|
I'll be casting my vote...
|
I'll be casting my vote...
|
I'll be casting my vote...
HK wrote:
BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch And the laws of our nation have NEVER equated abortion with murder Q.E.D. 50.1 percent say it is not murder and 49.9 percent say it is murder. That is the margin for deeming it not murder in codified law. Oops it is not the legislature that enacted a law it is an edict from the SCOTUS. Send the issue back to the state legislatures and let each state determine what abortion is or is not. Too late. This fall, challenges to Roe v. Wade will begin the journey to becoming buried, because either President Clinton or President Obama will nominate pro-choice associate justices, and the Democratic Senate will confirm them. You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Are you still married? |
I'll be casting my vote...
"HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch |
I'll be casting my vote...
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:41:03 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch And the laws of our nation have NEVER equated abortion with murder Q.E.D. 50.1 percent say it is not murder and 49.9 percent say it is murder. That is the margin for deeming it not murder in codified law. Oops it is not the legislature that enacted a law it is an edict from the SCOTUS. Send the issue back to the state legislatures and let each state determine what abortion is or is not. When abortion was illegal, PRIOR to Roe vs. Wade, it was NEVER considered murder under any law. Law is determined by a majority vote in the legislature. 50% + 1 vote = law. |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:26 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:46:04 -0500, HK wrote: BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch And the laws of our nation have NEVER equated abortion with murder Q.E.D. 50.1 percent say it is not murder and 49.9 percent say it is murder. That is the margin for deeming it not murder in codified law. Oops it is not the legislature that enacted a law it is an edict from the SCOTUS. Send the issue back to the state legislatures and let each state determine what abortion is or is not. Too late. This fall, challenges to Roe v. Wade will begin the journey to becoming buried, because either President Clinton or President Obama will nominate pro-choice associate justices, and the Democratic Senate will confirm them. You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. If Roe vs Wade ever gets overturned, abortion will STILL not be murder under the law. We are a nation of laws, or at least that's what the right wing kooks tell us whenever it suits their own agenda. "...under the law." Keep saying that. -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:46:04 -0500, HK wrote:
Too late. This fall, challenges to Roe v. Wade will begin the journey to becoming buried, because either President Clinton or President Obama will nominate pro-choice associate justices, and the Democratic Senate will confirm them. "Pro-choice"? Does the baby get a choice? You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. "That's not the baby kicking, beautiful bride, that's just a fetus." What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. Who are the ones who are *not* a crock of absolute crap? Be careful, you don't want to **** off those to whom you suck up. You may lose your 'character' status and be seen for what you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Did the Dr. Dr. give you those words to say? -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
|
I'll be casting my vote...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:14:41 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:03:52 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:41:03 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch And the laws of our nation have NEVER equated abortion with murder Q.E.D. 50.1 percent say it is not murder and 49.9 percent say it is murder. That is the margin for deeming it not murder in codified law. Oops it is not the legislature that enacted a law it is an edict from the SCOTUS. Send the issue back to the state legislatures and let each state determine what abortion is or is not. When abortion was illegal, PRIOR to Roe vs. Wade, it was NEVER considered murder under any law. Law is determined by a majority vote in the legislature. 50% + 1 vote = law. Not usually. And then there's that pesky "presidential veto" that has of course NEVER been used. What was the vote when abortion was made illegal? One to zero. "Thou shalt not kill." -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:35:40 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:34:29 -0500, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:26 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:46:04 -0500, HK wrote: BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch And the laws of our nation have NEVER equated abortion with murder Q.E.D. 50.1 percent say it is not murder and 49.9 percent say it is murder. That is the margin for deeming it not murder in codified law. Oops it is not the legislature that enacted a law it is an edict from the SCOTUS. Send the issue back to the state legislatures and let each state determine what abortion is or is not. Too late. This fall, challenges to Roe v. Wade will begin the journey to becoming buried, because either President Clinton or President Obama will nominate pro-choice associate justices, and the Democratic Senate will confirm them. You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. If