Terri is NOT terminal, she is not comatose, the only thing that is killing Terri is starvation. These are the facts.
You may dislike them - but the truth is often inconvenient.
And the whole meme about "19 judges" reviewing the case is hogwash - they ruled on legal standing. Judge Greer is the only judge that has ruled on the merits.
The two main issues I have a problem with?
1. Michael's conflict of interest in the case - and why he changed his mind after winning the large settlement.
2. If Michael is right and the family is wrong - it bothers no one. The family is willing to give him the money and take care of Terri until she dies naturally. If the family is right and Michael is wrong (or ill-motivated) we are establishing a precedent that allows another human being to legally starve someone who would otherwise live. State sanctioned murder of an innocent person is a violation of Article One of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our Declaration of Independence.
Jake, I know you hate my viewpoints - and that's fine. But if even you were being railroaded the way Terri is - and you had no desire to be starved to death - I would be fighting for you just as hard.
Sorry - but I think the right to live - is the first and foremost fundamental right guaranteed to us under the American justice system.
~KMC
Read it from his blog at http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/kmc/?cal=go&adate=3%2F29%2F2005
1 comment:
Why? Because the family asked for help in any form in order to save their daughter from being killed.
Post a Comment