The latest twist in the Schiavo case.......

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Checks and balances, Mike, checks and balances.

 

My favorite quote...

“I understand y’all are murdering people in Troup County”

[Guest MikeSC]

Stupid Martinez. Almost had him beat back in November, but oh well. Way to look like a dumbass, Mel.

Could be worse. He could have promised to use Terri Schiavo in 2006 and 2008 like some anonymous Democrat did.

Dean Says Democrats Will Make Schiavo Case an Election Issue

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...ack=3&cset=true

-=Mike

...Funny, I thought the GOP was the party politicizing it...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

File this under "tying up loose ends"

 

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/11408758.htm

 

DCF finds no evidence Schiavo abused

 

By Vickie Chachere

 

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

TAMPA - The Department of Children & Families released dozens of pages of documents Friday showing it investigated complaints that Terri Schiavo was being abused and exploited by both sides of her family, but could find no evidence that she was.

 

The records of 89 complaints logged at DCF's abuse hot line date back to 2001 and included allegations that Schiavo, who at that point had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than a decade, was both being mistreated by her husband and her parents for financial gain.

 

The records were released under order from Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer at the request of The Tampa Tribune and the St. Petersburg Times. Schiavo died March 31, nearly two weeks after the feeding tube that had kept her alive for 15 years was removed by her husband Michael.

 

Courts ruled that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and had not wanted to be kept alive artificially. But her parents countered that she responded to them and had no such death wish, setting off a wave of political and legal action which failed to keep their daughter alive.

 

The records released do not include the subject of the most recent allegation under which the department sought a 60-day delay in the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube so it could investigate. Greer refused to allow the delay, and the matter is still pending before the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland.

 

Attorneys for both Michael Schiavo and Robert and Mary Schindler did not immediately return calls for comment Friday evening when the records were released.

 

One complaint alleged her parents were making money from selling videos of her through a Web site, while another caller complained that her husband wasn't spending money intended for Terri Schiavo's rehabilitation.

 

DCF investigators found no evidence that either her husband or parents were exploiting her, and often noted in its records that investigators found Terri Schiavo well cared for on their visits to her Pinellas Park hospice.

 

Some of the complaints were reported to the DCF hot line in the two previous times, in April 2001 and again in October 2003, when Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed and then reinserted after judicial and political intervention.

 

File the following under "Projection"

Funny, I thought the GOP was the party politicizing it

 

Of course, anybody who bothered to read anything more than the headline of the story would have read how this ties in more with opposing what the Republicans did in this case. (Strange how you find the LA times so reliable right now. Isn't it part of the evil MSM? I guess that's how the liberal media conspiracy~! rolls)

 

Maybe you could claim the Democrats politicized this issue by claiming the Republicans politicized it.

 

Any idea which party has members considering going after federal judges for not agreeing with them on the Schiavo case?

[Guest MikeSC]

File the following under "Projection"

Funny, I thought the GOP was the party politicizing it

Of course, anybody who bothered to read anything more than the headline of the story would have read how this ties in more with opposing what the Republicans did in this case. (Strange how you find the LA times so reliable right now. Isn't it part of the evil MSM? I guess that's how the liberal media conspiracy~! rolls)

 

Maybe you could claim the Democrats politicized this issue by claiming the Republicans politicized it.

No, it's simply Dean is every inch the idiot I expected him to be and is simply taking the Democratic Party even FARTHER from power than they are now.

 

And funny that you ignored the blatant politicizing of the case.

 

Well, not so much FUNNY as PAR FOR THE COURSE.

 

Republicans criticizing judges for making poor rulings is politicizing. Saying Delay wants to decide when you live and die ISN'T, apparently.

 

That how it goes?

 

"We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on," Dean said of the brain-damaged Floridian who died last month after her feeding tube was removed amid a swarm of political controversy.

"This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it's going to be an issue in 2008," Dean told about 200 people at a gay rights group's breakfast in West Hollywood, "because we're going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?' "

Dean, a practicing physician until he became governor of Vermont in 1991, added: "The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?"

The former presidential candidate said he had purposely avoided emphasizing the Schiavo case in recent weeks because Democrats needed "message discipline." In this case, he said, that means sticking to the fight against Bush's push to allow private investment accounts for Social Security benefits.

Any idea which party has members considering going after federal judges for not agreeing with them on the Schiavo case?

And I'm sure that is the whole story and not just a headline, right?

 

Right?

 

Thought not.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Republicans criticizing judges for making poor rulings is politicizing. Saying Delay wants to decide when you live and die ISN'T, apparently.

