Americans support life

[manu1959]

Well, let's have ABC or PBS write it, then:

Do you find polls, A) an expression of your innate intelligence and compassion, B) an absolutely vital function to the democratic process, or C) an orgasmic experience?

i like my question cuz iwill bet you a paycheck that someone would answer it....

why yes i thought the pope was a great man


ill get me coat

 

[OCA]

OCA, I tend to believe you. Question for you though, while not agreeing with the 'power grab' were the majority for the feeding tube being left in place or returned? At minimum, allowing an attempt to give water, ice chips, jello, anything?

I think that most, even I, would've liked to see, if it were true that there was still a chance medically(which I don't believe but hey maybe you get 1 doctor, an expert in the field in there and he spends much time with her and gives the final say, nea or yea) to give maybe a little more time. HOWEVERRRRRRRRRR.....these hardcores around here were extremely adamant that the feds keep their asses out, I think although not in lockstep agreement, they were satisfied that the case had been given due process.

Lol these peole here are not what you would consider your new brand of neo-conservatives, they are old school Reaganites.

 

[Annie]

I think that most, even I, would've liked to see, if it were true that there was still a chance medically(which I don't believe but hey maybe you get 1 doctor, an expert in the field in there and he spends much time with her and gives the final say, nea or yea) to give maybe a little more time. HOWEVERRRRRRRRRR.....these hardcores around here were extremely adamant that the feds keep their asses out, I think although not in lockstep agreement, they were satisfied that the case had been given due process.

Lol these peole here are not what you would consider your new brand of neo-conservatives, they are old school Reaganites.

I hear you OCA! I was apalled which has been made clear, at what I saw as a clomping on state's rights. At the same time, I DO think that FL law was flawed, problem was, the wrong venue was persued. Should have been FL legislature.

To my way of thinking, there are all these 'testimonies' of Terri's ability to swallow. At the very minimum, the courts could have pulled the tube and said that if she could keep hydrated it was fine. That to me, minimally would have been in favor of life.

 

[musicman]

That is my point, we sold our souls and show no gain for it. It was a power grab in the sense that Republicans knew it was not politically expedient but because they could because of sheer numbers, they did.

It was a "because we can" proposition? I can't believe that . Human beings are driven by self-interest; it is the most trustworthy of all motivations. I'm not saying Republicans are altruistic saints. I believe they uphold party principle the best way they know how, knowing it has been their path to success. Intervention in the Schiavo case did not violate their constitutional powers and responsibilities by one iota.

And I believe i've seen several polls, some of them not traditionally considered liberal sources that show truelly that it was more closer to 70-30 against intervention. This Zogby poll is so far the only one i've seen to show for.

And if I've learned one thing from this mess, it is to study polls - and pollsters - under a microscope. Who's doing the poll? Why? What is the exact wording?

I live in a highly Republican county(like 70%) at the Republican club(a big hall with a bar) the sentiment, even from old timers is overwhelmingly against involvement. Honestly I haven't met too many people except zealots that werte or.

What will Republicans do in '06 when the religous right, who helped get Bush elected again, delivers on their fanatical promises and ousts Republicans in '06?

All this remains to be seen, I guess. I just hope that, over time, people regard the deliberately misleading role liberals have played in the affair.

 

[OCA]

It was a "because we can" proposition? I can't believe that . Human beings are driven by self-interest; it is the most trustworthy of all motivations. I'm not saying Republicans are altruistic saints. I believe they uphold party principle the best way they know how, knowing it has been their path to success. Intervention in the Schiavo case did not violate their constitutional powers and responsibilities by one iota.







And if I've learned one thing from this mess, it is to study polls - and pollsters - under a microscope. Who's doing the poll? Why? What is the exact wording?







All this remains to be seen, I guess. I just hope that, over time, people regard the deliberately misleading role liberals have played in the affair.

Far be it for me to argue for piece of shit libs, but how exactly were they misleading?

 

[musicman]

Far be it for me to argue for piece of shit libs, but how exactly were they misleading?

80% of Americans oppose congessional intervention - a lie.

Congressional intervention in the matter of a single party is unconstitutional - a lie.

Congressional intervention in a state matter is a hypocritical betrayal of the principles of federalism - a lie.

Tom DeLay is advocating the use of violence against state and federal judges - a lie.

Republicans circulated a memo around Congress informing its members that the Schiavo case is an opportunity to reap political hay - a lie.

Republicans are only taking this stance to pander to their base - the worst, sleaziest, and craziest lie of all. Right-to-lifers are mad at them. States-righters are mad at them. If their stand on this matter doesn't prove that they're not poll-driven, fair weather Republicans, I don't know what does. They have acted according to the dictates of their consciences, in what they truly believe are the best interersts of their country. History will bear them out.

