MANIFESTO OF THE WPPFF/WILD TURKEYS/COALITION OF THE SANE

Me. | 29MARCH05 | Long Cut

[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.

[G.Mason]

"I think I actually preferred listening to Rush when he was doped to the gills... ;0)"

It was better that what has emerged from this egg he has laid.

Hey, he had a good run. Time for a change. ;)

[lugsoul]

You should be more clear about what you are saying. Dr. Frist clearly states that Congressional INTENT was that a stay would be discretionary. He states that his own ASSUMPTION is that a Federal Court would grant a stay.

As much as Dr. Frist may wish it were, his own assumption is not tantamount to the intent of Congress.

[EveningStar]

Long Cut,

I've read your manifesto and I agree with much of it. However, I do have some concerns.

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.

Does this mean that non-WPPFF threads are not worth participating in?

posting unending vanities

I've posted some vanities on Terri Schiavo myself - in the "front room", no less.

What I'm saying is that I would hate to see the WPPFF end up as yet another FR self-agrandizing circle jerk.

[thoughtomator]

I find it self-evident that if she wanted to die she would not have survived her 9th, 10th, and 11th days of forced dehydration and starvation.

[hobbes1]

In fact Carnes and Hull expose their own duplicity. They go on to say that...

This enlightening exchange does not contradict the plain meaning of Pub. L.

No. 109-3, but instead reinforces it. Plainly, Congress knew how to change the law

to favor these plaintiffs to the extent that it collectively wished to do so. That is

what the changes it did make, including those to standing law, the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, and abstention, demonstrate. When Congress explicitly modifies some

pre-existing rules of law applicable to a subject but says nothing about other rules

of law, the only reasonable reading is that Congress meant no change in the rules it

did not mention. The dissent characterizes the language of the Act as clear. It is on

this point: the language of the Act clearly does not purport to change the law

concerning issuance of temporary or preliminary relief.

In order to get there they had to ignore the very colloquy they qutoed to wit:

Mr. LEVIN. In light of that assurance, I do not object to the

unanimous consent agreement under which the bill will be considered

by the Senate. I do not make the same assumption as the majority

leader makes about what a Federal court will do. Because the

discretion of the Federal court is left unrestricted in this bill, I will not

exercise my right to block its consideration.

They chose to Ignore altogether the fact that the Shall was dropped to prevent blockage, not to enhance the Courts discretion.

That is Clearly Activism.

[mountaineer]

When someone testifies in court, the "finder of fact" - whether the judge or a jury - determines the credibility of that witness. If MS testified that Terri said she wouldn't want a feeding tube, there's no evidence to contradict the statement, and the finder of fact found his testimony credible, then it is accepted as fact and may be factored into the verdict or ruling. If we can reject court decrees just because we don't happen to like the outcome, regardless of the evidence, there is anarchy. I reject anarchy, and I'm pretty sure our founding fathers would, too.

[DCPatriot]

I don't think they've ever found a cure for bad lawyers....

Shakespeare said it best.

[thoughtomator]

Ok I'll grant I need to do more research to convincingly support that point. However, I still have 3 of 5 of my original objections that you have not addressed. Moreover, even if all these objections as to adjudication are satisfied, I will still ask whether the decision in Dred Scott was correct due to the fact that it was determined with full due process and conducted according to law.

[G.Mason]

"Do you think it's because he is boring? JMHO"

Yes, but I only have him on this cheap old radio/tape player to make some noise in the garage while I'm busy working on something.

I think I'll break down and get a cheap CD player for the garage and listen to some Bob Seger, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Molly Hatchett , etc. etc. ;)

[hobbes1]

Now you're reaching for straws. Frist clearly says that the intent of Congress, is for a new hearing, from scratch, and that for that to happen Terri should be alive.

And yes, that is what Frist was going over in the colloquoy. HE is only the Senate Majority Leader, so when he is Sheparding a Bill thru passage, he clearly speaks to the intent of the bill.

[hobbes1]

I tried that same line of reasoning with the Bush v Gore, and SCOFLA with CJ Wells in the minority.....He wont go there.

[Indy Pendance]

Have a great time! I'll give you a dollar, bet it for me, alright????

[annyokie]

You're a great American, G. (Sean Hannity cliche off)

Mr. Okie recently put a radio with a cassette player in the RTV. I'm liking it.

[thoughtomator]

I will never be able to accept a position grounded in the infallibility of judges. They are only men.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Thomas Sowell the other day called the law a blunt instrument at best, but sometimes it's the only instrument available. And it's approximation of justice is often the best you will be able to get, even if you don't like the results.

[lugsoul]

No. Dred Scott was not a procedural issue. The state was denying a fundamental constitutional right.

You only get there in this case if you establish that Terri did not want the cessation of life-sustaining care.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

With Terri's mental capacity being what it is today, how can anyone surmise that she would gather up the will to live or to die today? I don't think this is what the case is about. The crux of the matter is that she never had a living will, thus her fate is in the hands of others who have determined that she wouldn't want to linger.

[Stakka Skynet]

"I'm in the WPPFF."

That's Whiny Progressives in a Perpetual Fugue of Foolishness.

[hobbes1]

I am not even asking them to go that far. I am asking why SCOFLA is engaging in Activism in 2000, but these guys arent.




FCOL, they are hanging their hat on Carl Levin, maybe lugsoul could tell us if Senator Levin has recently become enamored of
textualists, or is he still an Activist man ?

[Chad Fairbanks]

What I'm saying is that I would hate to see the WPPFF end up as yet another FR self-agrandizing circle jerk.

When ya get right down to it, isn't pretty much everything on FR a 'self-agrandizing circle jerk', whether it be the Schiavo threads, CrEvo threads, immigration threads, WoSD Threads, etc... etc...?

;0)