 

That how it goes?

 

You're the one claiming the opposite. (Of course, you're also assuming what I think about this)

 

I'd say the Republicans have politicized this case. The Dems would just respond to that politicizing.

 

You have ten ton balls for trying to claim the party politicizing this case is the Democrats. But then again, did we expect any thing less from you when it comes to projection?

[Guest MikeSC]

Republicans criticizing judges for making poor rulings is politicizing. Saying Delay wants to decide when you live and die ISN'T, apparently.

 

That how it goes?

 

You're the one claiming the opposite. (Of course, you're also assuming what I think about this)

 

I'd say the Republicans have politicized this case. The Dems would just respond to that politicizing.

 

You have ten ton balls for trying to claim the party politicizing this case is the Democrats. But then again, did we expect any thing less from you when it comes to projection?

Sorry, I haven't seen the Republicans stating that they intend to use the case as an issue in upcoming elections.

 

I have seen the head of the DNC openly state it.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Sorry, I haven't seen the Republicans stating that they intend to use the case as an issue in upcoming elections.

Obviously you don't get Mel Martinez's memos.

 

(especially regarding going after Bill Nelson over this in 2006)

 

[Vern Gagne 0]

That was someone who worked for Martinez. Martinez was just stupid enough, to give the memo to the Dems, without reading them.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Blah blah blah. I'm tired of this buck-passing.

 

And this thread really couldn't get any better in "new leaps of logic" for Mike, but it did. Awesome. I'm glad Dean isn't intending to let the Republicans who turned this into a charade just whitewash the public's memory, as they do with so many other hot-button issues. Calling them on their bullshit when it counts is perfectly acceptable.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Oh give me a break. To think any Senator is stupid enough to give the opposing party a memo..knowing how damaging it might be is kidding themselves.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh give me a break. To think any Senator is stupid enough to give the opposing party a memo..knowing how damaging it might be is kidding themselves.

I'm just loving that an anonymous first term Senator is, somehow, a Republican "leader".

 

But I hope to God the Dems make it an issue. I doubt the number of people who loved the idea of her being starved to death will quite match up to the number of people who were deeply offended by it.

 

Howard Dean: Reloading the gun aimed at his foot.

-=Mike

...Terri Schiavo: Politicizing her death is OK --- if you're a lib....

[EricMM 0]

oh come on Mike, Bush came out of this whole thing smelling like shit, everyone agrees.

 

No one wants the government involved in their medical care in this way, especially not the executive or legislative government.

 

The Dems will politicize all the attempts by the Reps to try and change the law. Whether or not you agree with how the courts ruled, I don't think anyone likes this idea of the government trying to go around its own checks and balances.

[Guest MikeSC]

oh come on Mike, Bush came out of this whole thing smelling like shit, everyone agrees.

No, he REALLY didn't. A recent Zogby (not a Bush supporter, mind you) poll showed that people actually SIDED with the Republicans on this issue.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentar...-4_9_05_DS.html

 

And don't even get me started on how shaky the "polls" were about the issue --- you know, the whole "Terri wasn't ON life support" thing and all...

No one wants the government involved in their medical care in this way, especially not the executive or legislative government.

And the case had nothing to do with medical care and more with a woman being starved to death without any hard proof of her desire to die nor a living will.

 

Do you think people like the idea of somebody just deciding to kill you?

 

Besides, the Dems voted FOR the bill to send it back to the courts, so they really have no leg to stand on.

The Dems will politicize all the attempts by the Reps to try and change the law.  Whether or not you agree with how the courts ruled, I don't think anyone likes this idea of the government trying to go around its own checks and balances.

They like even less the idea of somebody being starved to death on the word of her "husband" who had already started a second family.

 

Again, I PRAY the Dems use this issue. I would love to see more Republicans in Congress in 2006.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

No, he REALLY didn't. A recent Zogby poll showed that people actually SIDED with the Republicans on this issue.

 

And don't even get me started on how shaky the "polls" were about the issue --- you know, the whole "Terri wasn't ON life support" thing and all.

 

And two of the questions in the Zogby poll were:

 

“If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water.”

 

"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place.”

 

Besides, the Dems voted FOR the bill to send it back to the courts, so they really have no leg to stand on. 

 

When in doubt, pass the buck

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

That realclearpolitics link about the Zogby poll is pretty silly. Just look at the wording of the poll questions and the constant references to "a disabled person":

If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, not on life support and without a written end-of-life directive, should he or she be denied food and water? Among those polled, 80 percent said no.

