 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
I don't recall the poll. However, tell me whether the list properly reflects the gamut of the pro-"pull the plug" camp's views.
Last edited by Ned on 31-03-2005 at 12:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Pro-death? 
You sure do know how to play silly word games Ned. The bottom line is Terri's wishes and she told four adults exactly what she wanted including her husband, her sister in law, and two of their friends. That's enough witnesses to determine Terri's wishes. The government needs to be kept out of this family affair but as usual the Republicans don't care for decency they only care for politics (as their memo shows). |
You mean this memo?
quote:
March 21, 2005 — The following memo listing talking points on the Terri Schiavo case was circulated among Republican senators on the floor of the Senate.
This is an exact, full copy of the document obtained exclusively by ABC News and first reported Friday, March 18, 2005, by Linda Douglass on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings."
S. 529, The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act
Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m.
The Senate needs to act this week, before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri's family will not have a remedy in federal court.
This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.
This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.
The bill is very limited and defines custody as "those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment."
There is an exemption for a proceeding "which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or (sic) withdrawl (sic) of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances."
Incapacitated persons are defined as those "presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawl (sic) of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law."
This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy. |
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Schiavo/story?id=600937
Now, I could type out everything that is wrong with this memo, but I'm lazy, so I'll just let this guy do it for me:
quote:
It seems the “Republican Talking Points” memo on Terri Schiavo is quite likely a fake:
The memo has three possible origins. The first possibility is that it was created by a low-level Republican staffer. This seems possible, but highly unlikely. Only a very dim-witted staffer would 1) copy word for word from the Traditional Values site, 2) get the Senate bill number wrong, 3) make a number of silly errors, including misspelling Mrs. Schiavo’s name as “Teri,” and 4) mix comments about political advantage into a “talking points” memo. Moreover, the Post and ABC have tried to create the impression that the memo is an official, high-level Republican strategy document. It clearly is not that.
The second possibility is that the memo was created by a lobbying group, presumably the Traditional Values Coalition, since most of the content of the memo comes word for word from their web site. But the controversial political observations–"the pro-life base will be excited,” etc.–are inappropriate for an organization like the Coalition. They sound as if they are written from the internal perspective of the Republican party ("this is a tough issue for Democrats").
The third possibility is that the memo is a Democratic dirty trick. At the moment, that looks most likely. It is easy to picture how the document could have been constructed. A Democratic staffer wants to put in some language that will sound authentic for a Republican memo. What does he do? He steals four paragraphs from the Coalition’s web site. Then he adds the explosive political observations which are the whole point of the exercise–weirdly out of place in a “talking points” memo, but good politics for the Democrats.
Further, this could explain why the scanned version of the document is different from the one that ABC News originally obtained. The document was apparently corrected in three respects between the time it was given to ABC and when it was leaked to a left-wing web site. Who cleaned up the memo? Presumably the person or persons who created it. The site that put up the jpeg of the memo said that “a source on Capitol Hill…leaked” it to them. The source was presumably a Democratic staffer. If the document was a genuine Republican memo, would the Democrat who leaked it onto the web take the trouble to re-create it, correcting typos? No. The leaker would only correct errors if he himself was the source of the memo.
And finally: as the New York Times has reported, the only people who have actually been seen passing out the memo are Democratic aides.
The evidence we have so far is not conclusive, but it points in the direction of a dirty trick by the Democrats. The onus is certainly on Mike Allen of the Post and ABC News, if they actually have evidence that the memo is genuine, to tell us what that evidence is. In any event, however, the suggestion that this is some kind of high-level Republican strategy memo is ludicrous. |
http://www.sgtstryker.com/index.php...her-phony-memo/
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-03-2005 10:18
ACK!
.
|