Roe vs Wade ever gets overturned, abortion will STILL not be murder under the law. We are a nation of laws, or at least that's what the right wing kooks tell us whenever it suits their own agenda. "...under the law." Keep saying that. Are you a criminal? You are beginning to sound like someone who doesn't believe in our democracy, our country or it's laws. If disagreeing with Roe vs Wade makes me one, then I suppose so. How you can amplify Roe vs Wade into "...our democracy, our country or it's [sic] laws..." is beyond me. Sounds very Krauseish. -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:43:59 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:41:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:53:30 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:41:03 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch And the laws of our nation have NEVER equated abortion with murder Q.E.D. 50.1 percent say it is not murder and 49.9 percent say it is murder. That is the margin for deeming it not murder in codified law. Oops it is not the legislature that enacted a law it is an edict from the SCOTUS. Send the issue back to the state legislatures and let each state determine what abortion is or is not. When abortion was illegal, PRIOR to Roe vs. Wade, it was NEVER considered murder under any law. "...under law." Cute. I'm well aware that you kooks on the religious right don't believe in our government, our laws, our country, or democracy in general. You are about as anti-American as it gets. You're being Krauseish again. If you're going to act like him, you can respond for him. Too late. This fall, challenges to Roe v. Wade will begin the journey to becoming buried, because either President Clinton or President Obama will nominate pro-choice associate justices, and the Democratic Senate will confirm them. "Pro-choice"? Does the baby get a choice? You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. "That's not the baby kicking, beautiful bride, that's just a fetus." What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. Who are the ones who are *not* a crock of absolute crap? Be careful, you don't want to **** off those to whom you suck up. You may lose your 'character' status and be seen for what you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Did the Dr. Dr. give you those words to say? -- John H -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch Abortion is a very complex issue, but I have never understood who ANYONE would not think a fetus is a unborn baby. The definition of a fetus is an unborn mammal (normally in discussion of humans) from 8 weeks to birth. The pro abortion people like to divert the discussion but Harry's diversion is a new one "a repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and a need to control woman"..... WOW |
I'll be casting my vote...
wrote in message
... On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:34:29 -0500, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:26 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:46:04 -0500, HK wrote: BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch And the laws of our nation have NEVER equated abortion with murder Q.E.D. 50.1 percent say it is not murder and 49.9 percent say it is murder. That is the margin for deeming it not murder in codified law. Oops it is not the legislature that enacted a law it is an edict from the SCOTUS. Send the issue back to the state legislatures and let each state determine what abortion is or is not. Too late. This fall, challenges to Roe v. Wade will begin the journey to becoming buried, because either President Clinton or President Obama will nominate pro-choice associate justices, and the Democratic Senate will confirm them. You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. If Roe vs Wade ever gets overturned, abortion will STILL not be murder under the law. We are a nation of laws, or at least that's what the right wing kooks tell us whenever it suits their own agenda. "...under the law." Keep saying that. Are you a criminal? You are beginning to sound like someone who doesn't believe in our democracy, our country or it's laws. Abortion and gun control are two issues politicians use to lead residents (but not citizens) around, in the same way you lead a kitten all over the room using a shiny toy on a string. They appear to be simple issues with clear-cut answers, so residents (but not citizens) think they're "deciders". Then, they think "Well, that's enough decidin' for this year. I wonder what's on TV." Issues like these are a good tool to distract residents (but not citizens) from things which are more likely to actually bite them in the ass in the future, like the patriot act. Why think when someone's already done it for you? John is a resident. |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Feb 14, 9:43*am, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:41:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:53:30 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:41:03 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message om... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message news:4497r3hhvn1c5opvi9023acu0g7uldt0c7@4ax .com... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. *They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch And the laws of our nation have NEVER equated abortion with murder Q.E.D. 50.1 percent say it is not murder and 49.9 percent say it is murder. That is the margin for deeming it not murder in codified law. Oops it is not the legislature that enacted a law it is an edict from the SCOTUS. Send the issue back to the state legislatures and let each state determine what abortion is or is not. When abortion was illegal, PRIOR to Roe vs. Wade, it was NEVER considered murder under any law. "...under law." Cute. I'm well aware that you kooks on the religious right don't believe in our government, our laws, our country, or democracy in general. You are about as anti-American as it gets.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You do not have a clue how I feel, just to show you how stupid you are starting to sound. I am a christian, a very bad one, but a christian. I feel that abortion is murder, I also feel that we should maintain RowVWade as it would be far to dangerous to our society and particularly the women of our society to stop it. Furthermore, I have no problem with my tax money being involved as I pay my taxes to a Govt that represents all of us in theory and women would die if we did not as a society provide services for some to do what they would do either way, in a clinic, or in a back alley and I can't see going back to that. Now go ahead and tell me how closed minded and anti-american we christians are, idiot. Now go teach your local kindergarten kids about fisting, and by all means, don't let the parents have a say... |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:03:56 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:41:52 -0500, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:14:41 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:03:52 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:41:03 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch And the laws of our nation have NEVER equated abortion with murder Q.E.D. 50.1 percent say it is not murder and 49.9 percent say it is murder. That is the margin for deeming it not murder in codified law. Oops it is not the legislature that enacted a law it is an edict from the SCOTUS. Send the issue back to the state legislatures and let each state determine what abortion is or is not. When abortion was illegal, PRIOR to Roe vs. Wade, it was NEVER considered murder under any law. Law is determined by a majority vote in the legislature. 50% + 1 vote = law. Not usually. And then there's that pesky "presidential veto" that has of course NEVER been used. What was the vote when abortion was made illegal? One to zero. "Thou shalt not kill." You only apply that "law" when it suits you. What was the vote on that "law" by congress? If you believed in it absolutely, you could not support war or the death penalty under any circumstances. In other words, your "religio" is a complete sham, too. Religion? Did I say I had a 'religio', whatever that is? And, by the way, 'if' is for children, building daydreams. Salty, it's OK for you to believe killing babies is acceptable. I won't revert to name calling or personal attacks because of it. -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch Abortion is a very complex issue, but I have never understood who ANYONE would not think a fetus is a unborn baby. The definition of a fetus is an unborn mammal (normally in discussion of humans) from 8 weeks to birth. The pro abortion people like to divert the discussion but Harry's diversion is a new one "a repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and a need to control woman"..... WOW Pin this post to his jacket and march him right to the shrink's office. |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Feb 14, 10:24*am, wrote:
I'm well aware that you kooks on the religious right don't believe in our government, our laws, our country, or democracy in general. You are about as anti-American as it gets.- You do not have a clue how I feel, just to show you how stupid you are starting to sound. I am a christian, a very bad one, but a christian. I feel that abortion is murder, I also feel that we should maintain RowVWade as it would be far to dangerous to our society and particularly the women of our society to stop it. Furthermore, I have no problem with my tax money being involved as I pay my taxes to a Govt that represents all of us in theory and women would die if we did not as a society provide services for some to do what they would do either way, in a clinic, or in a back alley and I can't see going back to that. Now go ahead and tell me how closed minded and anti-american we christians are, idiot. Now go teach your local kindergarten kids about fisting, and by all means, don't let the parents have a say... I was not addressing you. Please try to pay attention. :') You said: kooks on the religious right don't believe in our government, our laws, our country, or democracy in general. You are about as anti-American as it gets You were blanketing the religious right, that is me... So who gets to decide if I am a kook or not? |
I'll be casting my vote...
"Jim" wrote in message
... "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch Abortion is a very complex issue, but I have never understood who ANYONE would not think a fetus is a unborn baby. The definition of a fetus is an unborn mammal (normally in discussion of humans) from 8 weeks to birth. The pro abortion people like to divert the discussion but Harry's diversion is a new one "a repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and a need to control woman"..... WOW Pin this post to his jacket and march him right to the shrink's office. Well, based on what we've seen in the news, Republicans *do* seem to have some odd sexual tendencies, usually paired with public statements condemning exactly those tendencies. |
I'll be casting my vote...