Most people are smart enough to know that Terri Schiavo was not a "disabled person." To me, that's a quadriplegic, not a woman no longer capable of thought with no hope of recovery. Other polls refer to her by name, and to this case specifically. That's why they show anything but a populace that "sided with the Republicans on this issue."

 

The Zogby poll proves nothing except that, shockingly, we as a nation don't want to kill people in wheelchairs.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, he REALLY didn't. A recent Zogby poll showed that people actually SIDED with the Republicans on this issue.

 

And don't even get me started on how shaky the "polls" were about the issue --- you know, the whole "Terri wasn't ON life support" thing and all.

And two of the questions in the Zogby poll were:

 

“If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water.”

 

"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place.”

Which are actually 100% accurate questions.

 

You seem to miss that.

Most people are smart enough to know that Terri Schiavo was not a "disabled person."

She actually WAS a disabled person and disabled people groups opposed her treatment.

To me, that's a quadriplegic, not a woman no longer capable of thought with no hope of recovery.

Never heard of people with mental disabilities, eh?

Other polls refer to her by name, and to this case specifically. That's why they show anything but a populace that "sided with the Republicans on this issue."

 

The Zogby poll proves nothing except that, shockingly, we as a nation don't want to kill people in wheelchairs.

And the poll that shows such disapproval claimed she was on life support (she wasn't), etc.

-=Mike

...Funny, my complaints of the case are actually agreed by most people...

[CanadianChris 0]

That realclearpolitics link about the Zogby poll is pretty silly. Just look at the wording of the poll questions and the constant references to "a disabled person":

If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, not on life support and without a written end-of-life directive, should he or she be denied food and water? Among those polled, 80 percent said no.

I'm amazed it was that low. They did everything but tie a bit in the respondent's mouths and drag them to the "correct" answer.

 

I hate pollsters. One of the scummiest professions going.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Which are actually 100% accurate questions.

 

You seem to miss that.

 

It's amusing what qualifies as accurate and slanted to you.

 

Wasn't the conflicting evidence on her wishes along the lines of "She wouldn't want it, she's Catholic" (Parents) v. "She told us she didn't want to be that way" (Schiavos). The Parents claim on her intentions doesn't seem like quite enough to be evidence.

[SuperJerk 0]

I PRAY the Dems use this issue. I would love to see more Republicans in Congress in 2006.

I'm amused that Mike thinks this "issue" is important enough that it could decide the outcome of an election that is over 18 months away.

 

Especially considering most people thought she shouldn't be kept alive.

[Guest MikeSC]

Which are actually 100% accurate questions.

 

You seem to miss that.

It's amusing what qualifies as accurate and slanted to you.

 

Wasn't the conflicting evidence on her wishes along the lines of "She wouldn't want it, she's Catholic" (Parents) v. "She told us she didn't want to be that way" (Schiavos). The Parents claim on her intentions doesn't seem like quite enough to be evidence.

The questions were more accurate than the questions that showed people's "disgust", with such lies as "If somebody is on life support..." --- which she was not --- or pretending that there was anything resembling actual proof that she wanted to die.

 

All we know is this:

 

We do not know she wanted to die.

 

It's that simple. You cannot say she wanted to die because you do not know.

 

And when you ask people if somebody should be starved to death when there is no way to know if they wanted to die, they're not going to agree with what happened terribly often.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I PRAY the Dems use this issue. I would love to see more Republicans in Congress in 2006.

I'm amused that Mike thinks this "issue" is important enough that it could decide the outcome of an election that is over 18 months away.

 

Especially considering most people thought she shouldn't be kept alive.

No, they didn't believe that. They were given exceptionally leading and inaccurate questions (polls skewing results? Color me stunned).

 

Note that the Congress overwhelmingly passed the resolution sending it back to the Courts. The only thing Congressmen do well is know what the voters would like.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Especially considering most people thought she shouldn't be kept alive.

No, they didn't believe that. They were given exceptionally leading and inaccurate questions (polls skewing results? Color me stunned).

I'm going to assume that you conducted your own unbiased poll and came up with a different result? No? Then how can you actually know what people really believed?

 

 

Here's the "inaccurate" poll question:

 

"Do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo's feeding tube?"

 

63% said they supported it.

 

The question was framed with the statement:

"Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday."

 

Your insistance that the question itself and the framing of that question altered the result assumes that the people being asked the question either had no opinion on the case before they were called, or suddenly changed their minds when hearing the way the question was framed because the statement was so devastating biased that it forced people to change their minds.

