Today’s Tosser: The Entire Disaster Over at Illinois Review
It was too hard to pick just one:
Jill Stanek insists that Terri Schiavo was fully alive and aware
Stanek has some rubbish about how people called her brain dead and approvingly links then to an article that doesn’t just dispute whether she was brain dead, but says
Rarely, if ever, mentioned in media reports are the more than 40 doctors’ affidavits submitted to the court that either contradicted that Terri was in a so-called PVS or stated that she could have been helped with proper rehabilitation.
The media also fails to report the medical records confirming that Terri at one time was beginning to speak, or the videos of Terri interacting with her family and her surroundings, all of which prove that she was very much alive, and very much responsive
Well, no. She had lost half of her brain weight–which was liquefied, The areas of speech were heavily damaged She wasn’t speaking and this continuing effort to deny the reality of her condition is sad.
We get this treat from George Kocan who says:
According to a report by the Daily Herald, a federal judge has decreed that a moment of silence in public schools violates the U.S. Constitution. We are to believe that the First Amendment says “government ‘shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion.’”
Apparently, the judge relies on a different First Amendment than the one I am familiar with. The real document states that “Congress shall make no laws…” That is a big difference. And it shows how activist judges need to misrepresent the Constitution to make the public accept as law the mythical “separation of church and state.”
Of course, the 14th Amendment applied this to the states and so appendages of state governments are not allowed to make laws respecting an establishment of religion. One has to wonder if these people have read the Constitution. Perhaps they could hang with Rod.
Eaton celebrates indicted and convicted felons after railing about Bob Creamer
George Dienhart declares A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against America
It’s great fun to read. Did you know that you are against America if you are against No Child Left Behind? Yep. Several other fun ones in there, but what’s striking most about the article is that the opposition to Paul isn’t so much on a clearly elucidated set of conservative principles, but on George Bush being right regardless of how incoherent his position is ideologically. For small government? Hell no—it’s unAmerican to back Ron Paul because he’s against federal rules for education and drugs!
The entire piece is a perfect example of the incoherence of people who claim to be conservatives in George Bush’s America.
Ron Paul is a bit loopy, but he doesn’t hate America. For extra fun, check out the comment thread. And I thought the 9-11 Truthers were annoying.
Bob Schmidt puts John (“Mary Rosh”) in some big company:
Overtime civilization has been the gradual process of seeing more and more of the facts, and the truth. The Greeks developed truths of mathematics. The Arabs developed truths of astronomy. Galileo, Newton and Einstein each made contributions. John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and John Lott advanced hypothesis about the truth of the laws of economics and of the way things work out among us humans.
John Lott cannot even get tenure anywhere.
And going on 5 years and after the deadliest one, we are winning in Iraq. Again.
Could someone tell me how you get political reconciliation when al Maliki just told the the Sunnis to go jump off a bridge?
November 21st, 2007 at
“Jill Stanek insists that Terri Schiavo was fully alive and aware”
Archie, Archie. If IR is so bad, I’d think you could retrieve information that falls on its own without your having to lie about it.
My quote corroborating your quote, please.
November 21st, 2007 at
Ahh- nowhere did I say or infere that you are anti-American if you anti-NCLB. There were many accusations and opinions flying around, but noone said that. 2 lies in one piece- typical of this blog…
November 21st, 2007 at
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against America with a set of particulars–one of which is supporting NCLB. Do you read what you write?
Does Stanek read what she links to:
You used it to support your argument. Not me.
November 21st, 2007 at
[...] Archpundit takes the Review gang to task by highlighting such gems as Jill Stanek linking (in all seriousness) to kooky claims that Terry Schiavo was fully aware despite having nearly half her brain literally and sadly being liquified and George Dienhart rambling on about what he believes are qualifications for being considered anti-American, including opposing Pres. Bush’s failing NCLB of all things. (Arch also points out Fran Eaton’s two-faced regurgitation of anti-Bob Creamer points. I’ll have more on that in a bit.) [...]
November 21st, 2007 at
You’ll have to pardon them, Archie. Clearly, Bill Clinton’s long, hard sax made them do it — maybe it was the shining gleam or the smooth, rhythmic sounds it makes.
(Hope the move went smoothly, George.)
November 21st, 2007 at
“Responsive” is far from “aware,” Archie. Do you dispute the videos?
November 21st, 2007 at
Jill, you were a nurse. How much diagnosing do you think is possible via a video of any sort (without benefit of scanning equipment, etc.)?
Don’t lie.
Besides, you’re changing the subject to pick nits about semantics. “Responsive” (your word) inherently results from being “aware” (Larry’s word) of stimuli.
Even worms are “responsive” when poked with a fishing hook… (And no, I wasn’t comparing Mrs. Schiavo to a worm, though I wouldn’t put it past you to imply such.)