wrote in message ... On Feb 14, 10:24 am, wrote: I'm well aware that you kooks on the religious right don't believe in our government, our laws, our country, or democracy in general. You are about as anti-American as it gets.- You do not have a clue how I feel, just to show you how stupid you are starting to sound. I am a christian, a very bad one, but a christian. I feel that abortion is murder, I also feel that we should maintain RowVWade as it would be far to dangerous to our society and particularly the women of our society to stop it. Furthermore, I have no problem with my tax money being involved as I pay my taxes to a Govt that represents all of us in theory and women would die if we did not as a society provide services for some to do what they would do either way, in a clinic, or in a back alley and I can't see going back to that. Now go ahead and tell me how closed minded and anti-american we christians are, idiot. Now go teach your local kindergarten kids about fisting, and by all means, don't let the parents have a say... I was not addressing you. Please try to pay attention. :') You said: kooks on the religious right don't believe in our government, our laws, our country, or democracy in general. You are about as anti-American as it gets You were blanketing the religious right, that is me... So who gets to decide if I am a kook or not? Tom? :-) |
I'll be casting my vote...
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:34:29 -0500, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:26 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:46:04 -0500, HK wrote: BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch And the laws of our nation have NEVER equated abortion with murder Q.E.D. 50.1 percent say it is not murder and 49.9 percent say it is murder. That is the margin for deeming it not murder in codified law. Oops it is not the legislature that enacted a law it is an edict from the SCOTUS. Send the issue back to the state legislatures and let each state determine what abortion is or is not. Too late. This fall, challenges to Roe v. Wade will begin the journey to becoming buried, because either President Clinton or President Obama will nominate pro-choice associate justices, and the Democratic Senate will confirm them. You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. If Roe vs Wade ever gets overturned, abortion will STILL not be murder under the law. We are a nation of laws, or at least that's what the right wing kooks tell us whenever it suits their own agenda. "...under the law." Keep saying that. Are you a criminal? You are beginning to sound like someone who doesn't believe in our democracy, our country or it's laws. All we as citizens of this country we have to obey the laws or suffer the consequences. We don't have to like the laws and we certainly can work to change the laws. The law does not have to reflect right or wrong or even define right or wrong. |
I'll be casting my vote...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch I don't recall naming you. And I did include the "most" qualifier. |
I'll be casting my vote...
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:12:43 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:34:29 -0500, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:26 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:46:04 -0500, HK wrote: BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:52 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch And the laws of our nation have NEVER equated abortion with murder Q.E.D. 50.1 percent say it is not murder and 49.9 percent say it is murder. That is the margin for deeming it not murder in codified law. Oops it is not the legislature that enacted a law it is an edict from the SCOTUS. Send the issue back to the state legislatures and let each state determine what abortion is or is not. Too late. This fall, challenges to Roe v. Wade will begin the journey to becoming buried, because either President Clinton or President Obama will nominate pro-choice associate justices, and the Democratic Senate will confirm them. You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. If Roe vs Wade ever gets overturned, abortion will STILL not be murder under the law. We are a nation of laws, or at least that's what the right wing kooks tell us whenever it suits their own agenda. "...under the law." Keep saying that. Are you a criminal? You are beginning to sound like someone who doesn't believe in our democracy, our country or it's laws. All we as citizens of this country we have to obey the laws or suffer the consequences. We don't have to like the laws and we certainly can work to change the laws. The law does not have to reflect right or wrong or even define right or wrong. According to Eisboch, you are wrong about that. I could get a law passed that says you are not allowed to post on rec.boats. Is this right or wrong? It is neither, it just is. If you want to talk about laws based upon morality we can do that too. |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Jim" wrote in message . .. "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch Abortion is a very complex issue, but I have never understood who ANYONE would not think a fetus is a unborn baby. The definition of a fetus is an unborn mammal (normally in discussion of humans) from 8 weeks to birth. The pro abortion people like to divert the discussion but Harry's diversion is a new one "a repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and a need to control woman"..... WOW Pin this post to his jacket and march him right to the shrink's office. Well, based on what we've seen in the news, Republicans *do* seem to have some odd sexual tendencies, usually paired with public statements condemning exactly those tendencies. Were those 'Republicans' in that San Francisco parade, or are those tendencies the 'norm' for you guys? -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:34:25 -0500, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch I don't recall naming you. And I did include the "most" qualifier. SUCKUP! -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Jim" wrote