 

[musicman]

Interestingly, lies #2, #4, and #5 were introduced to this board by none other than Bullypulpit. And, here we thought he was useless!

 

[OCA]

80% of Americans oppose congessional intervention - a lie.

Congressional intervention in the matter of a single party is unconstitutional - a lie.

Congressional intervention in a state matter is a hypocritical betrayal of the principles of federalism - a lie.

Tom DeLay is advocating the use of violence against state and federal judges - a lie.

Republicans circulated a memo around Congress informing its members that the Schiavo case is an opportunity to reap political hay - a lie.

Republicans are only taking this stance to pander to their base - the worst, sleaziest, and craziest lie of all. Right-to-lifers are mad at them. States-righters are mad at them. If their stand on this matter doesn't prove that they're not poll-driven, fair weather Republicans, I don't know what does. They have acted according to the dictates of their consciences, in what they truly believe are the best interersts of their country. History will bear them out.

Got anything better on the polls? I mean better than they are just lies? Zogby is a lie also.

Congressional intervention in a state matter is a Repoublican ethics violation, no footing to stand on now on any other matter.

Tom DeLay is guilty of extremely poor taste, not that he ever had any.

Got any evidence about the non memo?

 

[musicman]

Got anything better on the polls? I mean better than they are just lies? Zogby is a lie also.

The wording on the ABC and CBS polls was preposterous. They tossed around words like "vegetable" and "life support" in a deliberate effort to skew the results against Republicans (which is pretty much the MSM/DNC's reason for doiing ANYTHING). They couched the questions in deceptive, incomplete terms in order to ensure a predetermined result. My unabashed dictionary defines this as "lying". At least the Zogby poll posed a straight, complete question.

Congressional intervention in a state matter is a Repoublican ethics violation, no footing to stand on now on any other matter.

Congressional intervention in ANY state matter? That's quite a blanket statement, OCA - I'd like to hear more about that. In any event, it doesn't address constitutionality - any more than do the senate rules the libs are crying so much about these days.

Tom DeLay is guilty of extremely poor taste, not that he ever had any.

Not only do I see no threat in DeLay's recent comments, I don't even see any poor taste. Saying that a lot of judges have a lot to answer for - in light of the circumstances of this case - seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me.

Got any evidence about the non memo?

Do we really need any?

 

[Annie]

Got anything better on the polls? I mean better than they are just lies? Zogby is a lie also.

Congressional intervention in a state matter is a Repoublican ethics violation, no footing to stand on now on any other matter.

Tom DeLay is guilty of extremely poor taste, not that he ever had any.

Got any evidence about the non memo?

On the "non-memo":

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001987.htm

 

[musicman]

On the "non-memo":

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001987.htm

Ah, yes - in an ever-changing world, liberal standards for ethics and honesty are truly a constant.

 

[Annie]

Ah, yes - in an ever-changing world, liberal standards for ethics and honesty are truly a constant.

And the conservatives, the party in power, should do better! I want the GOP to prevail, but they must not be caught in a reactionary mode. Stay true to their ideology, it's what got them in power!

 

[musicman]

Congressional intervention in a state matter is a Repoublican ethics violation, no footing to stand on now on any other matter.

Again, I find this assertion, and the conclusion you draw from it, very interesting. It is a violatrion of Republican ethics for Congress to intervene in a state matter EVER - under ANY circumstances? I've got to learn more about this.

However, for right now - in the parlance of seven-card stud poker - I'm going to "bet blind":

Where an elected official's party ethics come into conflict with his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of The United States, which set of rules would you rather he obey?

I'm happy to report that many Democrats - faced with a not entirely dissimilar quandry during the civil rights struggle - opted to do the right thing.

 

[OCA]

Again, I find this assertion, and the conclusion you draw from it, very interesting. It is a violatrion of Republican ethics for Congress to intervene in a state matter EVER - under ANY circumstances? I've got to learn more about this.

However, for right now - in the parlance of seven-card stud poker - I'm going to "bet blind":

Where an elected official's party ethics come into conflict with his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of The United States, which set of rules would you rather he obey?

I'm happy to report that many Democrats - faced with a not entirely dissimilar quandry during the civil rights struggle - opted to do the right thing.

How were they upholding the constitution? Where was the constitution being violated in the first place?

 

[musicman]

How were they upholding the constitution? Where was the constitution being violated in the first place?

