• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Joe Scarborough motherfucking OWNED!

Status
Not open for further replies.
this right-wing zealot has been off the damn charts lately. so off the chart, i've been forced to watch so i won't miss his latest doozer of "judicial activism," and "she's not in a vegatitive state."

anyway, christopher hitchens was a guest on his show and said:

Hitchens: I've had to sit in this chair listening to you be a megaphone for fraud.

and

Hitchens: You should be ashamed of the show you are running.

videos: quicktime
windows media player

also, joe and his correspondent were owned yet again, this time be a neurologist who actually examined terry for 42 minutes.

SCARBOROUGH: Now, the question on everybody's mind tonight is this: How is Terri Schiavo doing? You know, it's been 10 days. She is starting her 11th day now without food and water. Let's go back to Pinellas Park [Florida], where Lisa Daniels [MSNBC daytime anchor] is standing by -- Lisa.

DANIELS: Well, Joe, at this point, we are going to delve into the medical aspect of the story. I want to bring in Dr. Ronald Cranford. He's a neurologist at Hennepin Medical Center in Minneapolis. And, Doctor, before we continue, I want our viewers to understand what your role was in the legal case. I understand that Michael Schiavo and his team asked you to examine his wife. Is that correct?

CRANFORD: Yes. Yes, they did.

DANIELS: And from my understanding, I just want to be accurate, you examined Terri Schiavo for about 45 minutes. Is that right?

CRANFORD: I think 42 minutes, but 45 is fine, sure.

DANIELS: All right. Well, we want to be accurate here. What was your conclusion at the end of --

[crosstalk]

CRANFORD: Wait a minute. You are not accurate on a lot of things here. You're saying a lot of -- she's not starving to death. Do you understand that? She is dehydrating to death.

DANIELS: Well, why do you say that? Tell us how you came to that conclusion?

[crosstalk]

CRANFORD: Can I tell you why? Because I have done this 25 to 50 times. I don't know how many times Joe has done it, but I've done it 25 to 50 times in similar situations. And they die within 10 to 14 days.

Nancy Cruzan did not die in six days [as guest Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition suggested earlier in the program]. She died in 11 days, 11.5 hours. And Terri Schiavo will die within 10 to 14 days. And they are dying of dehydration, not starvation. And that's just a lie. And Joe doesn't have any idea what he is talking about. And you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

DANIELS: Well --

CRANFORD: I have been at the bedside of these patients. I know what they die from. I've seen them die. And this is all bogus. It's all just a bunch of crap that you are saying. It's totally wrong.

DANIELS: Well, with all due respect, Doctor, it sounds like you think that you know what you are talking about, so let's ask you about that.

CRANFORD: Sure.

DANIELS: Are you 100 percent correct in your opinion that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state? Do you agree with that?

CRANFORD: I am 105 percent sure she is in a vegetative state. And the autopsy will show severe irreversible brain damage to the higher centers, yes.

DANIELS: Why are you so sure, Doctor?

CRANFORD: Because I examined her. The court-appointed guardian examined her. Four neurologists at the hospital where she was has said she's carried a diagnosis of vegetative state for 12 years. Every neurologist that examined her, except for Dr. [William] Hammesfahr [a neurologist selected by Terri Schiavo's parents], who is a charlatan, has said she is in vegetative state. That's what the court found. Just because you don't like --

[crosstalk]

DANIELS: Doctor, was a CAT scan -- Doctor, your critics would ask you, was a CAT scan used? Was an MRI taken? Were any of these tests taken?

CRANFORD: You don't know the answer to that? The CAT scan was done in 1996, 2002. We spent a lot of time in court showing the irreversible -- you don't have copies of those CAT scans? How can you say that?

The CAT scans are out there, distributed to other people. You have got to look at the facts. The CAT scan is out there. It shows severe atrophy of the brain. The autopsy is going to show severe atrophy of the brain. And you're asking me if a CAT scan was done? How could you possibly be so stupid?

