Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Schiavo's Brother Faults Media
Cornell Daily Sun ^ | 3/8/2007 | Alix Dorfman

Posted on 03/08/2007 3:11:27 AM PST by markomalley

Bobby Schindler, brother of late Terri Schiavo, spoke to members of the Cornell community last night to promote awareness of issues facing disabled individuals.

After collapsing in her home on Feb. 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered several minutes without oxygen to her brain, resulting in severe brain damage. Although she needed immediate care afterwards, a few weeks later, she only required a feeding tube to regulate her nutrition.

During 1991 and 1992, Schiavo showed signs of improvement due to rehabilitation programs and therapy, according to Schindler.

In 1993, Terri was awarded a medical trust fund of $1.5 million for life-long rehabilitation, of which her husband Michael was made guardian.

According to Schindler, after Michael deposited this money, Terri stopped receiving therapy.

Tensions arose in 1993 between Michael and Terri’s father Robert Schindler.

In 1998, Michael wrote the Schindler family a letter, explaining that he was petitioning the courts to remove his wife’s feeding tube.

Terri’s family opposed removal of the feeding tube. Michael, backed by his brother and sister-in-law, said Terri had made statements before she suffered brain damage that she would not want to live in such a condition.

“Our family was very naïve at what we were up against,” Schindler said. “The attitudes of our country [toward this issue] have been changed because of the influence of the media, judges, doctors and bioethics.”

Schindler said he was frustrated that the media portrayed his sister as bedridden and unable to be moved. In fact, Schindler said, had Terri been alive today, he could have brought her with him; she would have merely needed a wheelchair to be transported. Schindler emphasized that Schiavo was not connected to breathing stabilizers of any sort.

“My sister was not dying. She was physically as healthy as you and me,” Schindler said.

Although she could not respond rapidly, she did show signs of coherence, according to Schindler. He recounted a moment when he told his sister that he had the chance to shake hands with Bruce Springstein. Terri had purchased her brother his first C.D. by the artist. When he told her, she smiled.

Such responses were ignored by the court systems, according to Schindler. He said he believed then that videos demonstrating her ability to react to speech would convince the courts that she was not in a persistent vegetative state — one in which a person cannot respond to any external stimuli — but a judge said this did not prove his case.

On March 31, 2005, 14 days after the removal of her feeding tube, Terri died from dehydration.

“The courts have taken [on] a power of God,” Schindler said. Schindler said doctors took on a similar role and are still quick to overlook the benefits of long-term rehabilitation.

“If society knows the truth, then we can properly address the issue and give [the disabled] the right to live, a basic human right,” said Elisabeth Wilbert ’07, vice president of Cornell Coalition for Life.

CCFL invited Schindler to speak to demonstrate that the club supports pro-life organizations.

“It was a good opportunity for Cornell to get a personal view of something with such a national interest,” said Tristen Cramer ’09, president of CCFL. Schindler said his family would have preferred not to generate national interest; family members received a large number of e-mails that condemned the family for keeping Terri alive.

“I learned a lot more true information compared to what the media portrayed,” said Kourtney Reynolds ’09.

Schindler said he hopes to devalue false information given to the public by the media.

He also said that euthanasia occurred before his family’s struggle and continues to occur today.

“Are we going to care for [the disabled] or find ways to justify killing them?” Schindler asked.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: euthanasia; prolife; schindler; swindlers; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last
To: indylindy

I'm a Hunter supporter. Sure hope the whackydoodles don't get around to trying to destroy him, too.


51 posted on 03/08/2007 1:01:46 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

They aren't whackeydoodles. They seek to destroy no one. They want to save lives. Now what about that makes them deserve to be called names? It takes all people, some may fight different battles than you do, but that is needed and important. I bet Duncan Hunter would agree with that.


52 posted on 03/08/2007 1:11:59 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
... Now what about that makes them deserve to be called names? ...

Their embarrassing antics detract from conservatism and contribute to a general lack of credibility. The whackydoodles deter people from our cause, whether it be the cause of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

53 posted on 03/08/2007 1:16:01 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

When you say OUR, who are you speaking for? Be honest and say me, you see, you just told me that you are selfish and you use OUR as a cover for ME. How are their feelings about life embarassing? Maybe to you, because you have never been in the position of the people they fight for. And who are YOU to describe the meaning of conservatism? Ronald Reagan would frown on you for your antics.


54 posted on 03/08/2007 1:21:08 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Did the media make any of the events I discussed up?

