Posted on 03/29/2005 8:58:34 AM PST by Long Cut
We, the Witness Protection Program For Freepers, aka the Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane, have through mutual discussion and rigourous thought, determined that:
1. The discussion threads regarding Terri Schiavo (hereafter referred to as "TS") have become too full of innuendo, rumormongering, hyperbole, hysteria, namecalling, paranoia, and general poor behavior to warrant participation.
2. Said threads have degenerated into "echo chambers", wherein the same, common thoughts are continually posted again and again, and the same old disreputable, unconfirmed and/or false urban myths are propagated.
3. Anyone who joins in said theads with alternative viewpoints to the most extreme posts are routinely driven away with slander, accusations, and vile namecalling.
4. No data or evidence contrary to the "prevailing opinions" are accepted, considered, or discussed; and in fact are rejected outright in most instances.
5. That the continued calls for armed insurrection, military or paramilitary involvement, impeachements of politicians and judges, and death threats are embarassing, stupid, shortsighted, doomed to failure, and contrary to most if not all conservative thought prior to this case, as well as damaging in the extreme to FR and the conservative movement as a whole.
6. That such emotional, hyperbolic, and propaganda-driven hysteria is in fact contrary to all conservatives USED to stand for.
7. That the holding up of swastika and other Nazi imagery towards the police and the Bushes, the use of children as political props, and the disruption of the peace at the Woodside Hospice can only reflect badly on conservatives in general, and should be discouraged.
8. That the pursuit of this issue to the exclusion of all others by the GOP has damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the pursuit of other important issues as well as the reputation of the GOP, FR, and conservatism.
The WPPFF is NOT of one mind as to the case of TS or its correct outcome. In fact, wide disagreement exists within our little group. However, we are united in our wish that reason and sanity be respected in the discussion, as well as the rights of all parties involved or participating. We wish to discuss this as adults and intellectuals, as conservatives and as FRiends, not as children screaming past each other on some playground of hysteria. We wish for facts and evidence to be provided, discussed reasonably, and considered fairly.
We reject all accusations of Naziism, "death cultism", or other slander as methods of debate. We reject the practice of "spamming" multiple threads, of posting unending vanities, and the posting of propaganda and calls for violence. We reject, in fact, all unseemly and childish behavior which has come to characterize this case on FR.
We DO invite others to come and reasonably discuss the issue. We have no problem with FReepers who wish to debate in a rational and fair manner, and with due respect for their fellow FReepers. We have NO problem with those whose views are formed by religion; however we reject "preaching" or "being beaten with a Bible" as legitemite debate tactics. Not all of us are Believers, and such tactics only cheapen the source.
If a FReeper finds this an acceptable meansd to discuss this and other issues, they are welcome to join in and participate. Those who find pleasure in attacks, flame-baiting, slander, stalking, and personal atacks will be ignored, and their egos will go unfed.
We assume this thread to be a zone of sanity in an overheated atmosphere. Thus, a general amnesty is in effect. If posters conduct themselves within the guidlines above, we will be happy to discuss and debate with you. If a poster wishes to apologize for past slips of the tongue, or for possible "over-the-top" statements to another, it will be graciously accepted, and your company welcome.
Please bring a sense of humor; we feel that too many have been taking themselves too seriously lately.
Let the discussion begin!
Signed,
The WPPFF, aka The Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane.
Halo 2 is the bomb. Best. Game. Ever.
You mean Petronski?
Just wondering. Does anyone know how to put up a background for your about page? I've tried, but can't figure it out, the white is so ugly.
The CounteSS has been overridden in the horsepower department in recent years by other rides (she's a 2001), but she'll give just about everything except a Cobra or a 'vette a run for their money. She handles like a dream, and there's nothing quite like the sound and feel of a purebred musclecar when it's angry.
It was better when I lived in Florida...nice straight, open roads, and the weather allowed a lot of T-top operations along the coast. Mrs. Cut and I loved cruising in her down to Daytona from Jax along A1A.
And then there was that night we went to dinner at our favorite Italian restaurant in daytona from Jax beach. 85 miles. We left home at 5:00 PM and sat down to dinner at 6.
Nope. I won't mention the name, but he's been here a LOT, attempting to start trouble.
Wrong. I read the rulings by Whittemore and the three judge panel. The matter at question pertained to the request for preliminary injunctive relief. It is clear that Congress did not intend to change the law pertaining to preliminary injunctions, so existing law was applied. Whittemore ruled that the Schindlers did not demonstrate the substantial likelihood of success on the merits required to obtain a temporary restraining order. The three judge panel does not revisit this point, but only reviews the original judge's ruling only for abuse of discretion.
Like it or not, this was a conservative judicial ruling.
RUSH: Last night Scarborough Country, MSNBC. This gets hot and heavy. The guests included Catherine Crier of Court TV, Pat Buchanan and Peter Beinart, the editor of The New Republic. Buchanan says to Peter Beinart, "You know how she's dying? The way they died at Dachau, the way they died at Andersonville." BEINART: That is an outrageous, outrageous statement. BUCHANAN: It is not. They were starved to death and denied water. BEINART: You know, it is outrageous for you to say -- BUCHANAN: Why do you want her dead so bad, Peter? BEINART: She cannot feel the pain that we would feel in starvation, and compared to the Nazis, when this woman, when the court said this woman wanted to die, it's just outrageous. Outrageous. CRIER: And Pat? How dare you, Pat? How dare you ask us how much we want this woman to die, because there is no one on the other side of this that wants her to die. If I could will her to get up, to -- BUCHANAN Well, why don't you give her some food and water?
Everyone I know who has video/computer games for their kids regrets ever getting them started on it. They say, "Never let the first one in the door."
One family is in the business of designing the games and systems, and they have a house rule: our work doesn't come home."
I see the point of this thread. It's about a group of folks who believed that starving a person to death was "merciful" and "compassionate", based on hearsay, who claimed to be fed up with the name-calling, etc. yet that group, self-dubbed as the "coalition of the sane" have, by default, labeled anyone who doesn't agree with their "compassionate" ways as "insane".
Now, tell me again why I would want to enjoin myself with hypocrisy?
This wasn't the matter under question, though. The question was whether or not the Schindlers could obtain a temporary restraining order while further action proceeded.
I know who you mean. But the heck with him...
BEST run I ever had in the CounteSS was when I beat my CO's Mustang. NOTHING beats blowing the doors off an 0-6's ride.
No. It wasnt, and the dissent nailed them on it. He articicially raised the barrie on the first Prong of the FOur Prong test for Injuctive relief.
The simple fact is one needed to only show some ability ot succeed. Whittemore then argued that the medical briefs were not properly argued vis-a-vis a Constitutional Claim.
He hid behind an artificial construct, generally speaking the nature of the Harm the relief seeks to prevent wieghs in the decision.
Congress MANDATED the hearing. Congress MAndated the hearing be De Novo. IT was fairly implied by the law that the object of said law be kpet alive.
7 congressmen filed a brief stating exactly the intent of the law. It is linked in one of my posts to atlaw.
Chad, Is that what got you suspended for an hour? Saying, "Like I care what you think, newbie."
Would you care to provide some evidence that this "group of folks" collectively holds this opinion?
All we want is a civil discussion so facts can be brought and reasonably evaluated, without the overheated rhetoric.
Is that so bad?
A Conservaitve ruling??????????? you're dreaming.
Yes, it was. The opinion of the dissenter is not deciding. And both the full 11th Circuit and the Supreme Court let the ruling stand.
Congress MANDATED the hearing. Congress MAndated the hearing be De Novo.
Congress did NOT mandate that temporary injunctive relief be granted.
No argument with you - my argument was specifically with Frist's comment, and that coming from a thoracocardiovascular surgeon.
Hastert et. al. are simply wrong in their assertion that Congress required a temporary restraining order. That language was in the original language of the bill, and was changed, then subsequently removed.
What you have are a group of legislators trying to blame the judiciary for their passing bad law.
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.