0
   

BeeZarre

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 01:22 pm
I believe that's the first time I've ever been accused of being biased against conservatives. Laughing

I'm sure MM has me confused with someone else.......
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 01:24 pm
I've always had my doubts about your conservativeness...
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 01:55 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Thanks for another unbiased article, Dookie.


As you have acknowledged yourself that this is unbiased, your welcome. Oh, wait. Were you being sarcastic?

Quote:
Who are you complaining to, and why?


Does one need a clue, Ticomaya? These games are getting extremely old hat. Perhaps a different approach is needed.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 02:09 pm
revel wrote:
But what do you all make of the video? Was it somehow staged or can she really respond? For me that is the bottom line.

Assuming this is the same video shown to the courts, then according to one of the judges in the case it had been carefully edited to support the claims of the parents.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 02:27 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Who are you complaining to, and why?


Does one need a clue, Ticomaya? These games are getting extremely old hat. Perhaps a different approach is needed.


A clue? I haven't a clue what the hell you're babbling about, Dookie, so let me recap and see if I can figure it out.

I first fixed the link I had provided to an article in the Toronto Star, a local newspaper that covered Howard Dean's visit with Democrats in Toronto, and which quoted him as calling Republicans "brain-dead," whereupon you suggested I should post a "more unbiased piece." I guess you find the Toronto Star to be biased. Rolling Eyes

You then immediately posted an article from bushflash.com, followed by an article from mediamatters.com, both anti-bush/conservative sites. Following each of those postings from you, I -- as you correctly surmised -- sarcastically applauded your efforts of providing the unbiased reports you demand of me.

The next thing I know, MM responded with a post that appears to be accusing me of being biased against conservatives. But since I've been wrong in jumping to conclusions in the past, I requested clarification from him about his post.

Which brings us to you accusing me of ..... needing a clue, and playing games. Okay, I give ... what games do you think I'm playing?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 02:30 pm
? I'm confused by all the cross-accusations and games....

lol

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 02:50 pm
Quote:
what games do you think I'm playing?


Quite a few, it would seem...
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 02:54 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
what games do you think I'm playing?


Quite a few, it would seem...

Pong... obviously.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 03:07 pm
Thereby the avatar. It thoroughly represents the back and forth bickering on able2know.com.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 03:39 pm
DrewDad wrote:
revel wrote:
But what do you all make of the video? Was it somehow staged or can she really respond? For me that is the bottom line.

Assuming this is the same video shown to the courts, then according to one of the judges in the case it had been carefully edited to support the claims of the parents.


that's the report i heard too, drew. supposedly 100's of hours of footage. after the time i spent in post production, believe me when i tell you that you can make anything appear the way you want. and you can get the needed gear dirt cheap these days. anybody with a mac can cut a feature film.

drew, did you happen to catch the interview with wolfson, the state appointed guardian at law, on nightline last night ?
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 04:01 pm
Quote:
drew, did you happen to catch the interview with wolfson, the state appointed guardian at law, on nightline last night?


I didn't, DTOM. What was said?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 04:10 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
revel wrote:
But what do you all make of the video? Was it somehow staged or can she really respond? For me that is the bottom line.

Assuming this is the same video shown to the courts, then according to one of the judges in the case it had been carefully edited to support the claims of the parents.


that's the report i heard too, drew. supposedly 100's of hours of footage. after the time i spent in post production, believe me when i tell you that you can make anything appear the way you want. and you can get the needed gear dirt cheap these days. anybody with a mac can cut a feature film.

drew, did you happen to catch the interview with wolfson, the state appointed guardian at law, on nightline last night ?

No...
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 04:20 pm
i have to take off for the doctor's, but the quick version is that he was appointed by the courts to be terri schiavo's advocate and to represent her best interest and her's alone. jeb bush was also involved in his appointment. he was previously uninvolved in the case and represented a chance for an unbiased eval. he spent 30 days with her. 20 or so of those days were spent by her bedside, in the room or in the hall outside her door to see if the "occurances" of her speaking etc. were articulated thoughts. he says that he actually went into it with the overwhelming hope of seeing some sign of encouragement, but was saddened to see that there was just nobody home.

his testimony has been used in the previous trials. and appeared to me to be a genuinely caring person regards ms schiavo.

gotta split. later kids !
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 05:12 pm
Lets make this simple.
Lets take all of the mentally retarded,all of the severly mentally disabled,all of the severly handicapped,all of those people that are just a drain on finances and time trying to take care of them,and lets euthanize all of them.
That way,the left gets what they want in regards to individual right to life.
We would save millions of dollars,which could then be used for other social programs.
It would free up hospital beds for other people to use.

This seems like the best choice.The left gets everything they want,and it denies parents of all these people their right to help their kids.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 05:19 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Lets make this simple.
Lets take all of the mentally retarded,all of the severly mentally disabled,all of the severly handicapped,all of those people that are just a drain on finances and time trying to take care of them,and lets euthanize all of them.
That way,the left gets what they want in regards to individual right to life.
We would save millions of dollars,which could then be used for other social programs.
It would free up hospital beds for other people to use.

