The Schiavo issue

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

This issue, more than anything else, demonstrates just how powerful a stranglehold the far, far religious right has on Mr. Bush's nuts. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there would be no President Dubya if it weren't for the fundamentalists who bought his bs early on.


Link (It's funny that Bush was against big government until he took possession of the hammer.)

As far as big government, couldn't agree with you more. I am increasingly disturbed by such antics as the medicare prescription drug program. I have said before and say again that he spends too much money. (Now, before anyone starts in on Iraq and the expenditures there, as I consider national defense to be the main purpose of the federal government and did consider it to be worthwhile - a different debate, certainly - I do not include that in my disgust over over spending.)

Is it that Bush is beholden to the religious right or that Bush believes it? It is well known that Bush was a drunken partier long ago and had a "conversion experience". I realize that neither of these are acceptable to you Sac, but I think he is not so much beholden to them as he is a "believer" himself. So I doubt it is any sort of political payoff - I think he's doing what he thinks is right. And it is well within his purview to sign the bill, which was well within the purview of congress to pass (see my reference to the constitution in an earlier post).

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Is it that Bush is beholden to the religious right or that Bush believes it? It is well known that Bush was a drunken partier long ago and had a "conversion experience". I realize that neither of these are acceptable to you Sac, but I think he is not so much beholden to them as he is a "believer" himself. So I doubt it is any sort of political payoff - I think he's doing what he thinks is right. And it is well within his purview to sign the bill, which was well within the purview of congress to pass (see my reference to the constitution in an earlier post).

I'm not exactly comfortable questioning a person's faith, and, believe it or not, that includes Bush. All I can go by is a person's actions. Bush's actions (And I've been watching him a long time. A lot longer than most Bush supporters in fact -- since back when he owned the Texas Rangers) do not lead me to believe he would cross the street to save someone's life, let alone cut short a vacation and fly back to Washington to do it. My opinion, of course. YMMV.

[Claire]

It doesn't help that the most vocal people who believe Carla Iyer's stories also believe that "Scientology Controlled Downtown Clearwater" is responsible for wanting Terri to die.

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

I'm sorry, but a lot of the "groups" supporting the Schindlers all sound like whack jobs, which is NOT helping Terri's parents' case. If they were less zealous sounding, perhaps they'd have some credibility. I really don't think that letting Terri die is a conspiracy cooked up by any one group of people.....does anyone here?

I read Carla Iyer's statements and I can't keep but rolling my eyes at her descriptions of Terri talking or responding. I haven't read any other accounts that are even close to hers. And the good Dr. Hammesfahr is full of bull ("God leaves no one behind" is his institute's mission statement). The judge counted all the stimulus commands versus her responses and it looked to me that any kind of responses that she had were involuntary.....and that's been the opinion of dozens of medical experts.

Below is from a 2002 ruling:

Dr. Hammesfahr testified that he felt that he was able to get Terri Schiavo to reproduce repeatedly to his commands. However, by the court's count, he gave 105 commands to Terri Schiavo and, at his direction, Mrs. Schindler gave an additional six commands. Again, by the court's count, he asked her 61 questions and Mrs. Schindler, at his direction, asked her an additional 11 questions. The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions. The videographer focused on her hands when Dr. Hammesfahr was asking her to squeeze. While Dr. Hammesfahr testified that she squeezed his finger on command, the video would not appear to support that and his reaction on the video likewise would not appear to support that testimony.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/...order11-02.txt

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It is well known that Bush was a drunken partier long ago and had a "conversion experience". I realize that neither of these are acceptable to you Sac

For the record, neither of these things would preclude me from voting for, or supporting, a presidential candidate. But that candidate's faith should not be worn on his sleeve as if it were a badge of honor. Not if he wanted my vote.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Alright, enough of this fluff. Let's focus on the REAL issue. How the hell do you pronunce that name? Is it "she-aw-vo" which is how it's spelled and how I read it? Or is it "shy-vo" which is how I've heard most people pronounce it?

[Scrooge McSam]

Thanks for that, Prudence.

I was already familiar with Dr. Hammesfahr, so I wasn't going to spend much time knocking down that paper tiger.

The Carla Iyer info, though, is disturbing. I'm having trouble finding whether this information even made it into court.

If it didn't, why not? If it did, was it rejected?

Anyone?

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

The Carla Iyer info, though, is disturbing. I'm having trouble finding whether this information even made it into court.

If it didn't, why not? If it did, was it rejected?

Anyone?

I think her sworn statements speak for themselves.


7. Terri's medical condition was systematically distorted and
misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert
and oriented.


Alert and oriented....Aflac!!!

[Nephythys]

In reference to the link- I was not even referring to the Dr's report (in fact I did not read the article myself- so I am not about to even debate it)- I was specifically focused on Rachel's commentary and on the nurses affidavit- so this paper tiger was a construct of your own imagination, not my intentional set-up. It was not the purpose of my link- so quibble all you like about the Dr.

The nurses information however seems highly explosive- so the question of why more is not being made of it is very pertinent.

(It's shy-vo)


In the interest ot providing another side to the story-Nurses Affidavit dismissed as "incredible"

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

In reference to the link- I was not even referring to the Dr's report (in fact I did not read the article myself- so I am not about to even debate it)- I was specifically focused on Rachel's commentary and on the nurses affidavit- so this paper tiger was a construct of your own imagination, not my intentional set-up. It was not the purpose of my link- so quibble all you like about the Dr.

You posted a URL you labelled as "links" (note the plural) to "lots of good points." The doctor bit was the first thing on there when I followed the URL this morning. How dare I actually *READ* what was posted via a link you describe as "lots of good points"! How dare I look at everything there when, despite your use of the plural, you only wanted people to look at one specific item carefully chosen to showcase your agenda! Well of course we don't want to debate that; that would just be silly!

Perhaps you'd like to borrow my tinfoil hat? My paper tiger did nibble on the edges a bit, but it still works just as well as it always did.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Prudence

You posted a URL you labelled as "links" (note the plural) to "lots of good points." The doctor bit was the first thing on there when I followed the URL this morning. How dare I actually *READ* what was posted via a link you describe as "lots of good points"! How dare I look at everything there when, despite your use of the plural, you only wanted people to look at one specific item carefully chosen to showcase your agenda! Well of course we don't want to debate that; that would just be silly!

Perhaps you'd like to borrow my tinfoil hat? My paper tiger did nibble on the edges a bit, but it still works just as well as it always did.

Spare me- please. I was just saying that even I did not read the article on the Dr- so I was not going to debate it- and I did specifically point out the nurses statement. I am not showcasing anything- especially since it was ME who posted the article about the nurses statement being dismissed. And I am certainly allowed to post things that suit my view- you are not being forced to do diddly.

You know- I am used to swimming with the big bad liberal sharks here and am also used to being the guppy and I am used to getting my guppy ass beat up around here (even when I'm right )- but I don't appreciate your tone. You did not even make the paper tiger comment- but the person who did doesn't feel the need to insult me. I fail to see why you do?