in message .. . "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch Abortion is a very complex issue, but I have never understood who ANYONE would not think a fetus is a unborn baby. The definition of a fetus is an unborn mammal (normally in discussion of humans) from 8 weeks to birth. The pro abortion people like to divert the discussion but Harry's diversion is a new one "a repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and a need to control woman"..... WOW Pin this post to his jacket and march him right to the shrink's office. Well, based on what we've seen in the news, Republicans *do* seem to have some odd sexual tendencies, usually paired with public statements condemning exactly those tendencies. Were those 'Republicans' in that San Francisco parade, or are those tendencies the 'norm' for you guys? -- John H Here's a nice chart for your enlightenment. http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...Hypocrites.jpg |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:50:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Jim" wrote in message . .. "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch Abortion is a very complex issue, but I have never understood who ANYONE would not think a fetus is a unborn baby. The definition of a fetus is an unborn mammal (normally in discussion of humans) from 8 weeks to birth. The pro abortion people like to divert the discussion but Harry's diversion is a new one "a repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and a need to control woman"..... WOW Pin this post to his jacket and march him right to the shrink's office. Well, based on what we've seen in the news, Republicans *do* seem to have some odd sexual tendencies, usually paired with public statements condemning exactly those tendencies. Were those 'Republicans' in that San Francisco parade, or are those tendencies the 'norm' for you guys? -- John H Here's a nice chart for your enlightenment. http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...Hypocrites.jpg You failed to answer the question. -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:50:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch Abortion is a very complex issue, but I have never understood who ANYONE would not think a fetus is a unborn baby. The definition of a fetus is an unborn mammal (normally in discussion of humans) from 8 weeks to birth. The pro abortion people like to divert the discussion but Harry's diversion is a new one "a repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and a need to control woman"..... WOW Pin this post to his jacket and march him right to the shrink's office. Well, based on what we've seen in the news, Republicans *do* seem to have some odd sexual tendencies, usually paired with public statements condemning exactly those tendencies. Were those 'Republicans' in that San Francisco parade, or are those tendencies the 'norm' for you guys? -- John H Here's a nice chart for your enlightenment. http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...Hypocrites.jpg You failed to answer the question. -- John H You failed to include hypocrisy in your so-called observation. Gays in a parade don't condemn something and then do exactly what they condemned. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch I don't recall naming you. And I did include the "most" qualifier. I am well aware of your frequent and carefully chosen qualifiers. You're an accomplished writer and wordsmith. It still doesn't excuse hateful, poisoned attacks on those who simply don't agree with your view of the world. Those type of comments are intended to do nothing but incite. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but it still carries an obligation to be used responsibly if you expect respect in return. I don't support abortion, but accept the fact that others do. I believe life begins at conception but respect the fact that others don't believe that. I normally don't offer my opinion on the subject unless I am asked or it's a topic of general discussion. I don't try to bully my POV on others. I also don't commit murder or believe in the death penalty. But, I'd blow the head off anybody trying to harm me or my family. Eisboch |
I'll be casting my vote...
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch I don't recall naming you. And I did include the "most" qualifier. Eisboch, when Harry is talking about the sexually repressed, woman beating Republicans he is not talking about you. You are a righteous rightie. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message . .. HK wrote: Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch I don't recall naming you. And I did include the "most" qualifier. Eisboch, when Harry is talking about the sexually repressed, woman beating Republicans he is not talking about you. You are a righteous rightie. Right now I am a pretty disgusted righteous rightie. I should know better because after 14 years of reading his daily contributions to the NG, I know Harry and I shouldn't allow him to get to me. He gets his jollies posting offensive comments, designed to incite, just to watch people react. He's proud of his writing prowess but abuses it using his inventory of opprobrious words and phrases in an attempt to bully or belittle others to further his POV. To him it's like plucking the wings off of flies and watching them die. Tough guy, huh? There are a lot of smart, talented and knowledgeable people who participate in this newsgroup. Individually, and certainly collectively, they reduce much of Harry's sneering contributions to worthless blather. The people I admire are those who can influence change for the better without having to resort to the verbal annihilation, spoken or written, of people they don't like or who may not currently share their viewpoints. It requires skill, knowledge and a degree of compassion. Anyone can do what Harry does if they want to stoop so low but it usually ends up being like a playground full of arguing children. Or the current status of rec.boats. The "really" smart people gave up on this NG years ago. Eisboch |
I'll be casting my vote...