Possibly. Not been proven either way. They certainly shaded their reporting so as to present one point of view. I would hope you would be honest enough to admit that.

55 posted on 03/08/2007 1:23:01 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
  Your side begged for media coverage by participating in flag and crucifix desecration, child abuse, threats of bodily harm, spokesmen who were off the chart in terms of extremism, and then when the media covers it, your side complains that it was not fair

You're missing the point.

56 posted on 03/08/2007 1:23:51 PM PST by syriacus (This recent "cold snap" is God's little joke on the Earth-worshipping global warming alarmists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Who do you think brought the media in.

The media needed to be 'brought in'? I doubt that very much.

The last thing Michael Schiavo wanted was all the media coverage.

Got proof of that assertion?

57 posted on 03/08/2007 1:24:24 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
So tell me all about how your side cherishes its free speech right to complain....

You're the one who thought people should not complain.

58 posted on 03/08/2007 1:25:58 PM PST by syriacus (This recent "cold snap" is God's little joke on the Earth-worshipping global warming alarmists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

RR would sure frown on the whackydoodles, completely disabled by emotion. I know he would frown on the way they negate any conservative gain with their foolishness.


59 posted on 03/08/2007 1:29:50 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser

To promote awareness of disabilities?! Ya that's who I want around me if I'm disabled! They'll just pull the plug on ya!


60 posted on 03/08/2007 1:33:22 PM PST by LYSandra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

You are wrong. The "Shining City on the Hill" was meant for all Americans, All of them. He was smart enough to NOT negate conservative gains. That is why he won landslide victories. We have no one up at this time that could ever even hope to do that.


61 posted on 03/08/2007 1:36:57 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
We're not talking about RR and how he coalesced, we're talking about the whackydoodles and how they divide.
62 posted on 03/08/2007 1:40:12 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

You are hopeless. Whatever. Soneday you may look back and be sorry. Good evening to you.


63 posted on 03/08/2007 1:42:19 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
... Soneday you may look back and be sorry. ...,i>

Then again, maybe not.

64 posted on 03/08/2007 1:44:17 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Yes, and Terri wanted to be STARVED TO DEATH ALSO!


65 posted on 03/08/2007 1:47:20 PM PST by Suzy Quzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
Shame, shame, there you go again. Liberals project, haters call people they hate haters. I have no need to project.

Really? And that after "projecting" every epithet you could lay your hands on? And I agree with you about the term "haters". I have certainly felt their wrath here today. Was the attempt to get me banned an act of love?

I just figured you wandered off the DU or daily kos threads by accident and found yourself here with real conservatives.

Well, I was looking for some conservatives, but found none on this thread.

Real conservatives are not filled with hostility and fury like you portray.

Like I portray? I think it was faux conservatives that called me every name in the book. Conservatives would have liked to explore the issue; Extremists explore the poster.....because they couldn't respond effectively.

Awwww, wait! You are really Melissa from the Edwards blogs, aren't you!

Never read 'em, but it appears you are a regular on them.

66 posted on 03/08/2007 1:53:18 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Possibly. Not been proven either way. They certainly shaded their reporting so as to present one point of view. I would hope you would be honest enough to admit that.

I can't admit to that because most of what I saw was exactly what I told you earlier. I saw both sides presented, but a lot more of the Terri protesters than the Michael Schiavo supporters. Now that was Fox, but I can't speak for the other networks. If I didn't see it, I didn't put it in my posts.

67 posted on 03/08/2007 1:56:45 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
You're missing the point.

Ok, thanks.

Seriously though, when you play with fire, expect to get burned. Anyone who trusts the media is crazy. But in all fairness, with the Schiavo incident, the media gave your side far more coverage than the other side, only because your side was more entertaining. The media has no honorable intentions. When they smell red meat, they go for it. That also goes for the right wing sites like WND and life-site news. They distort, lie, and manipulate the truth. So don't expect any better out of the MSM.

68 posted on 03/08/2007 2:02:18 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
The media needed to be 'brought in'? I doubt that very much.

Had the protesters simply kept a vigil, the media wouldn't have stayed at all. They saw a circus and enjoyed every second of the coverage. To be fair, so did your side of the debate. Your side used every opportunity to spin, just as Michael S. did. Both of you used the media to your best advantage, and now complain about it.

Got proof of that assertion?

What on earth did he have to gain from publicity? Until your side showed up and started the fuss, all was being handled quietly by both sides. Yes, the Terri site was up, but few people had even heard of her. All the publicity came from the pro-Terri side.

69 posted on 03/08/2007 2:08:18 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
You're the one who thought people should not complain.

You can complain all you want. But I don't mind pointing out the absurdity of inviting in the press and then complaining about the coverage.

70 posted on 03/08/2007 2:10:31 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
... Was the attempt to get me banned an act of love? ...,/i>

Thats the irony. These folks claim to be Christians.

71 posted on 03/08/2007 2:31:06 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

A closet Rudy supporter using Duncan Hunter, I should have known. Heh, heh, nice try.


72 posted on 03/08/2007 2:35:53 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

You're insults are as ineffective as your imagination is limited.


73 posted on 03/08/2007 2:37:52 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

I expect no different from a Rudy supporter. This is their usual tact. *yawn* . If I were Rudy, I would fire you!


74 posted on 03/08/2007 2:42:16 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
... . If I were Rudy, I would fire you!

I think you've got your hands full attending to yourself. But that is one thing about whackydoodles, they do like to mind other folks business.

75 posted on 03/08/2007 2:56:50 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
Thats the irony. These folks claim to be Christians.

Yeah, and don't forget the "freedom loving" part...as long it is just their freedom, and no one else's.

76 posted on 03/08/2007 2:57:19 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

You are an A*s. WTH are you doing on this thread?, Ace, could you maybe be minding business that belongs to people other than you? Jokey folks always end up revealing themselves! Ha Ha,Just laughin' my butt off! What a foolish hypocrite you are. Ha ha. Head on back to Rudy, there are still a few more hours in this day to insult conservatives.


77 posted on 03/08/2007 3:13:32 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

You do well enough insulting yourself, thanks anyway.


78 posted on 03/08/2007 3:14:29 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

Thats okay, I aim to please!


79 posted on 03/08/2007 3:16:29 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

If that is your aim I pity your toilet seat.


80 posted on 03/08/2007 3:18:21 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

Ta ta!


81 posted on 03/08/2007 3:21:02 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

Promise?


82 posted on 03/08/2007 3:21:24 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

What would any promise mean to you? Kind of like a Rudy promise. Its optional.


83 posted on 03/08/2007 3:24:06 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

FWIW, you're spot on, and if those who are flaming you would slow down and read what you are saying, they'd have to agree.


84 posted on 03/08/2007 3:25:12 PM PST by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

Its your promise, which means squat!


85 posted on 03/08/2007 3:32:27 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

I believe you chose the screen name of Grunt. What is that that you do before what? Do you like me so much you just have to keep responding? Once again. Have a nice night! You are entitled to your opinion.


86 posted on 03/08/2007 3:36:28 PM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: T'wit
I just reported you for abuse.

What did he do that was wrong?
87 posted on 03/08/2007 3:38:59 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

You're not only neutralized by emotion, your writing is dang near incomprehensible. You're gonna leave again, promise, or will you renege as you previously did. In your limited way, you seem to need to have the last word, so please, if your really must, feel free. You only embarrass yourself. Oh, and any positions you support.


88 posted on 03/08/2007 4:08:38 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog

Thanks HD. Appreciate your taking the time.


89 posted on 03/08/2007 4:17:50 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: T'wit
So, the media are willing tools of the religious right? That will surprise the heck out of the media types.

In spite of all of this commotion, the media are the willing tools of the left wing liberals. There is no reason to think that they were fair for Terri all of a sudden.

After all, Felos fed the MSM the "facts" and took Terri's trust money for rehap for his time to do it.

90 posted on 03/08/2007 4:43:47 PM PST by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
To be fair, so did your side of the debate.

Not sure what you think 'my side' is, but it appears now you are admitting that both sides used the media. That's different from what you were claiming before.

What on earth did he have to gain from publicity?

Public sentiment. "Aw, the poor guy. He has been taking care of his wife all these years and now he just wants to honor her wishes." Seems he garnered a lot of that, so he had plenty to gain.

Until your side showed up and started the fuss, all was being handled quietly by both sides.

Again with my 'side'. LOL So I point out that the liberal media did their usual thing, and you are talking about my 'side'. So I take it your 'side' thinks the liberal media is wonderful and you believe every word they say.

That explains a lot.

91 posted on 03/08/2007 6:55:56 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Not sure what you think 'my side' is, but it appears now you are admitting that both sides used the media. That's different from what you were claiming before.

I disagree. I said before on several posts that Michael Schiavo and his crowd gave their side of the story to the media. What I said was the the Terri Schiavo supporters who are now decrying the media coverage were the very ones who brought them into the fray. It wasn't Michael.

Public sentiment. "Aw, the poor guy. He has been taking care of his wife all these years and now he just wants to honor her wishes." Seems he garnered a lot of that, so he had plenty to gain.

Doesn't make any sense. Yes, after the Terri crowd brought in the media and created a circus atmosphere and making Michael out to be Hitler personified, of course he wanted media coverage to tell his side of it. But before that, he had absolutely nothing to be gained by the media. The Terri crowd had everything to gain.

Again with my 'side'. LOL So I point out that the liberal media did their usual thing, and you are talking about my 'side'. So I take it your 'side' thinks the liberal media is wonderful and you believe every word they say.

I refer to "your side" as the Terri supporter side, since you have argued with me about every single thing I have said here. I told you that the Terri supporters got more coverage than did the Michael S supporters. I said that the coverage seemed accurate at it reflected what the Terri supporters were actually doing. You ignore all that and simply say the liberal media did their usual thing. Perhaps you could explain what that means. Do you have some specifics? As for "my side", I was on the side of the rule of law, not the rule of mobs. Does that make my a patsy for the liberal media? If so, color most conservatives patsies.

92 posted on 03/08/2007 7:50:12 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
You can complain all you want

Thank you.

93 posted on 03/08/2007 10:09:23 PM PST by syriacus (This recent "cold snap" is God's little joke on the Earth-worshipping global warming alarmists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I am glad her brother is speaking out.

How could the husband get a big payout for her care, then be allowed to arrange her death?

At the least, the courts should have ordered him to give the money back to the defendent.


94 posted on 03/08/2007 10:21:56 PM PST by BlackVeil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
I disagree.

Okay, but in your post, you seemed to be indicating that I was part of some 'side' other than the 'pro-Terry' side, and I knew you were not implying that I was on Michael's side.

Doesn't make any sense.

Of course it does. Arousing public sentiment was exactly what he tried to do, and as we all know, he succeeded with a great number of folks.

But before that, he had absolutely nothing to be gained by the media.

That's true. He was wanted to quietly have his wife starved to death. I never claimed he actively went after the media. I only claimed that he used the media to his benefit.

The Terri crowd had everything to gain.

The only thing they were trying to 'gain' was saving Terry's life. But of course, the media wanted to present them as a bunch of kooks, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

I refer to "your side" as the Terri supporter side

In the post where you brought up sides, you implied that mine was a different 'side' from the Terry supporters (see your post #69). Seems as though you make a misstatement in that post and have now clarified what you were trying to say.

I told you that the Terri supporters got more coverage than did the Michael S supporters.

Your original claim was that they used the media, they brought the media in. My counter claim was that that no one had to 'bring them in.' The media chose to make that their 'issue of the week' (and they showed they had a political agenda to promote, but that's no surprise).

I said that the coverage seemed accurate at it reflected what the Terri supporters were actually doing.

And I said that you seem to place your faith in the media to tell the whole story to you, and that you buy what they say hook, line and sinker.

You ignore all that

LOL I didn't ignore anything. You just didn't like my responses.

Perhaps you could explain what that means.

You don't know what 'the liberal media did their usual thing' means? Good heavens, everyone on FR knows that the liberal media promotes their own political agenda in every way possible. How could you be a member of FR and not know that? Well, let me help you. The media promotes their own political agenda by hiding some facts while revealing others and, at times, simply making things up. Some members of the media have been fired when they got caught by conservatives doing such things. Maybe you forgot about that.

I was on the side of the rule of law, not the rule of mobs.

Given the evidence presented, there was no clear cut proof that Terry wanted to be killed. So the claim that you were on the side of the 'rule of law' is shaky at best. Sure, the judge agreed with your view, but as everyone on FR knows, judges often use their positions to promote their political agendas as well. (And if you'd read previous Terry threads, you know this particular judge was involved in so called 'right to die' organizations. From a legal ethics position, he should have recused himself from the case.)

95 posted on 03/09/2007 10:08:53 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
That's true. He was wanted to quietly have his wife starved to death. I never claimed he actively went after the media. I only claimed that he used the media to his benefit.

Why be so coy? This settles the issue of whose side you were on. And it also settles the issue of who wanted and brought in the media.