This seems like the best choice.The left gets everything they want,and it denies parents of all these people their right to help their kids.


I have a better idea. Why don't you think about not sounding like an idiot just for a second and perhaps infuse a little sincerity into the debate. Although, it sure sounded like you were sincere in your last moronic comment.

Speaking of idiots, more food for the fodder:

Quote:
Fox News host Sean Hannity and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough both promoted Dr. William Hammesfahr's false claim that he is a Nobel Prize nominee.

Hammesfahr, a Florida neurologist disciplined in 2003 by the Florida Board of Medicine who claims he can help Terri Schiavo, testified during an October 2002 court hearing on the Schiavo case that his claim to be a Nobel nominee is based on a letter written by Rep. Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) recommending him for the prize. But Bilirakis is not qualified to make a valid nomination under the Nobel rules.

According to the process posted on the Nobel Prize website, the Nobel Assembly sends out invitations to approximately 3,000 people who are allowed to propose candidates. The 3,000 are "mainly members of the Nobel Assembly, previous prize winners, and a selection of professors at universities around the world." In providing detailed information about those who can submit nominations, the site states:

Right to submit proposals for the award of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:

Members of the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm;
Swedish and foreign members of the medical class of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences;
Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine;
Members of the Nobel Committee not qualified under paragraph 1 above;
Holders of established posts as professors at the faculties of medicine in Sweden and holders of similar posts at the faculties of medicine or similar institutions in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway;
Holders of similar posts at no fewer than six other faculties of medicine selected by the Assembly, with a view to ensuring the appropriate distribution of the task among various countries and their seats of learning; and
Practitioners of natural sciences whom the Assembly may otherwise see fit to approach.
Decisions concerning the selection of the persons appointed under paragraphs 6 and 7 above are taken before the end of May each year on the recommendation of the Nobel Committee.

But the fact that Bilirakis is not qualified to nominate Nobel Prize winners did not stop Scarborough or Hannity from referring to Hammesfahr as a Nobel Prize nominee. Hannity did so a total of eight times during a single hour-long program; Scarborough made the reference four times. Additionally, Scarborough erroneously claimed that Hammesfahr has "treated" Schiavo; in fact, Hammesfahr has merely examined her as one of five doctors approved by a Florida court in 2001 to do so. He was one of two doctors selected by Schiavo's parents; two others were selected by Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, and the fifth was chosen by the court.

From the March 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: And we're going to talk to a doctor who spent 10 hours with her tonight, and he says that he believes, in his expert opinion -- this is a man that was nominated for a Nobel Prize, by the way -- that she could be rehabilitated.

[...]

HANNITY: And coming up later in the program tonight, we're going to meet a doctor who actually spent 10 hours examining Terri Schiavo. He was nominated for a Nobel Prize. He believes that she could be rehabilitated.

[...]

HANNITY: You were nominated for a Nobel Prize in medicine?

HAMMESFAHR: Yes.

[...]

HANNITY: You were nominated to get a Nobel Peace Prize in this work. Are you saying that this woman could be rehabilitated?

[...]

HANNITY: How is it possible we're in this position if you have examined her? You were up for a Nobel Prize. This is mind boggling to me.

[...]

HANNITY: Well, this is what I want to understand. This is your area of expertise that got you nominated for one of the most prestigious awards in medicine, the Nobel Prize.

[...]

HANNITY: -- hang on a second -- and talk to a Nobel prize-nominated physician who spent 10 hours with her, who believes if, given the opportunity, he can rehabilitate her?

[...]

HANNITY: Imagine being in his position and having a guy like a Nobel Prize nominee like Dr. Hammesfahr, who I'm looking at right now, who spent 10 hours with her and feels that, given the chance, he could rehabilitate this girl.

From the March 21 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

SCARBOROUGH: And a Nobel Prize-nominated neurologist who has treated Terri Schiavo, he says Terri should live and that her husband is perpetrating a hoax that is just aimed at killing his wife.

[...]

SCARBOROUGH: And I'm going to be talking with a Nobel Prize-nominated neurologist who has treated Terri Schiavo and he says her husband is pulling a huge hoax simply to kill his wife.

[...]

SCARBOROUGH: Coming up: a Nobel Prize-nominated neurologist who is treating Terri Schiavo says her husband is pulling a hoax.

[...]

SCARBOROUGH: So, what is Terri Schiavo's true medical condition? Here to help us sort it out is Dr. William Hammesfahr. He's a neurologist who was nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in medicine. And he's one of the doctors who has treated Terri Schiavo.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220009

0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 09:38 pm
what dookiestix said. x 2...
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 09:47 am
Jimmy Carter won a Nobel prize ....





.... means diddly.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 12:30 pm
yup. it probably should, but it doesn't. either way, nominated is like being awarded the nobel.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 12:33 pm
Well, the Peace prize is a little fuzzy, but Nobel prizes in science definitely mean something.

Appreciate that info though Dookie. I mean, how hard could it be to confirm that the guy was actually a nominee before saying so over and over?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 12:54 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
yup. it probably should, but it doesn't. either way, nominated is like being awarded the nobel.


Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » BeeZarre
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 12:09:40