SCARBOROUGH: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait a second.


[crosstalk]

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second, if I can interrupt here.

CRANFORD: Go ahead. Joe, interrupt me.

SCARBOROUGH: Why don't you go ahead and tell the rest of the story there? Why don't you tell us that the radiologist that looked at the two CAT scans said she showed improvement in 2002 over 1996? You know, you seem so sure of yourself. The Associated Press reported yesterday --

CRANFORD: Joe, the judge didn't believe him.

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. You're so sure of yourself -- respond to this. AP had a report yesterday. They said seven doctors have looked at her. Four said she was in persistent vegetative state. You were one of them, hired by Michael Schiavo to do that. There were three others that looked at her that disagreed. How can you be so absolutely sure that everybody that agrees with you is 100 percent accurate and everybody on the other side is a charlatan?

CRANFORD: Joe, Judge -- Judge [George W.] Greer disallowed, didn't believe what [Dr. William] Maxfield [a doctor selected by Terri Schiavo's parents] said. You got your numbers wrong. There were eight neurologists saw her. Seven of the eight said she was in a vegetative state. Only one said she wasn't.

SCARBOROUGH: I am quoting an Associated Press report from yesterday.

CRANFORD: Joe, you've got to get your facts straight.

SCARBOROUGH: I have got my facts straight.

CRANFORD: Get your facts straight. You've got your facts way off.

SCARBOROUGH: Why don't we talk about -- hold on a second.

CRANFORD: Go ahead.

SCARBOROUGH: You talked about a 1996 scan.

CRANFORD: No, 2002, 2002.

SCARBOROUGH: Let's talk about it. A radiologist told the court that the 2002 scan actually showed improvement over the 1996 scan. Is that inaccurate? Did the AP report that wrong?

CRANFORD: Absolutely. Maxfield said it was improved. And Judge Greer didn't buy it because the others said it wasn't improved. It was probably worse than it was before.

SCARBOROUGH: Is he a charlatan also?

CRANFORD: Yes. Maxfield is an HBO [hyperbaric oxygen], vasodilator -- look it up, Joe. See what vasodilator does. See what hyperbaric oxygen, see in these cases, and you tell me they are not charlatans. Just because you don't agree with me -- I don't call everybody a charlatan. I'm not calling [Dr. Richard] Cheshire [who has argued that Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state] a charlatan. I think he's a reputable neurologist. I think he examined her, he interviewed her. So, just because I disagree, I don't call them charlatans. But you have got your facts so far off that it's unbelievable, Joe. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. You've never been at the bedside of these patients. And this will come out in the next three to five years about this condition and starvation.

SCARBOROUGH: You were there 42 minutes, Doctor.

CRANFORD: Yes, I was.

SCARBOROUGH: You are only one doctor that's been there. And somehow, in your 42 minutes of observing her, you have all the answers and everybody that disagrees is dead wrong, I guess.

CRANFORD: No, that's just a -- you know what? You've gotta see what Judge Greer said. You've gotta see what the appeals court said. If you read that, Joe, you will understand why the judge decided the way he did.

SCARBOROUGH: All right.

CRANFORD: He didn't believe Hammesfahr. He didn't believe Maxfield. And it's not starvation. And Nancy Cruzan did not die in six days. She died in 11 days and 11.5 hours, 11 days and 11.5 hours.

SCARBOROUGH: All right.

CRANFORD: OK?

SCARBOROUGH: Thank you, Doctor.

CRANFORD: My pleasure.

SCARBOROUGH: You know what? This is the disappointing thing. You try to have a conversation. You try to talk about what is going on. And I found this as an attorney, too. I have been attorneys for plaintiffs. I have been attorneys for defendants. And what I always find out is, there are certain doctors -- I am not claiming that this doctor is a charlatan. I don't know his body of work. I am not claiming that he is a hired gun.

But too many doctors out there can be bought off by attorneys on either side. And then they come out, instead of telling you the facts, you get into debate like you are talking to an attorney. It is very, very disappointing.

I want to apologize to Lisa for interrupting her, but the thing is, Lisa was getting attacked because of what I said. I think that is unfair.

:lol :lol :lol
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
Out of that whole conversation, and pretty much one-sided ass-handing I might add, all the idiots need to cling to their asinine line of thinking is this:

I understand that Michael Schiavo and his team asked you to examine his wife.

That's it. Nothing else the doctor said matters. At all. "He's in on it!" "He's one of them!!"

Joe Fuckface said as much at the end, anyway.

Guys, there's just nothing we can do about this (and I don't just mean the Schiavo case). These motherfuckers are hopeless. I'd feel sorry for 'em if I didn't want to pound them senseless so much. Arguing with a pile of shit would yield better, and less smelly, results.
 
funnyIII032905.bmp


From a livejournal

As for the Joe Scarborough, he, Pat Buchanan, and Sean Hannity have really gone off the deep end on this one. There are a LOT of bad pundits sticking their heads in this matter, but those three have been the worst, easily.
 

Ill Saint

Member
What a thoroughly unpleasent person. Of course, he had to smear Cranford at the end of the segment, it seems like a rule of thumb amongst these kind (FOX News variety) of pundits.
 

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
:lol :lol :lol :lol that picture is CLASSIC.

Here are some poor kids who got suckered into doing their parents' dirty work for the cameras. Well done, idiots.

protest27416ui.jpg
 

Pimpwerx

Member
Dude, they're not cuffing those kids, are they? :( Punish the parents, not the kids. Anyway, that fat kid with the sign rocks. :lol That reminds me of the zealots getting pelted with beads all week long at Mardi Gras. :lol When you wear your faith on your sleeve, prepare to be ridiculed. :lol

Oh yeah, all I got to say to Joe is, "pick up your sticks, bitch." This ass-whooping ain't over yet. PEACE.
 

calder

Member
As much as the total owning of Scarborough made me happy, even just reading transcripts of his venomous jackassery makes me nauseous. What a fucking shitstain of a human being.

Anyone have a clip of the neurologist fisting Clueless Joe on his own show?
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
I think a judge should order a stop on the feeding shovel that is keeping the "SHE WANTS TO LIVE" sign woman alive.
 
Nintendo Ate My Children said:
I can't make out what it says. Judge Greer=poc-brad?

poo head?

Oh, and the second video was fucking great. I'd stay far as fuck away from that asshole if I was a professional of any sort in the future based on the way he blatantly attacked the doctor's cred at the end. Douchebag.
 

calder

Member
OpinionatedCyborg said:
poo head?

Oh, and the second video was fucking great. I'd stay far as fuck away from that asshole if I was a professional of any sort in the future based on the way he blatantly attacked the doctor's cred at the end. Douchebag.
No kidding. It was the worst sort of sniveling attack too, a pathetic "I don't know this guy but..." then a stream of bullshit implied slander about unethical 'hired-gun' doctors who say whatever lawyers want them to say and how it's too bad some doctors are frauds *wink wink to my credulous army of loyal viewers so they know to dismiss everything the quack said*. And he saves it for when the guest is gone (of course) and then tacks on a few more "hired by Michael Schiavo" qualifiers to boot. In an industry full of jackasses he still stands out as a toxic character assassin and bully.
 
i saw the interview with the neurologist. Scarborough was so condescending when he said "You only examined her for 42 minutes...". Doctor should have been like "Bitch how many minutes have YOU examined her?"
 

El Papa

Member
I don't really know much about this case or who these people in the transcript are, since I don't watch much TV, but what he says about doctors being bought off by the complainant/defendant is pretty much true. Basically, whatever side you're on, you find a doctor that will agree with you're side of the facts and testify to that using his 'expertise'. After the doctor testifies, he gets paid by the attorney. Bet some of you didn't know that :D
 

Ollie Pooch

In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
that scarborough guy is such a smarmy little bastard - just listening to the way he talks makes my skin crawl. nasty
 

fart

Savant
SCARBOROUGH: ...I am not claiming that this doctor is a charlatan. I don't know his body of work.
WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD FUCKING LOOK THAT SHIT UP BEFORE YOU BRING HIM ON THE SHOW THEN ATTEMPT TO SLANDER HIM, YOU FUCKING JACKASS.

the guy has 97 publications, by the way
 

Macam

Banned
Iceman said:
I'm going to call this the leftorium from now on.

Until you can actually offer an argument explaining or defending your position, you're offering nothing to the dialogue here.
 

Iceman

Member
First time I saw that Mandy,

The implication that I am not a "smart" conservative is enough for me to laugh your challenge off. I'm amazed that some of you recoil at any of my slander directed towards liberals but the constant libel thrown at "us" in specific and in general goes unnoticed.

1) I'm not a republican stooge. I'm a republican because my ideological beliefs fit snugly within its platform borders. We are one entity within the larger party that calls itself Republican. Why do I have to answer for everything they do? I don't agree with it all. In contrast, there's almost nothing I agree with on the Democrat's platform. That's why I'm not going to give you guys any nods except to say.. well, your hearts are in the right place I guess.

2) Except for in the case of Schiavo I guess. This issue had nothing to do with any of you (or myself personally) and I was happy to leave the issue alone forever. But then it became THE issue and everybody had to take sides right? Well, some of you guys.. with those big old hearts.. picked the side of monsters. The abject lack of respect for human life is disgusting. The husband obviously doesn't care about her anymore... he has a common law wife with a couple of kids.. he's moved on. The parents .. this is their child.. a piece of their soul.. and they want to keep her alive, hanging on to some hope. Well, why does this ONE guy, who obviously has nothing vested in her anymore, have the ultimate say in whether she lives or dies? There are those who are willing to do what it takes to keep her alive and Michael would have no responsibility in the matter and could live his other life, raising his kids, etc. but he would deny that to others that invest in her like that? Is he afraid they would turn her into some kind of cyborg? I just cannot comprehend his thinking.

3) Now are people who are almost in a persistent vegetative state legally dead? Redefining life? The thought sickens me. (maybe it's my year of riding along in ambulances, or my commitment to medical research or my desire to make huge contributions to the field of acute lung injury wherein patients are basically given a %50-50 chance of living or not..)

4) I may not be a radiologist (yet) and I'm fairly certain not many of you are, but I did work in radiology for 5 years and this bothers me: CT scans don't reveal anything about brain function. MRI's, EEGs, PET scans.. these are the tests you run to figure out what may be wrong with a person's brain. I've only seen one slice of her CT.. and that's it.. one slice? Where's the rest? (A) You can't compare one person's CT to another, that's why they train radiologists to understand variablity of normal and abnormal scans.. because it's not easy. (B) I've seen CT's of people with massive bleeders in their heads and guess what? It's like you don't even see the brain anymore! Sure, these patients have obvious mental deficiencies when this happens but you don't see doctors immediately looking to shuttle them off to some hospice care. There are aggressive forms of therapy available to try and save life and mental function.

5) Everything about this case smells funny to me. But since I'm not privy to all the details I don't let it worry me. I am concerned that others like, me with limited information can jump the gun so quickly. I left it alone until the day I posted.. what 9 days ago? Wasn't my concern. (You see how I've left politics out of this?)

But I do not doubt that there will be legislative fallout after all this fades away.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Except for in the case of Schiavo I guess. This issue had nothing to do with any of you (or myself personally) and I was happy to leave the issue alone forever. But then it became THE issue and everybody had to take sides right? Well, some of you guys.. with those big old hearts.. picked the side of monsters.

You've got quite the balls, making this judgement call and in the same breath admitting to not knowing all of the facts. Especially when most of the facts out there pointed to her never recovering.

I hope you never have to make this decision yourself, I'd be interested to know if you'd put your emotional catcalls where your heart is. You know what I'm talking about:

"Hi, [name of loved one here]. My respect for you being technically alive is outweighing your right to not live in a bed for the rest of your "life," being fed through a tube and being completely immobile. Sorry, that's just how I feel."
 

Dilbert

Member
I hope you become a radiologist soon, Iceman, because is definitely some broken shit rattling around in your head.
 
Iceman said:
The husband obviously doesn't care about her anymore... he has a common law wife with a couple of kids.. he's moved on.

15 years. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't move on after 15 years?

Iceman said:
Well, why does this ONE guy, who obviously has nothing vested in her anymore, have the ultimate say in whether she lives or dies?

Because that's what SHE wanted...
 

Ollie Pooch

In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Iceman said:
Well, some of you guys.. with those big old hearts.. picked the side of monsters.

what if it's what she wanted? who's the monster - the one who grants her wishes? or the one who leaves her suspended in a state where she can't actually do anything at all?

i think a lot of people have become quite passionate and vocal about this issue since so many 'compassionate' conservatives (i'm not referring to you - more the supposed 'pro life' conservative commentators on tv.. scarborough is a particularly nasty one from the looks) have conveniently forgotten their passionate support for the war in which many thousands of civilians have been killed.

i'm not trying to turn this into a political issue.. well it already is :p , but the hypocrisy on show has probably led more people to chime in than would normally. 'err on the side of life' - gimme a break.
 

gohepcat

Banned
He was offered tons of money to keep her alive. He has fought this long and hard because this is what she wanted.

Monsters? How fucking dare you. Her parents trapped that girl in a shell of a body for 15 years, filmed her, then released it to the public.

There is nothing fishy about it. She was completely and utterly "brain dead"
 

calder

Member
If you want to see Scarborough get owned again, there's a clip at Crooks and Liars where Court TV anchor (and former judge) Catherine Crier gives him a schooling on the law he won't soon forget. Of course, while he won't actually *forget* it soon he'll start pretending it never happened the second he comes back from commercial break so he can continue saying the same bullshit he KNOWS isn't true to satisfy his nutbar audience.
 
lol, calder, i watched that scarborough vs. crier segment live. it was absolutely hilarious. i kept thikning, "how could any grown adult be this stupid -- and on his own show?"

christ. what a joke he is.
 

Triumph

Banned
Yeah... sorry. Terri Schiavo was a fucking vegetable the last 15 years. She was no more the Schindler's daughter than a damn rutabaga was. Any part of her that was in fact someone's daughter or wife ceased to be long ago.

This whole stupid debate is really about seperating out the people who are smart enough to realize this and those who have to comfort themselves and think better of themselves by denying something that is obvious. Terri Schiavo died over 15 years ago. Medical science kept a husk alive until now.
 

Ollie Pooch

In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Incognito said:
lol, calder, i watched that scarborough vs. crier segment live. it was absolutely hilarious. i kept thikning, "how could any grown adult be this stupid -- and on his own show?"

christ. what a joke he is.


the crier one was even better than the one with the neurologist! i didnt even know who this scarborough guy was before this - but selfishly, i hope he continues to make a complete dick of himself on his own show, purely for my own entertainment :D
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Iceman:

I read through your response a couple times to figure out just what about it bugged me, then a couple more times to verify it.

At no point in your post did you ever acknowledge that Terri Schiavo's wishes were even a minor factor.

Your post was a weird mix of self-congratulation, slander, and mind-reading. The parts that can actually be considered argument seem to boil down to: Whoever cared about her the most should decide whether the feeding tube stayed, and whoever wants to keep the feeding tube must care about her more. The snake is eating its own tail in your logic.

I was expecting some argument addressing the main legal point of the original case (and what many consider to be the central moral point): that Terri Schiavo would have wanted to be kept alive, that she could have changed her mind but been unable to communicate it, etc. But instead, nothing.

This is par for the course. The parents have said that they would keep her alive, even if she had told them not to, even if they knew there was never any hope of any sort of recovery. You seem to agree that this would be good. I disagree, but understand the parents' emotions.

On the other hand, you say that the other side is the side of monsters. All the while being utterly oblivious of the core moral argument on that side.

You congratulate yourself on your reticence, yet you say you were prodded by everyone jumping in on the other side, presumably meaning at GA. Sorry, but ignoring the vastly more significant political mobilization until some nerd on a message board annoys you is not going to win you any points.

You bring up medical science as if Terri Schiavo was rushed towards death after the initial heart attack. She was placed at a rehabilitation center in May 1990, taken to California in November for experimental therapies, taken to a rehab center in Brandon, Florida in January 1991, then taken to a skilled nursing facility in June of that year where she underwent physical and speech therapy. She was not taken to a hospice facility until over a decade after the original heart attack and brain damage.

It's pretty mind-boggling that someone could be so ignorant not only of the moral logic of one side of the debate, but of the facts of the issue itself.

As for the Mandark Challenge(tm Azih) in general, I'm asking you to defend one of the ten, not all ten. Heck, you're a creationist and don't like Social Security, so those should be gimmes. C'mon, Iceman, don't be skurrred.
 
Mandark said:
Iceman:

I read through your response a couple times to figure out just what about it bugged me, then a couple more times to verify it.

At no point in your post did you ever acknowledge that Terri Schiavo's wishes were even a minor factor.

Your post was a weird mix of self-congratulation, slander, and mind-reading. The parts that can actually be considered argument seem to boil down to: Whoever cared about her the most should decide whether the feeding tube stayed, and whoever wants to keep the feeding tube must care about her more. The snake is eating its own tail in your logic.

I was expecting some argument addressing the main legal point of the original case (and what many consider to be the central moral point): that Terri Schiavo would have wanted to be kept alive, that she could have changed her mind but been unable to communicate it, etc. But instead, nothing.

This is par for the course. The parents have said that they would keep her alive, even if she had told them not to, even if they knew there was never any hope of any sort of recovery. You seem to agree that this would be good. I disagree, but understand the parents' emotions.

On the other hand, you say that the other side is the side of monsters. All the while being utterly oblivious of the core moral argument on that side.

You congratulate yourself on your reticence, yet you say you were prodded by everyone jumping in on the other side, presumably meaning at GA. Sorry, but ignoring the vastly more significant political mobilization until some nerd on a message board annoys you is not going to win you any points.

You bring up medical science as if Terri Schiavo was rushed towards death after the initial heart attack. She was placed at a rehabilitation center in May 1990, taken to California in November for experimental therapies, taken to a rehab center in Brandon, Florida in January 1991, then taken to a skilled nursing facility in June of that year where she underwent physical and speech therapy. She was not taken to a hospice facility until over a decade after the original heart attack and brain damage.

It's pretty mind-boggling that someone could be so ignorant not only of the moral logic of one side of the debate, but of the facts of the issue itself.

As for the Mandark Challenge(tm Azih) in general, I'm asking you to defend one of the ten, not all ten. Heck, you're a creationist and don't like Social Security, so those should be gimmes. C'mon, Iceman, don't be skurrred.
Iceman has yet to respond to any post that challenges his views on the issue; I don't expect him to start here.
 

Meantime

Member
El Papa said:
I don't really know much about this case or who these people in the transcript are, since I don't watch much TV, but what he says about doctors being bought off by the complainant/defendant is pretty much true. Basically, whatever side you're on, you find a doctor that will agree with you're side of the facts and testify to that using his 'expertise'. After the doctor testifies, he gets paid by the attorney. Bet some of you didn't know that :D

Lawyers will lie to win a case? WHO KNEW?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom