"Argyle" argyle@nospam wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:49:49 -0400, DSK wrote:

Argyle wrote:
I must have misunderstood something you said, if so, it was
unintended.


OK, want to try again?

Who would Jesus bomb?
Nobody.

Uh huh... and it is a "vast majority'? Furthermore, does an 11%
majority
justify demonizing all who disagree?

I try not to demonize but feel strongly about it. Just as I would
demonize
those that do not believe in racial equlity.

Demonizing the opposition is a pretty standard tactic for the Christian
Right movement. Maybe you should try to get them to tone it down a bit.
I'll try to be nicer and more tolerant.

Demonizing the opposition is the standard for liebrals...........once
again they accuse others of what they are guilty of.




Why do you call conservative justices "liberal"? Do you think so
little
of Reagan's appointees?


Who appointed them is not a concern. Their decisions are.


Maybe, after careful study & deliberation, their decisions are wiser
than you give them credit for. Many people criticise Justice O'Connor
for her unwillingness to overturn 'Roe vs Wade.'
Maybe, and maybe not on their decisions. Do you call a 5 to 4 decision a
vast majority? I am still pro-life and a Christian. I could care less if
you
are not. Fact is, I don't care what you beleve in. As long as you have
morals.

The reason for overturning Roe vs Wade has nothing to do with abortion,
it has everything to do with the returning the fed. guvmint back to its
consitutionally limited mandates.



But you appear to support "legislation from the bench" when it is
anti-gay and anti-abortion?


No, I don't.

Well, that's good. Maybe you'll be a good influence when discussion
turns to the upcoming battle over Robert's nomination.
I'll wait to see what those that have access to the records have to say.
If
there is a problem, I guess it will be on partisan lines. Until then, I
don't know enough to form an opinion.


Regards,
Argyle