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.
I think you file an arrest warrant immediately.
I hope that was sarcasm.
hehe
The Texas legislature is meeting now, and there's nothing on the radar as to that legislation. And the leg only meets every two years.
Taking action against judges is misguided when the law on the books stays in place.
I thought I had copyright on that statement.
It's a fool's errand to speculate on what Ronald Reagan would have done in this situation.
This is the same president who, when confronted with the terrorist murder of 243 Marines in Lebanon in 1983, turned tail and ran.
PLEASE!
I ask the same thing Jim Rob. Please.
RB
*****************
Agreed. There are many who believe this is merely a legal issue. In my opinion, they have missed the most significan aspect of the Schiavo case. What was done to Terri was morally wrong.
It was morally wrong, but perfectly legal. All the moral objections in the world won't change anything, unless you change the law.
HELLO! It was a death case.
No such thing. It was a civil case where the judge was asked to determine whether or not the legal guardian was acting properly.
Like your tag line. Definitely fits this whole situation and discussion.
Thanks. Dirtboy was describing the attitude of the big-government "conservatives" who seemed to have come out of the woodwork lately. He really hit it on the head with that one.
;-)
"Florida law states that a judge can not act as a guardian of someone who's case they are deciding. Judge Greer did this, which was a violation of that Florida statue."
Wrong. Judge Greer acted as a surrogate, not a guardian. Any Judge who must make a decision as to what an incapacitated individual would want themselves has to act as a surrogate. This situation was reveiwed by the District Court of Appeal and was not found to be an improper function of the Court.
"Florida law states that a guardian must final an annual plan, detailing both the financial and care proved the ward. MS did not do this, which was a violation of that Florida statue."
Perhaps at best a technical violation of an overly strict interpretation of the statute. It should be kept in mind that the situation was in almost perpetual flux as a result of the constant litigation. The issues being adjudicated directly impinged upon those items that would be included in any annual plan. Being that the guardian applied to the Court for a determination of factors that would directly affect any plan the guardian might posit to the Court, it would have to have been difficult if not outright impossible to propagate any realistic plan. The Court certainly was aware of the contemporaneous situation of the ward and was able to supervise and approve of any actions of the guardian.
No harm- no foul.
"Greer has allowed Michael to unlawfully place Terri in a Hospice and engage in a Medicare and Medicaid fraud. She is not terminal and the "certification" presented was not done lawfully.
Greer "allowed" Michael Schiavo to place his wife in a hospice because her doctor(s) recommended and approved the placement. The certification was indeed lawful. Even if you are asserting that the certifying doctor didn't sign the paperwork, I would remind you that many times a doctor does not sign a prescription that is filled either. As in the case of a prescription, the doctor "called in" his certification to the Hospice. Michael Schiavo could not admit her pursuant to his own wishes.
Terri Schiavo didn't die within the allotted six month time frame as dictated in the Medicare and Medicaid hospice requirements, however that is not the fault of either the doctor's or Michael Schiavo. It is the result of protracted litigation on the part of the Schindlers. That notwithstanding there are thousands of cases each year that the patient expected to expire within six months survives longer than the Medicare/Medicaid time constraint.
I would keep in mind that there is nothing shy about the Social Security Administration when it comes to prosecuting fraud cases. The fact that there have been no charges forthcoming speaks volumes in this matter.
"Greer took campaign contributions from MS's lawyers. In most courts I know of, this is an almost instant and immediate reason for a judge recusing himself from those attorney's cases. Greer did not do this, refusing five requests for his recusal."
Judge Greer did not accept campaign contributions from "MS's" lawyers, a campaign committee did. That committee held the funds and also supervised the use and disbursement of those funds. They also reported the contributions and who made them to the election commission. This is entirely legal under Florida Law and is not grounds for recusal. This is the same situation which exists in most if not all of the various states, including very likely your own state.
FDR, the new ideal
But then I would have to give the post #4524 the credit for that one./s
Well, your beginning of this sentence with "of course" does not make it true. There was a trial.
There was a trial. There were subsequent evidentiary hearings. There were appeals upon appeals, including one where the appellate court did a de novo review it did not have to do.
No guardianship case has ever received the degree of due process and attention from the courts that this one received. To say there was no trial is, simply stated, a falsehood.
I'm still having a problem with the answer to my post #4426. This worries me more than any of the other statements.
For Federal officials, who have not heard and deliberated the facts of an individual state case, to send in the marshalls because they "believe" the court made the wrong decision is about as far from conservative Madisonian government as one can imagine.
But, then again, there are posters on another thread calling Dick Cheney's conservatism into question because he doesn't agree that all the judges should be on the business end of a rope.
If this is where the bus is going, I'd rather walk.
Their rules require that the WPPPPFFFFT! members shall not respond to your post, as that would simply be feeding another troll or disrupter. So hypocritical of those seeking *enlightenment*...I have found the lot of 'em small-minded and bigoted.
I wish you'd nuke 'em, but it's not my site. I've repeatedly encouraged them to start their own site - the idea being that maybe then they'd realize not only how tough it is to establish something great, but also to illustrate exactly the kinds of people on the political spectrum who would be attracted to their groupthink. Chirp, chirp chirp. Alas, nobody took my advice....yet.
They are doing nothing to advance the goals of FR.
I've had that thought as well. I don't usually have that much time to post anyway. And I've tried to point out that this is a slippery slope that can slide either way.
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.