Mrs. Schiavo was “alive” only because of the machines to which she was connected and even then only in the most rudimentary of definitions: her heart was beating and some internal organs functioned with medical assistance. As Larry pointed out, half of her brain had unfortunately liquified due, originally, to her eating disorder and the ensuing medical condition it caused. She was gone in every sense, were it not for the machines.
Not too surprisingly, this is much like the frozen embryos you and other social conservatives also claim are somehow “alive”. Those clumps of cells must rely on cryogenic chambers for their suspended existence in limbo with Jack Frost and would not be able to survive on their own in any way, shape or form without that medical assistance (until they are incinerated after being abandoned, that is).
But you guys sure do make a pretty penny off spinning these folks’ pain, don’t you?
November 22nd, 2007 at
Actually that’s the key difference to consider. Being responsive would not indicate any higher brain function, it would indicate a reflex. She was blind so being responsive to visual stimuli could only be to some version of light if at all.
If she wasn’t aware that makes the point for those who think the nearest of kin should decide what to do. And by the actual people who examined her not be videotape, she was in a persistent vegetative state. And while PVS is not a diagnosis that can be done in an autopsy, the autopsy was consistent with PVS. The autopsy made one thing clear as well–there was no hope of recovery. I feel bad for the family that insists differently, but the release you linked to claimed she could have been helped by rehabilitation. The autopsy specifically ruled that out. If she wasn’t aware, then there’s no real point in the argument. And you linked to the release that insisted she was not only aware, but also able to be rehabilitated.
November 23rd, 2007 at
I know the intricacy of the English language is difficult for you, but there is a difference between being bad for America, and being anti-American. Maybe you should read what you write about…
November 23rd, 2007 at
==A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against America
Being against America is materially different than being anti-American.
WTF? Do you read what you write?
November 23rd, 2007 at
Do you undestand what you read?
November 23rd, 2007 at
Yes.
Prefix: anti-
1. Against, opposed to
I learned that in 2nd grade.
November 23rd, 2007 at
Okay- I’ll explain slowly, so you can understand…
The “vote against America” statement means that someone exercising his or her voting rights in order to cast a vote for Ron Paul is not voting in the best interests of the United States. It does not imply, in any way that Congressman Paul, or any voter, is trying to do harm to America. Any one with a 3rd grade education (you must have just missed out) can read and understand that. Sorry that my headline was written above you level of comprehension…
November 23rd, 2007 at
george, you’re clearly not very bright.
of course, voting for ron paul is not in the best interests of this nation. I’ll agree with you there.
Actually, voting for any republican is not in the best interests of america.
Republican=bad for america.
November 23rd, 2007 at
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against America
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote that is anti-American.
These are equivalent statements George. You may not have the faculties to realize this , but a vote being against America is a vote that is anti-American. I’m sorry you missed the unit on prefixes and synonyms.
I just wish people would learn to speak English when they live here.
November 24th, 2007 at
Arch writes, “I just wish people would learn to speak English when they live here.”
Oh the irony of having to point this out to an Ill Reviewer…
ROFLMAO. Keep it up George, you’ll have enough for amateur night at Zanie’s Laff Factory soon I’m sure. (At least you admit all your posts are jokes. On that we all agree, I’m sure.)
I wonder if Jill is still researching whether sweet and sour or mustard sauce goes better with her General Tsao’s Baby and Peppers.
November 29th, 2007 at
Hey, just don’t tar all rightwingers. Even most conservative Republicans are embarrassed by the crazies at Illinois Review.
November 29th, 2007 at
Ah, but John, the “crzies” at Family Taxpayer Network outshine Illinois Review all the way.
Interesting — at least there’s lots of readers at Illinois Review as compared to the stupid FTN newsletter that no one reads.
May 12th, 2008 at
George, I must have missed something.
“The “vote against America” statement means that someone exercising his or her voting rights in order to cast a vote for Ron Paul is not voting in the best interests of the United States.”
Wow! You get to decide that??? I sure hope you aren’t voting for John McCain because I would consider that a very Anti-America vote. This is the guy after all who (1)wants to keep our Military in Iraq for a hundred years, (2) voted for that war, (3)voted to allow this country to suspend their morals and engage in torture, and a guy that hasn’t a clue that the voters KNOW his (4)”Gas Tax Holiday” is an outright scam.
BTW, they are likely to show McCain leaving the plane after returning from Viet Nam quite often during the the next few months. Great Campaign fodder???
Well, watch it carefully. Coming down from the plane, McCain is bent over and can hardly make it, while supporting himself with both hands on one side of the rail. On the ground, walking toward the cameras, McCain has an exceptionally pained look on his face and a very decided limp. Then he walks away from the Cameras with a completely normal gait??? Ooops, they weren’t supposed to leave the cameras on him as he walked away???