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.
Bump to your post.
LOL...
I heard he was losing his ability to swallow, which is common with Parkinson's. In his case he is lucid, and will be able to communicate his wishes (which I assume will be to continue his life).
Sorry the affidavits were from doctors that had not examined Terri Schiavo. Dr. Chesire oberserved her. His statment about her abilities came from a video that was made by Dr. Hassenfahr. An MD who methodology is suspect at best. Dr. Chershire states he did not observe any of the things he claimed she could do. He said he sensed that a person was in there. Sorry.
I'm not even sure they were admissible into evidence, since you can't cross examine an affidavit and the witnesses were available.
The judge had no choice but to ignore them. They were obviously thrown in as an afterthought.
What's double stupid is they had a chance to correct that mistake when they went back to Whittemore's court the second time. Did they learn?
It was not a process issue. A New set of eyes required. The Schindlers attorney met all FOUR of the prongs required for Injuctive relief, Whittmore upped the ante, to reach the conlcuion he wanted, rahter than the one the evidence dictated.
That is activism.
The affadavits only need to show a possibilty of success IN a new hearing.
you are claiming that the attorney should have argued a hearing that wasnt happening.
He was required to demonstrate a possibility of success, and the medical testimony does that.
Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but being in a situation is very different.
Poor Miss Cleo - having to jockey for position against all those other fundraising political parasites. At least, though, she'll know ahead of time if anyone will give her money ;0)
Merely read the Dissent in the 11th Circuit opinion.
Hadn't seen that...PET scans reveal a whole lot. I had been told there wasn't one. I am discovering the need of verification for a lot here before it passes muster with my historian's data sensor...
I did not see that- what I saw was a simple process question in regards her rights. Now then, the INTENT may have been other- but had the judge delved into those areas it would have gone past the very narrow question offered.
I don't think that's an accurate characterization.
Here are some of the objections to the assertion that the rule of law is being followed in this case:
1) The initial contest on the finding of fact was plainly a stacked deck and not a fair hearing. Michael Schiavo spent $400k+ on a top-flight specialist lawyer, while the Schindlers had a first-timer fresh out of law school. It wasn't an equitable contest - the outcome was effectively predetermined. This is a systemic problem in the judicial branch. I'm not sure how to solve it but it is clear that the result - which, in establishing the facts of the case irremediably, under the law - prejudiced all other appeals.
2) Legal procedures were ignored at the discretion of Judge Greer when they would have been beneficial to the Schindlers' case. Thus the rule of law is seen to be very selective, based largely on the personal opinion of the judge.
3) There are properly checks and balances in the government. The legislative check was essentially overruled by the judiciary, and the executive totally failed in its responsibility. Moreover, it appears that not only has the judiciary full command of the legislative authority up to and including issuing a Bill of Attainder under which Terri has been put to death, but also has assumed command of the local executive authority against the expressed intent of the Constitutional executive authority.
4) The appearance of corruption is evident in the campaign contribution record, and the record of relationships between Felos, the hospice, the euthanasia movement, and the third guardian ad litem.
5) The federal judiciary also nullified the federal legislature by denying-in-practice the de novo review called for in the law passed specifically to address this case. By denying a stay it also denied any possibility of a meaningful de novo review, rendering the law passed by Congress, and thus the will of the legislative branch, meaningless.
The Schindlers filed a motion for a TRO. The law does not require a mere possibility of success, as you erroneously claim. It explicitly requires a "substantial likelihood" of success on the merits. That is the law, and that is the standard applied by Whittemore and the 11th. No one "upped the ante."
Terri's law allowed a de novo review to determine whether there was a deprivation of Terri's Federal constitutional rights. It did not provide for a Federal court to de novo relitigate all issues in the state court cases, regardless of their relationship to Federal constitutional rights.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1373230/posts
Pope to be given a feeding tube....
Is David Duke doing anything? His career is past sagging and he could represent the Schindlers.
That is pretty common in late stage Parkinson's. It gets hard to eat enough because swallowing gets difficult.
If the patient clearly states this to be their wish, then their wish should be granted. Whether or not it's moral is between them and God.
If no, does that include even when the patient has stated their wishes?
See above.
Do you object to a feeding tube being removed Terri because it is not definite that she is PVS?
Yes.
Do you object to a feeding tube being removed from Terri because you do not believe the courts established that her wishes were suffiently know in this matter?
Yes.
Do you object to a feeding tube being removed from Terri because you don't trust her husband?
That's a loaded question, counselor. I don't trust the fact that he waited seven years to make her wishes known.
Would you like to be in Terri's condition for 15 years?
No, but having never been in that condition, I can't say it's not a life worth living. I suspect that, being in that condition, you come to appreciate the little things in life that you once took for granted. Like seeing someone you love smile at you, for example.
Do you want Congress to supercede your wishes if you have a Living Will?
See the answer to the first question.
But the Living Will issue is canard. There was no living will, hence, it has nothing to do with this case.
Ouch. ;0)
I had to choose between Duke and Edwin Edwards once in an election once...difficult choice...
His former VP candidate, Bo Gritz, went in instead.
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.