On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:02:53 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:0uekg1lm05f0a99kfs4g7a2cdpuumej77i@4ax.com:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:24:44 GMT, Ian Chesterton
<ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote:

DanielSan wrote:

Ian Chesterton wrote:

Clave wrote:

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:gPGdnYLlNYzffJ_eRVn-jQ@io.com...

"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302D6E5.70EB@spfd.com...

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Could someone explain to me why one mother is vilified by
righties, and the other was embraced?

You need to understand the politics of religious and political
conservatism to comprehend why sides have been taken here. As a
moderate conservative myself, I was duped by the fundies into
supporting Terry Schiavo's cause, which also meant I was
supporting her mother as well. Once the autopsy results were
released and many of us, including Senator Mel Martinez,
realized that the husband had been correct all along and that
most of what the fundies had been telling us was untrue,
I think alot of support for the religious conservatives was
lost, or at least I hope it was. Cindy Sheehan is another
matter. This is more about political conservatism, and were
Bush a Democrat and Sheehan a Republican, I have little doubt
that the Democrats would be villifying her just as the
Republicans are doing to her now. It's sad, but it's politics.

Except that there ARE mothers responding from the republican
camp, criticizing Sheehan, and the Democrats are NOT villifying
them.

Liberals don't consider difference of opinion to be treason.

Perhaps not, but they do have a tendency to attack any belief
which they feel is not politically correct.

Sounds like conservatives do it, too.

Of course they do it, too. Both sides are hypocrites when it comes to
free speech.

Laughing at you, oh liar for jaysuz.

So, what you're saying is, you agree with the claim that both sides are
hypocrites, and attack what they can't refute.

I mean, that's what *you* did, so you _must_ agree.

No, that is not what I did. I saw his 'statement' and laughed at the
liar for jaysuz.

Virgil wrote:

In article <4302EFB2.3F04@spfd.com>,
Ian Chesterton <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote:

Virgil wrote:

In article <4302E67B.526D@spfd.com>,
Ian Chesterton <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote:

Well point # 1: Of course republican mothers (not all, mind you)

criticizing Sheehan. Again, it's politics. Sheehan is seen as

another left-wing person who is attacking the President because of

iraq policies. The fact that she lost her son doesn't seem to

People are nervous that Sheehan's protest will damage Bush and the

Bush and the GOP are the ones who are nervous. People are split.

True, but if Bush and the GOP are nervous, wouldn't that also make
Bush's supporters nervous as well?

Is anyone outside the GOP a Bush supporter?

And, if so, is there any evidence that they are nervous?

When I said GOP, I meant the political machine. But in answer to your
question, yes there are Bush supporters outside the GOP. Ed Koch, Zell
Miller, William Donald Shaeffer- just to name a few. And are we to be
scientific now about politics in demanding evidence? That's a losing
proposition if I ever heard one.

Web wrote:

"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302D6E5.70EB@spfd.com...

You need to understand the politics of religious and political
conservatism to comprehend why sides have been taken here. As a
moderate conservative myself, I was duped by the fundies into
supporting
Terry Schiavo's cause,

You gotta explain that better. How could "fundies" dupe you? What did
they
say that made you vulnerable?

Well when you feel that it is important to err on the side of life on
the one hand, but on the other you'd prefer that the government stay out
of people's deeply personal end-of-life decisions, the Schiavo case
presents a sort of worst case scenario. The family, in violation of
Judge Greers orders, took video coverage of what now appears to have
been nothing but reflexive activity by a brain-dead and blind woman and
released the video to the press.

they jumped on this case faster than flies racing to beat each other to
the *****. Then came the accusations that Michael had ulterior motives,
that he may have been the cause of her being brain-damaged, and that he
may have abused her while she was in the hospice. And each time you
looked at the tv news, what did you see but randall Terry and Frank
Pavone telling us that Terry was being murdered by an abusive husband
who was living with another woman who he had had a child with.

of an end-of-life case like so many others than never receive any
attention, and rightfully so, the fundamentalists had turned this case
into one that seemed almost criminal.

judge who was determined to kill Terry no matter what. It was only
after the autopsy revealed that the parents and their fundie friends had
been wrong did I realize just how snowed many of us had been.

to see them deny what the autopsy had just told them was even more
despicable.

"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4303A56E.163F@spfd.com...

DH wrote:

"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302EE57.39B6@spfd.com...

Web wrote:

"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302D6E5.70EB@spfd.com...

You need to understand the politics of religious and political
conservatism to comprehend why sides have been taken here. As a
moderate conservative myself, I was duped by the fundies into

supporting

Terry Schiavo's cause,

You gotta explain that better. How could "fundies" dupe you? What

did

they

say that made you vulnerable?

Well when you feel that it is important to err on the side of life on
the one hand, but on the other you'd prefer that the government stay

out

of people's deeply personal end-of-life decisions, the Schiavo case
presents a sort of worst case scenario. The family, in violation of
Judge Greers orders, took video coverage of what now appears to have
been nothing but reflexive activity by a brain-dead and blind woman

and

released the video to the press. Once the fundamentalists saw this,
they jumped on this case faster than flies racing to beat each other

to

the *****. Then came the accusations that Michael had ulterior

motives,

that he may have been the cause of her being brain-damaged, and that

he

may have abused her while she was in the hospice. And each time you
looked at the tv news, what did you see but randall Terry and Frank
Pavone telling us that Terry was being murdered by an abusive husband
who was living with another woman who he had had a child with.

Instead

of an end-of-life case like so many others than never receive any
attention, and rightfully so, the fundamentalists had turned this case
into one that seemed almost criminal. Judge Greer became that monster
judge who was determined to kill Terry no matter what. It was only
after the autopsy revealed that the parents and their fundie friends

had

been wrong did I realize just how snowed many of us had been. And

then

to see them deny what the autopsy had just told them was even more
despicable.

That's rather disappointing. What Schiavo's parents and Randall Terry

(and

Bill Frist) were saying only made sense to one who already accepted the
premise that Judge Greer took a job on the bench because he liked

killing

helpless people.

And it was mixed up with the Conservative/Fundamentalist/NeoCon hatred

of

"intellectualism." Only that crowd would assume 60 seconds of chopped

and

scrambled video clips could possibly aid Bill Frist in reaching a

correct

diagnosis contrary to what physicians who had examined Terry Schiavo
personally and at length had reached.

Proof their 15 minutes of fame is over: I can't remember the name of

Terry

Schiavo's parents.

Terry's parents also brought out their own doctors who contradicted the
other doctors who were appointed by the court. That's what made the
case so difficult. Who do you believe when two different sets of
Doctors are telling you opposite things?

The news coverage I saw clearly showed that their doctors had almost as much
direct exposure to Terry Schiavo as Bill Frist had.

Like I said, the only way one could justify this was to start from the
assumption that Greer was a murderer and work back from there.

In the early '60's, '70's, maybe, medical science got ahead of jurisprudence
and started keeping people who were well and truly dead "alive." In the 30
or 40 years since, courts have been struggling with this problem and trying,
very hard, to safeguard the rights of the living and the dead.

Until 2004 when, in this case of political opportunism, a naked grab for
votes, a bunch of sleazy politicians with no regard for courts that deliver
inconvenient decisions got in the way of a long, careful and painful
judicial process. Frist proved himself a complete *****. Jeb Bush aspires to
be considered a complete *****. The President... well, the less said, the
better.

Hey, if it's such a Liberal media, how come we're not seeing clips of
Frist's "diagnosis" running side by side with the autopsy results?

And, if Bush could fly back to DC to sign the Schiavo bill last year, how
come he can't walk a couple hundred yards down the driveway to see what
Sheehan's questions are, now that the shock has worn off? Wouldn't a
Liberal media ask this question?