 

Either scenario is highly implausible considering both how well publicized the case was, and because the framing statement was not at all biased.

 

edit: I also find it amusing that people who bitched about this poll question were so hung up on the term "life support" when the question itself used the more specific description of "feeding tube".

Edited April 18, 2005 by RobotJerk

[Art Sandusky 0]

I still don't know how anyone can say she wasn't on life support. I mean, it was removed and she died. There's no simpler way to put it.

[EricMM 0]

Look Mike, the only thing I'll concede is that a good spin doctor could turn this into an issue that makes the Dems look worse than the Reps (as you have spun it to yourself, you little spin doctor you)

 

BUT in a debate with two equal opponents more people are upset with the government trying to interfere with a caregiver's/spouse's medical counsel. As opposed to being upset that a braindead woman was allowed to die. Because people truely believe that she was braindead, because thats what most if not all of the doctors who weighed in have said. It's terribly sad, and there may well be people who wish she could have been saved. But the way that people went about doing it, was not very popular. ALSO, they didn't even SUCCEED! It works both ways.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Again, I PRAY the Dems use this issue. I would love to see more Republicans in Congress in 2006.

-=Mike

This is the same guy who used to stress that he hated the one-party system as much as everyone does and wished for nothing more than for the Dems to pull their heads out of their asses so they can get competitive again.

[Guest MikeSC]

Especially considering most people thought she shouldn't be kept alive.

No, they didn't believe that. They were given exceptionally leading and inaccurate questions (polls skewing results? Color me stunned).

I'm going to assume that you conducted your own unbiased poll and came up with a different result? No? Then how can you actually know what people really believed?

 

 

Here's the "inaccurate" poll question:

 

"Do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo's feeding tube?"

 

63% said they supported it.

 

The question was framed with the statement:

"Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday."

 

Your insistance that the question itself and the framing of that question altered the result assumes that the people being asked the question either had no opinion on the case before they were called, or suddenly changed their minds when hearing the way the question was framed because the statement was so devastating biased that it forced people to change their minds.

 

Either scenario is highly implausible considering both how well publicized the case was, and because the framing statement was not at all biased.

 

edit: I also find it amusing that people who bitched about this poll question were so hung up on the term "life support" when the question itself used the more specific description of "feeding tube".

The ironic part is that she WASN'T "on life support"(note the verbatim phrase "was on life support"). At least, not based on the definition of life support until, well, Terri's case.

 

And doctors don't universally agree with the sentiment that she had no consciousness. They never did.

This is the same guy who used to stress that he hated the one-party system as much as everyone does and wished for nothing more than for the Dems to pull their heads out of their asses so they can get competitive again.

The Dems are too fucking moronic to ever be trusted to do anything.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

no one practically agrees on anything, Mike.

 

But MOST of them agreed that she was personally gone. So I'll just have to go with the side with the most, best scientists. Hey, it's like that environmentalism thing.

 

But I kid I kid. Seriously. When you're scientifically in the minority, could it possibly be that you're scientifically WRONG, no matter what you want to believe.

[Guest MikeSC]

no one practically agrees on anything, Mike.

 

But MOST of them agreed that she was personally gone. So I'll just have to go with the side with the most, best scientists. Hey, it's like that environmentalism thing.

No, they didn't. "Most" of the "experts" couldn't read a CAT scan to save their lives.

 

Neurologists don't read CAT scans. They don't know how to.

But I kid I kid.  Seriously.  When you're scientifically in the minority, could it possibly be that you're scientifically WRONG, no matter what you want to believe.

The "best" scientists view environmentalism as the sham of a religion wannabe that it is. And the "best" scientists need to include people who can actually read a CAT scan.

-=Mikr

[EricMM 0]

No offense Mike,

 

well you can take all the offense from this you want,

 

but you are the absolute LAST person I, or I assume almost anyone who ever posts here, would go to for any sort of fucking scientific advice, especially when it might be remotely political.

 

We might go to you for the latest republican line, but not much else guy.

[Guest MikeSC]

No offense Mike,

 

well you can take all the offense from this you want,

 

but you are the absolute LAST person I, or I assume almost anyone who ever posts here, would go to for any sort of fucking scientific advice, especially when it might be remotely political.

 

We might go to you for the latest republican line, but not much else guy.

Judging by your support of environmentalism, you really are in no place to criticize anybody for not being much for science.

-=Mike

...Now, if somebody wanted to know about something to replace faith, you'd be high on the list...