The only thing they were trying to 'gain' was saving Terry's life. But of course, the media wanted to present them as a bunch of kooks, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Oh, please. As with all activist groups, they use a situation to propel a crusade. At least admit that. This was their "john Brown" moment and they weren't about to let it go by. As for kooks, I saw it on television. I saw them. Are you saying they did not do the things I said they did? Perhaps it was a bunch of media hired nutcases out there, who were filmed acting like the same kinds of looney tunes I see on the left at the WTO meetings. At least they admit to it.

Yeah I fell for it when I saw all of the desecrated flags and crucifixes, the child abuse, the threats, the press conferences of Randall Terry. So that wasn't you guys after all, huh?

In the post where you brought up sides, you implied that mine was a different 'side' from the Terry supporters (see your post #69). Seems as though you make a misstatement in that post and have now clarified what you were trying to say.

This is what I said in that post:

Had the protesters simply kept a vigil, the media wouldn't have stayed at all. They saw a circus and enjoyed every second of the coverage. To be fair, so did your side of the debate. Your side used every opportunity to spin, just as Michael S. did. Both of you used the media to your best advantage, and now complain about it.

So no, I made it clear which side I though you were on. I was as you can see referring to the media circus, and said that your side loved it and did its spinning. I then referred to Michael's side. Seems like you were the one who erred.

Your original claim was that they used the media, they brought the media in. My counter claim was that that no one had to 'bring them in.' The media chose to make that their 'issue of the week' (and they showed they had a political agenda to promote, but that's no surprise).

So you don't think activist groups "bring in" the media by their actions? What the heck brought them in....a few candles? And as for the media and their political agenda, I have asked many times here what exactly did they do, and no one can seem to answer, except to say they got it wrong. I will ask again, do you have examples?

And I said that you seem to place your faith in the media to tell the whole story to you, and that you buy what they say hook, line and sinker.

Crow all you want, but please let me know what I missed. So who do you place your faith in to give the truth....WND and Life-Site News? Exactly what piece of relevant information did I miss by watching FoxNews, FR, and other relevant internet sites?

You don't know what 'the liberal media did their usual thing' means? Good heavens, everyone on FR knows that the liberal media promotes their own political agenda in every way possible

Of course, I don't trust the MSM any more than anyone else. But outside of a general tirade against the media, what have I reported on this thread that is untrue, or made up by the media? Again, the issue is the media coverage of the Terri Schiavo affair, not anything else. So again, what relevant information did they miss?

Given the evidence presented, there was no clear cut proof that Terry wanted to be killed. So the claim that you were on the side of the 'rule of law' is shaky at best. Sure, the judge agreed with your view, but as everyone on FR knows, judges often use their positions to promote their political agendas as well.

You seem to shy away from the media coverage to take on the judge. Fine. We are talking about a judge, everyone considered very conservative, more so than most, a Christian, and a regular attendee at Church. So exactly what political agenda is that? And yes, the rule of law is critical. The judge found sufficient evidence for his ruling, and the 11 subsequent reviews at every level of jurisprudence agreed with him. But since you say they were all wrong, what was the correct answer? Should we get rid of the judicial branch? Or should the citizens of Florida begin a petition drive to change the law in the state?

(And if you'd read previous Terry threads, you know this particular judge was involved in so called 'right to die' organizations. From a legal ethics position, he should have recused himself from the case.)

Irrelevant, because every issue brought up by "your side" was seen by the reviews.

This thread is not about anything other that the media, and so far, you have not shown me anything the media has done in this case that in any way impacted the results, or failed to show both sides.

96 posted on 03/09/2007 11:39:14 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Why be so coy? This settles the issue of whose side you were on. And it also settles the issue of who wanted and brought in the media.

It also settles the issue on whose side you were on. And still are I may add.

97 posted on 03/09/2007 3:55:42 PM PST by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
As for kooks, I saw it on television. I saw them.

I saw kooks too, on your side on television. Like Dr. Cranford for example who always found a way to support any death when he was called upon to testify, for a fee.

98 posted on 03/09/2007 4:02:39 PM PST by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
We are talking about a judge, everyone considered very conservative, more so than most, a Christian, and a regular attendee at Church.

First nice thing I seen you post about a Christian. I guess that will change when I tell you that the Christians kicked him out of their Church?

99 posted on 03/09/2007 4:07:44 PM PST by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: bjs1779
It also settles the issue on whose side you were on. And still are I may add.

Yes, the rule of law.

100 posted on 03/09/2007 4:11:23 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson