#277
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:23pm
This SHOULDN'T have anything to do with politics but unfortunately has turned into a political firestorm. I am sickened by the actions of our Congress, President and his brother. Thankfully, it looks like the end is approaching.
The truly beautiful should be lawfully restricted from wearing clothing; and the truly butt-ugly should be lawfully mandated from going naked.
#278
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:23pm
Why, thank you, DG. Coming from you, I am touched.
I'll go rinse my hair in rain water and dry it with whispered adoration now.
I'll go rinse my hair in rain water and dry it with whispered adoration now.
#279
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:23pm
Terri was married five years when this happened. I would venture to guess that she was trying to keep her weight, if in fact the bullimia is even true. Perhaps he commented on her weight and she became self conscious. No one really knows what happened. To blame her parents for her bullimia is absurd.
#280
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:23pm
I do want to ask a sserious question. As I read through most of this thread, I saw over and over, statements saying this woman should be allowed to die in peace and with dignity. I saw many statements to the effect that her situation has been turned into a public spectacle. I see the same people who post these statements continuing to mainatin religious and political arguments in this thread.
Is there a difference that I am missing? I am not being sarcastic, I really don't see what makes anyone here different from those they are complaining about and would love it if someone can explain. Aren't many of you using this forum and this unfortunate families misery to spout off your own political or religious agenda?
Is there a difference that I am missing? I am not being sarcastic, I really don't see what makes anyone here different from those they are complaining about and would love it if someone can explain. Aren't many of you using this forum and this unfortunate families misery to spout off your own political or religious agenda?
#281
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:23pm
DGrant, I was only reporting what a health professional told me. Of course not all eating disorders can be blamed on the parents. But it is a recurring symptom. I was pointing out that the irony in this case is never ending.
PEACE.
#282
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:26pm
Nina, if it is good enough for the politicians to "spout off {their} own political or religious agenda," why shouldn't those on this board be permitted to as well?
The truly beautiful should be lawfully restricted from wearing clothing; and the truly butt-ugly should be lawfully mandated from going naked.
Updated On: 3/24/05 at 02:26 PM
#283
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:27pm
God indeed does PM with me, Nina. And I put in a good word for you!
He and I had a long chat last night about the Sondheim benefit. He is very, very angry at Patti LuPone but is giving her one last chance because she was so "fabulous" (God's a BIG fag) in Evita. He was more forgiving about Tonya Pinkins's "Another Hundred People." He kinda LIKED it, He said.
By the way, unlike me, God LIKES Andrew Lloyd Webber. Just because he's God doesn't mean he always has good taste.
He and I had a long chat last night about the Sondheim benefit. He is very, very angry at Patti LuPone but is giving her one last chance because she was so "fabulous" (God's a BIG fag) in Evita. He was more forgiving about Tonya Pinkins's "Another Hundred People." He kinda LIKED it, He said.
By the way, unlike me, God LIKES Andrew Lloyd Webber. Just because he's God doesn't mean he always has good taste.
Updated On: 3/24/05 at 02:27 PM
#284
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:27pm
No one's blaming her parents, which is just the thing. Every finger's pointing at her husband as an opportunistic, greedy, adulterous troll.
Clearly, however, there's little evidence to support an actual case of abuse or any kind of evil intent towards Terri. Don't you think the family would have gone that route if there were?
Still, it hasn't stopped the Right from bringing it up. I feel, in the interest of real discourse, if we're going to question his motives, then why not theirs?
Clearly, however, there's little evidence to support an actual case of abuse or any kind of evil intent towards Terri. Don't you think the family would have gone that route if there were?
Still, it hasn't stopped the Right from bringing it up. I feel, in the interest of real discourse, if we're going to question his motives, then why not theirs?
#285
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:27pm
The whole situation is sad. Everyone is in so much pain. If only we could ease it up. Let terri go. A true christian would believe that her soul will find happiness and peace after death.
#286
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:29pm
I'm not saying people shouldn't. However, it is hypocritical to do so while bitching about others making a spectacle of this terrible situation. Someon can off all they want but be honest that this is what they are doing. Don't condemn others while doing exactly the same thing.
#287
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:33pm
Okay, Nina. You're right. When you're right, you're right.
It's not Terri's parents who have made a circus of this. It's all PALJOEY's fault. I apologize for making a circus, to paraphrase Sondheim, where there never was a circus.
It's not Terri's parents who have made a circus of this. It's all PALJOEY's fault. I apologize for making a circus, to paraphrase Sondheim, where there never was a circus.