Perhaps the fact that this case kicked around in the system for so long indicates less that it's been heard and heard and heard, than that it has been a juridisctional hot potato. The only true "finding" by any of these courts - in all this time - has been the upholding of Judge Greer as the sole finder of fact. Is that right and proper? Did Greer preclude the introduction of important evidence in a capricious manner? Did the state and federal court systems fail Terri Schiavo, in the most permanent, irreparable sense imaginable? Beats the shit out of me. What do I know?

But surely you'll concede that all of these questions presented Congress with a unique problem. A perfectly plausible possibility existed that an American was about to be deprived of her life without due process. When that possibility exists, states rights are out the window. The Federal Government's duty is clear - the U.S. Constitution MUST prevail. And, let's add to this already convoluted mix the fact that the clock was ticking - had been for some time - on an innocent person's life. Frankly, I don't see where Congress had a choice.

 

[Annie]

Perhaps the fact that this case kicked around in the system for so long indicates less that it's been heard and heard and heard, than that it has been a juridisctional hot potato. The only true "finding" by any of these courts - in all this time - has been the upholding of Judge Greer as the sole finder of fact. Is that right and proper? Did Greer preclude the introduction of important evidence in a capricious manner? Did the state and federal court systems fail Terri Schiavo, in the most permanent, irreparable sense imaginable? Beats the shit out of me. What do I know?

But surely you'll concede that all of these questions presented Congress with a unique problem. A perfectly plausible possibility existed that an American was about to be deprived of her life without due process. When that possibility exists, states rights are out the window. The Federal Government's duty is clear - the U.S. Constitution MUST prevail. And, let's add to this already convoluted mix the fact that the clock was ticking - had been for some time - on an innocent person's life. Frankly, I don't see where Congress had a choice.

I hear you about the Greer court and being upheld. I think there were areas that could have been looked at. One must remember though, that in our system of government, there are ways to address problems-the federal legislature was NOT the correct venue for this case.

It should have been addressed to the FL legislature, as soon as 'Terri's Law' was declared unconstitutional. Instead it appears that the Governor and parents mistakenly seemed to decide that keeping it in court would delay the inevitable-and that was why the decisions to uphold that Greer was the 'determiner' of the 'finding of fact' was so important. Sadly, the wrong decisions were made early on, which resulted in the death of Terri.

It brings to mind a quote I remember hanging in the library in high school:

"Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine." In this case, the repurcussions were life altering.

Sound legal advice and listening to it are of the utmost importance. I recall working at 'Illinois Bell' when the justice decree was handed down on AT&T, leading to the breakup of the Bell System. Bottom line, it was bad advice from the attorneys on dealing with the Government.

The lawyers wanted court. At the 11th hour they realized the problem was with the legislature-Congress. Top notch lawyers, natch! Great in court, important people indeed. The partners were handling, AT&T not being a client in these circumstances to hand off to associates. With the dawning realization that Congress was the place to deal with, the lawyers demanded to meet with Senators, never realizing the Senators were clueless to the nuances of what was happening, their 'staffers' were the ones with the intel. The lawyers never dreamed of dealing with the 'staffers' and lost-big time!

Such are the machinations of our system. Not perfect by a long shot, but I've yet to see something better.

 

[Bonnie]

Interesting how this poll 'comes to light' after her death. Yet before it was a constant drum beat of 'Americans support husband's fight to fullfill Terri's wishes'
or some other media

Gee you read my mind wolfie.

 

[Bonnie]

posted results here, #247. There's more info that follows in a couple of posts, regarding polls and how to read them.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19401&page=17&pp=15

It's my understanding that most polls were reflective of people who if in Terri's situation would want to die the polls were high in favor of death, however when asked from the perspective of in general when a person's wishes are unknown and it's only water and nutrition keeping them alive 80% would err on the side of keeping the tube in, which does hopefully square more with society's compassion and common decency towards life and the helpless.

 

[Annie]

It's my understanding that most polls were reflective of people who if in Terri's situation would want to die the polls were high in favor of death, however when asked from the perspective of in general when a person's wishes are unknown and it's only water and nutrition keeping them alive 80% would err on the side of keeping the tube in, which does hopefully square more with society's compassion and common decency towards life and the helpless.

I'll let my last post slide, on the mistakes made. However regarding polling, the jury is out how the 'American public' really feels, but there is no doubt that the initial polling was biased by questions.

IMO most Americans do not feel that 'nutrition and hydration' are extraordiary means for a person that with such has more than a 'slim' chance for life.

In Terri's case, with nutrition and hydration she was not in peril of imminent death.

 

[Bonnie]

Kathianne..IMO most Americans do not feel that 'nutrition and hydration' are extraordiary means for a person that with such has more than a 'slim' chance for life.

I agree, I just hope we are right in this case!