Eisboch wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message . .. HK wrote: Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch I don't recall naming you. And I did include the "most" qualifier. Eisboch, when Harry is talking about the sexually repressed, woman beating Republicans he is not talking about you. You are a righteous rightie. Right now I am a pretty disgusted righteous rightie. I should know better because after 14 years of reading his daily contributions to the NG, I know Harry and I shouldn't allow him to get to me. He gets his jollies posting offensive comments, designed to incite, just to watch people react. He's proud of his writing prowess but abuses it using his inventory of opprobrious words and phrases in an attempt to bully or belittle others to further his POV. To him it's like plucking the wings off of flies and watching them die. Tough guy, huh? There are a lot of smart, talented and knowledgeable people who participate in this newsgroup. Individually, and certainly collectively, they reduce much of Harry's sneering contributions to worthless blather. The people I admire are those who can influence change for the better without having to resort to the verbal annihilation, spoken or written, of people they don't like or who may not currently share their viewpoints. It requires skill, knowledge and a degree of compassion. Anyone can do what Harry does if they want to stoop so low but it usually ends up being like a playground full of arguing children. Or the current status of rec.boats. The "really" smart people gave up on this NG years ago. Eisboch *I* gave up on this newsgroup years ago. No one can start an on-topic discussion here without some snarky a**hole like Reggie immediately going after the poster or the post. Just go back over any month's posts and you'll see who the "attack dogs" are. There are lots of entries in the "literature," as it were, relating to the extreme right's repression of women by forcing pregnancies upon them, or by attempting to control their natural sexuality. Much of this is based upon fear of loss of control. |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:46:04 -0500, HK wrote:
You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. What the hell are you talking about? You think it's better to kill a baby under the reprehensible construct of "reproductive rights"? Here's your "reproductive right" - it's nothing more than a feel good term for murder - period. You and you asshole abortionist buddies are murderers. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. Care to prove that? What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. And what a flying asshole you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Ah yes - the last resort of the hedonistic pussy boy - no need for personal responsibility, ethics and morals - just kill 'em all and avoid responsibility. I used to think you were ok - a little weird and paying a price for some wayward braggadocio, but essentially fairly normal. Now I know better. Don't bother replying - I'm done with you. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message . .. HK wrote: Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. What a crock of absolute crap most of you are. At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the subject, but it doesn't reflect mine or many others. Eisboch I don't recall naming you. And I did include the "most" qualifier. Eisboch, when Harry is talking about the sexually repressed, woman beating Republicans he is not talking about you. You are a righteous rightie. Right now I am a pretty disgusted righteous rightie. I should know better because after 14 years of reading his daily contributions to the NG, I know Harry and I shouldn't allow him to get to me. He gets his jollies posting offensive comments, designed to incite, just to watch people react. He's proud of his writing prowess but abuses it using his inventory of opprobrious words and phrases in an attempt to bully or belittle others to further his POV. To him it's like plucking the wings off of flies and watching them die. Tough guy, huh? There are a lot of smart, talented and knowledgeable people who participate in this newsgroup. Individually, and certainly collectively, they reduce much of Harry's sneering contributions to worthless blather. The people I admire are those who can influence change for the better without having to resort to the verbal annihilation, spoken or written, of people they don't like or who may not currently share their viewpoints. It requires skill, knowledge and a degree of compassion. Anyone can do what Harry does if they want to stoop so low but it usually ends up being like a playground full of arguing children. Or the current status of rec.boats. The "really" smart people gave up on this NG years ago. Eisboch How about if I give up on Krause and throw him in the dumper. Will that make me any smarter? I know it will improve my mental health. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"Jim" wrote in message ... How about if I give up on Krause and throw him in the dumper. Will that make me any smarter? I know it will improve my mental health. I think you are showing signs of brilliance already. I know what you've been up to. Don't waste your time. Eisboch |
I'll be casting my vote...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:46:04 -0500, HK wrote: You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or dies or what kind of life it lives. What the hell are you talking about? You think it's better to kill a baby under the reprehensible construct of "reproductive rights"? I think it is entirely up to a woman and her doctor to determine in the first three months of a pregnancy if it should go full term. After that, if there are compelling medical reasons for an abortion, it should be allowed. Here's your "reproductive right" - it's nothing more than a feel good term for murder - period. You and you asshole abortionist buddies are murderers. You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty. Care to prove that? Prove what? That many of those who claim to be so "pro-life" don't get nearly as upset when non-combatant, non-involved men, women and children are killed as a result of war, or that some of those "pro-lifers" engage in the killing themselves? When's the last time any "pro-lifer" here expressed real concern or horror over all the innocents being killed in Iraq? At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women. Ah yes - the last resort of the hedonistic pussy boy - no need for personal responsibility, ethics and morals - just kill 'em all and avoid responsibility. There are lots of cites in academic literature about the ways women are and have been repressed. Keeping them "barefoot and pregnant" is one way to do this. Keeping them from owning property was (and is, in some societies) another way. Women who have control over their lives (and their bodies) are seen as a threat to a male-dominated society. Freudians (of which I am not one) would have a ball in this newsgroup. |
I'll be casting my vote...
Jim wrote:
How about if I give up on Krause and throw him in the dumper. Will that make me any smarter? If you went to Oz and begged, Scarecrow, the wizard might give you a brain. That would make you smarter. |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:00:29 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
Right now I am a pretty disgusted righteous rightie. I should know better because after 14 years of reading his daily contributions to the NG, I know Harry and I shouldn't allow him to get to me. He gets his jollies posting offensive comments, designed to incite, just to watch people react. He's proud of his writing prowess but abuses it using his inventory of opprobrious words and phrases in an attempt to bully or belittle others to further his POV. To him it's like plucking the wings off of flies and watching them die. Tough guy, huh? Interesting way to put it. And dead on. |
I'll be casting my vote...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:00:29 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Right now I am a pretty disgusted righteous rightie. I should know better because after 14 years of reading his daily contributions to the NG, I know Harry and I shouldn't allow him to get to me. He gets his jollies posting offensive comments, designed to incite, just to watch people react. He's proud of his writing prowess but abuses it using his inventory of opprobrious words and phrases in an attempt to bully or belittle others to further his POV. To him it's like plucking the wings off of flies and watching them die. Tough guy, huh? Interesting way to put it. And dead on. What about a woman forced to risk her life to take a pregnancy to term? Or a child forced to carry her own father's baby? Is anti-abortion rhetoric going to help a heroin addict deliver a child with severe mental deficiencies? Maybe the Christian Coalition would like to adopt all children born with severe mental and physical deformities, whose life would only last for a few months? Is this the sanctity of life these groups extol? Reproductive rights preserves the rights of the living and often spares an infant needless suffering. So what is it that the conservatives are fighting for, anyway? Life at any cost? A utilitarian protection of the rights of the majority, over the few? Sounds a lot like the ethics of war. But, then again, that's a conservative value too. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"HK" wrote in message ... What about a woman forced to risk her life to take a pregnancy to term? Or a child forced to carry her own father's baby? Is anti-abortion rhetoric going to help a heroin addict deliver a child with severe mental deficiencies? Maybe the Christian Coalition would like to adopt all children born with severe mental and physical deformities, whose life would only last for a few months? Is this the sanctity of life these groups extol? Reproductive rights preserves the rights of the living and often spares an infant needless suffering. So what is it that the conservatives are fighting for, anyway? Life at any cost? A utilitarian protection of the rights of the majority, over the few? Sounds a lot like the ethics of war. But, then again, that's a conservative value too. Since you are being rational and non-offensive, I'll offer an opinion. I recently looked up abortion statistics provided by a pro-abortion organization. Less than 1 percent of abortions are performed due to rape. Something like 3 percent are done due to rape and/or health issues for mother or unborn. The rest ... 97 percent ... are done for "convenience". Any reasonable person can understand the unfortunate requirement for abortion in the case of rape or health issues. It's the irresponsible aborting of life for "convenience" that is bothersome. Eisboch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com