#288
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:33pm
The people on this site proclaiming the woman's right-to-die are not the ones who raised the ruckus, Nina. However, in the interest of fighting off the special interests of our current administration, it becomes necessary to argue back and just as loudly.
I would have never ventured my opinion on this case until it had been blown to such ungodly proportions as it now has. And, since my favorite person to hate, Ann Coulter, has weighed in, I feel even better about saying what I want to say and, when necessary, using my third grade debate tactics, as was so eloquently put.
I would have never ventured my opinion on this case until it had been blown to such ungodly proportions as it now has. And, since my favorite person to hate, Ann Coulter, has weighed in, I feel even better about saying what I want to say and, when necessary, using my third grade debate tactics, as was so eloquently put.
#289
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:35pm
"God indeed does PM with me, Nina. And I put in a good word for you!"
Thank you PJ, sweetie. I'll return the favor and put in a good word for you with Satan.
Thank you PJ, sweetie. I'll return the favor and put in a good word for you with Satan.
#290
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:36pm
Nina,
Though I understand in theory, there is a big difference between folks sitting behind a computer and spouting off their personal beliefs and politicians undermining the separation of powers clause in the Constitution for their political gain. It should be of cause for great concern to every American that the Constitution has been under constant attack during the current Administration. Someone needs to tell me how creating a law expressly and solely for Terry Schiavo's parents isn't granting 'special rights'. It's appalling.
Though I understand in theory, there is a big difference between folks sitting behind a computer and spouting off their personal beliefs and politicians undermining the separation of powers clause in the Constitution for their political gain. It should be of cause for great concern to every American that the Constitution has been under constant attack during the current Administration. Someone needs to tell me how creating a law expressly and solely for Terry Schiavo's parents isn't granting 'special rights'. It's appalling.
"I'm so looking forward to a time when all the Reagan Democrats are dead."
#292
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:37pm
Oh, Nina, Satan and I have an INTIMATE relationship. Who do you think took him to see Bring Back Birdie?
#293
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:40pm
Robbie (chicken hawk)
Absolutely! What gets me is that these “conservatives” supporting the bill do not understand that if such a bill passes constitutional muster, then there would be nothing to prevent the Congress from passing a bill to compel the removal of a feeding tube or to compel a woman to have an abortion. I wish that the Supreme Court would have taken the case for the simply fact seeing how Scalia would address the issue??
Absolutely! What gets me is that these “conservatives” supporting the bill do not understand that if such a bill passes constitutional muster, then there would be nothing to prevent the Congress from passing a bill to compel the removal of a feeding tube or to compel a woman to have an abortion. I wish that the Supreme Court would have taken the case for the simply fact seeing how Scalia would address the issue??
#294
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:44pm
Gotta love those "special rights" given to her parents.
Can't wait to hear the explanations that are given when others try to apply those special rights to their situations.
Yeah, yeah, they said it's not a legal precedent...but - come on! - give it time, there will be court challenges using it as an example.
Don't like the verdict in the State Courts? Take it to the Federal Courts.
Wasn't this administration trying to reduce the number of lawsuits?
And sorry, Nina, in all honestly, I believe that stating an opinion on a website is a vastly different from sending in your child to be arrested for trying to bring a cup of water to Terri.
Can't wait to hear the explanations that are given when others try to apply those special rights to their situations.
Yeah, yeah, they said it's not a legal precedent...but - come on! - give it time, there will be court challenges using it as an example.
Don't like the verdict in the State Courts? Take it to the Federal Courts.
Wasn't this administration trying to reduce the number of lawsuits?
And sorry, Nina, in all honestly, I believe that stating an opinion on a website is a vastly different from sending in your child to be arrested for trying to bring a cup of water to Terri.
Updated On: 3/24/05 at 02:44 PM
#295
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:51pm
The Schindlers talk a lot about Michael's money. Daily Kos has this report on the SCHINDLER's money.
====
The Terri Schiavo Case: Following the Money
The Recorder
By Jon B. Eisenberg
March 4, 2005
Have you ever wondered who is bankrolling the seemingly endless courtroom effort to keep Terri Schiavo's feeding tube attached?
I did some Internet research and learned that many of the attorneys, activists and organizations working to keep Schiavo on life support all these years have been funded by members of the Philanthropy Roundtable.
The Philanthropy Roundtable is a collection of foundations that have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. The Roundtable members' founders include scions of America's wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products).
Using just that Web site and the Schindlers' own site, terrisfight.org, I learned of a network of funding connections between some of the Philanthropy Roundtable's members and various organizations behind the Schindlers, their lawyers and supporters, and the lawyers who represented Gov. Bush in Bush v. Schiavo.
Here are a few examples:
Schindler lawyer Pat Anderson "was paid directly" by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent over $300,000 on this case," according to the foundation's Web site. Much of the support for Life Legal Defense Foundation, in turn, comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay rights group which collected more than $15 million in private donations in 2002 and admits to having spent money on the Schiavo case "in the six figures," according to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post. Mediatransparency.org states that between 1994 and 2002, the Alliance Defense Fund received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation.
Wesley Smith and Rita Marker also work for organizations that get funding from Roundtable members. Smith is a paid senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that advocates the teaching of creationist "intelligent design" theory in public schools. Between 1993 and 1997, the Discovery Institute received $175,000 from the Bradley Foundation. Marker is executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia, which lobbies against physician-assisted suicide. In 2001, Marker's organization received $110,390 from the Randolph Foundation, an affiliate of the Smith Richardson family.
Roundtable members also played a role in financing the Bush v. Schiavo litigation.
The Family Research Council, which uses its annual $10 million budget to lobby for prayer in public schools and against gay marriage, filed an amicus curiae brief in Bush v. Schiavo supporting Gov. Bush, at the same time its former president, attorney Kenneth Connor, was representing the governor in that litigation. Between 1992 and 2000, the council received $215,000 from the Bradley Foundation.
Another amicus brief backing Bush was filed by a coalition of disability rights organizations that included the National Organization on Disability and the World Institute on Disability. The former received $810,000 between 1991 and 2002 from the Scaife Family Foundations, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the JM Foundation; the latter received $20,000 in 1997 from the JM Foundation.
These connections may be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no Woodward or Bernstein. I got this information using only the most rudimentary Google skills. I imagine that a thorough search by a seasoned investigator would yield quite a bit more.
With this kind of big bucks behind them, it's no wonder the Schindlers and their allies have been able to keep the legal fight over their daughter going for so long.
Maneuvers within the past few months have included requests for a new trial based on something the Pope said in a speech criticizing the removal of feeding tubes from persistent vegetative state patients, and on a newly minted claim that Terri was deprived of the right to independent court-appointed counsel. Those maneuvers achieved the desired delay but were ultimately unsuccessful. On Feb. 25, the trial judge, George Greer, ordered Terri's feeding tube to be removed March 18.
On Feb. 28, however, the Schindlers struck back by filing 15 written motions and requesting 48 hours of court hearing time. These motions run an extraordinary gamut, from a suggestion that Judge Greer should order Terri and Michael Schiavo be immediately divorced, to a request for "limited media access" to Terri, to a proposal for a 20-hour evidentiary hearing on Terri's "medical/psychiatric/rehabilitative status." The ploy is obvious: still more delay.
There is something wrong here. The Florida courts have ruled repeatedly -- based on her doctors' testimony and evidence of statements she previously made about her end-of-life wishes -- that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, would not want her life to be prolonged under such circumstances, and should be allowed to die as the courts have determined she would wish. But the conservative foundations, with their massive funding, have turned the Schiavo case into a war of attrition, where delay is victory.
They have met defeat in the U.S. Supreme Court. But they won't give up, and they have the cash it takes to out-gun Michael Schiavo on every front. It is going to take yet more judicial courage to ensure that the rule of law prevails over big money. That will require Judge Greer to reject the latest round of delaying motions, and the Florida Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to back him up.
Money Trail in the Schiavo Case: Bioethics for Sale?
====
The Terri Schiavo Case: Following the Money
The Recorder
By Jon B. Eisenberg
March 4, 2005
Have you ever wondered who is bankrolling the seemingly endless courtroom effort to keep Terri Schiavo's feeding tube attached?
I did some Internet research and learned that many of the attorneys, activists and organizations working to keep Schiavo on life support all these years have been funded by members of the Philanthropy Roundtable.
The Philanthropy Roundtable is a collection of foundations that have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. The Roundtable members' founders include scions of America's wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products).
Using just that Web site and the Schindlers' own site, terrisfight.org, I learned of a network of funding connections between some of the Philanthropy Roundtable's members and various organizations behind the Schindlers, their lawyers and supporters, and the lawyers who represented Gov. Bush in Bush v. Schiavo.
Here are a few examples:
Schindler lawyer Pat Anderson "was paid directly" by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent over $300,000 on this case," according to the foundation's Web site. Much of the support for Life Legal Defense Foundation, in turn, comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay rights group which collected more than $15 million in private donations in 2002 and admits to having spent money on the Schiavo case "in the six figures," according to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post. Mediatransparency.org states that between 1994 and 2002, the Alliance Defense Fund received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation.
Wesley Smith and Rita Marker also work for organizations that get funding from Roundtable members. Smith is a paid senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that advocates the teaching of creationist "intelligent design" theory in public schools. Between 1993 and 1997, the Discovery Institute received $175,000 from the Bradley Foundation. Marker is executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia, which lobbies against physician-assisted suicide. In 2001, Marker's organization received $110,390 from the Randolph Foundation, an affiliate of the Smith Richardson family.
Roundtable members also played a role in financing the Bush v. Schiavo litigation.
The Family Research Council, which uses its annual $10 million budget to lobby for prayer in public schools and against gay marriage, filed an amicus curiae brief in Bush v. Schiavo supporting Gov. Bush, at the same time its former president, attorney Kenneth Connor, was representing the governor in that litigation. Between 1992 and 2000, the council received $215,000 from the Bradley Foundation.
Another amicus brief backing Bush was filed by a coalition of disability rights organizations that included the National Organization on Disability and the World Institute on Disability. The former received $810,000 between 1991 and 2002 from the Scaife Family Foundations, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the JM Foundation; the latter received $20,000 in 1997 from the JM Foundation.
These connections may be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no Woodward or Bernstein. I got this information using only the most rudimentary Google skills. I imagine that a thorough search by a seasoned investigator would yield quite a bit more.
With this kind of big bucks behind them, it's no wonder the Schindlers and their allies have been able to keep the legal fight over their daughter going for so long.
Maneuvers within the past few months have included requests for a new trial based on something the Pope said in a speech criticizing the removal of feeding tubes from persistent vegetative state patients, and on a newly minted claim that Terri was deprived of the right to independent court-appointed counsel. Those maneuvers achieved the desired delay but were ultimately unsuccessful. On Feb. 25, the trial judge, George Greer, ordered Terri's feeding tube to be removed March 18.
On Feb. 28, however, the Schindlers struck back by filing 15 written motions and requesting 48 hours of court hearing time. These motions run an extraordinary gamut, from a suggestion that Judge Greer should order Terri and Michael Schiavo be immediately divorced, to a request for "limited media access" to Terri, to a proposal for a 20-hour evidentiary hearing on Terri's "medical/psychiatric/rehabilitative status." The ploy is obvious: still more delay.
There is something wrong here. The Florida courts have ruled repeatedly -- based on her doctors' testimony and evidence of statements she previously made about her end-of-life wishes -- that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, would not want her life to be prolonged under such circumstances, and should be allowed to die as the courts have determined she would wish. But the conservative foundations, with their massive funding, have turned the Schiavo case into a war of attrition, where delay is victory.
They have met defeat in the U.S. Supreme Court. But they won't give up, and they have the cash it takes to out-gun Michael Schiavo on every front. It is going to take yet more judicial courage to ensure that the rule of law prevails over big money. That will require Judge Greer to reject the latest round of delaying motions, and the Florida Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to back him up.
Money Trail in the Schiavo Case: Bioethics for Sale?
Updated On: 3/24/05 at 02:51 PM
#297
Posted: 3/24/05 at 2:56pm
Robbie, I could accept what you are saying if everyone sitting behind the computer actually ever got off their butts and did something other than bitch.
I have a suspicion, and I could be wrong, that many of those who are gallantly speaking up against the politicians and are defending their political pov are doing so only in this thread.
I have a suspicion, and I could be wrong, that many of those who are gallantly speaking up against the politicians and are defending their political pov are doing so only in this thread.
#298
Posted: 3/24/05 at 3:00pm
Actually, Nina, I wrote my senators encouraging them to vote no on any legislation. I do that. I'm political. I don't believe in bitching about something when I have absolutely no thought of doing what I can.
However, since I'm not a large slush fund keyed towards Right-wing interests, I can't donate anything more than my voice. Which I do. As loudly as the slush fund guys are donating theirs.
However, since I'm not a large slush fund keyed towards Right-wing interests, I can't donate anything more than my voice. Which I do. As loudly as the slush fund guys are donating theirs.
#299
Posted: 3/24/05 at 3:09pm
Nina: Give it a God damned rest. We get what you're saying, but you're truly annoying and are acting as if you're the perfect individual that everyone should aspire to be. Now, I may be wrong, you might just be little Miss Manners, but you are VERY irritating in this thread.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
BroadwayWorld TV
Ticket Central
