Wow, isn't it funny how you managed to get that "right wing conservative" into the
first sentence when the original story did not state that? Here is the original story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep3.html

You are trash Harry, pure and simple. Absolutely nothing is beneath you.

Yes, the minister deserved to die. Yes there are extremists on both sides of the
fence. You are just one example.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
STARKE, Fla. -- Paul Hill, a right-wing conservative and former minister
who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard to save the
lives of unborn babies, was executed Wednesday by injection. He was the
first person put to death in the United States for anti-abortion violence.


Hill, 49, was condemned for the July 29, 1994, shooting deaths of Dr.
John Bayard Britton and his bodyguard, retired Air Force Lt. Col. James
Herman Barrett, and the wounding of Barrett's wife outside the Ladies
Center in Pensacola.

As he has since the slaying, Hill showed no remorse.
--


* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Jim wrote:

Wow, isn't it funny how you managed to get that "right wing conservative" into the
first sentence when the original story did not state that? Here is the original story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep3.html


Indeed, rather than just post a news story, I added editorial comment.
I suppose Hill won't be voting for the conservative candidates in the
next election. But I bet you will.

Amazing how virtually all the politically oriented murdering kooks the
last few years have been right-wing conservatives...Hill, Osama,
McVeigh, et cetera.

Are you righties taught murder is the answer to political issues you
cannot resolve through debate, or does the killing come naturally?



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Anyone they kill goes unnoticed.

-W

"bb" wrote in message

Where are the similar extremists on the pro abortion side of the
fence?

bb

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

Wow, isn't it funny how you managed to get that "right wing conservative" into the
first sentence when the original story did not state that? Here is the original
story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep3.html


Indeed, rather than just post a news story, I added editorial comment.

No you didn't. You added your own text to the original story, making it appear as
though that is the way it was originally written.

As I said before, nothing is beneath you. You are pathetic. And a true nutcase.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

Wow, isn't it funny how you managed to get that "right wing conservative" into
the
first sentence when the original story did not state that? Here is the original
story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep3.html


Indeed, rather than just post a news story, I added editorial comment.

No you didn't. You added your own text to the original story, making it appear as
though that is the way it was originally written.


I don't recall reading where anyone put you in charge of anything at
all, much less deciding what is or is not an editorial comment.


LOL!

Any news story you now post is suspect as you have been proven to change the wording in
the story to suit your needs.

That is not called editorial comment.

You continue to prove yourself to be a class A nutcase Harry.




As I said before, nothing is beneath you. You are pathetic. And a true nutcase.


High praise indeed, especially when it emanates from right-wing scum
like you. Thanks.


That is your only defense? On par with what a 10 year old may present.

Get help Harry. Really.

Harry - minus the "nutcase" part - he's right.

You **of all people** know the proper methods of inserting editorial
comment(s) into the work of another author. I'm dissapointed.

-W


"Jim" wrote in message
news:9Ov5b.259521$cF.81478@rwcrnsc53...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

Wow, isn't it funny how you managed to get that "right wing
conservative" into
the
first sentence when the original story did not state that? Here is
the original
story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep3.html


Indeed, rather than just post a news story, I added editorial
comment.

No you didn't. You added your own text to the original story, making
it appear as
though that is the way it was originally written.


I don't recall reading where anyone put you in charge of anything at
all, much less deciding what is or is not an editorial comment.


LOL!

Any news story you now post is suspect as you have been proven to change
the wording in
the story to suit your needs.

That is not called editorial comment.

You continue to prove yourself to be a class A nutcase Harry.




As I said before, nothing is beneath you. You are pathetic. And a
true nutcase.


High praise indeed, especially when it emanates from right-wing scum
like you. Thanks.


That is your only defense? On par with what a 10 year old may present.

Get help Harry. Really.

Clams Canino wrote:

Harry - minus the "nutcase" part - he's right.

You **of all people** know the proper methods of inserting editorial
comment(s) into the work of another author. I'm dissapointed.

-W


"Jim" wrote in message
news:9Ov5b.259521$cF.81478@rwcrnsc53...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

Wow, isn't it funny how you managed to get that "right wing
conservative" into
the
first sentence when the original story did not state that? Here is
the original
story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep3.html


Indeed, rather than just post a news story, I added editorial
comment.

No you didn't. You added your own text to the original story, making
it appear as
though that is the way it was originally written.


I don't recall reading where anyone put you in charge of anything at
all, much less deciding what is or is not an editorial comment.


LOL!

Any news story you now post is suspect as you have been proven to change
the wording in
the story to suit your needs.

That is not called editorial comment.

You continue to prove yourself to be a class A nutcase Harry.




As I said before, nothing is beneath you. You are pathetic. And a
true nutcase.


High praise indeed, especially when it emanates from right-wing scum
like you. Thanks.


That is your only defense? On par with what a 10 year old may present.

Get help Harry. Really.




Oh, puh-lease. You don't really think I take any of these pathetic
right-wingers here seriously. As I have stated over and over, I toss
them a line or two when I feel like it, just to watch them act like
Pavlov's dog. Jim is a first-rate drooler, right up there with NOYB and
a few other of the "anon" righties here.

I see no need to waste any time typing in "reasoned" responses to their
drivel. If I did, it might be interpreted that I take any of the crap
they post seriously.

None of them are worth more than a few seconds of effort.




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Clams Canino wrote:

Harry - minus the "nutcase" part - he's right.

You **of all people** know the proper methods of inserting editorial
comment(s) into the work of another author. I'm dissapointed.

-W


"Jim" wrote in message
news:9Ov5b.259521$cF.81478@rwcrnsc53...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

Wow, isn't it funny how you managed to get that "right wing
conservative" into
the
first sentence when the original story did not state that? Here is
the original
story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep3.html


Indeed, rather than just post a news story, I added editorial
comment.

No you didn't. You added your own text to the original story, making
it appear as
though that is the way it was originally written.


I don't recall reading where anyone put you in charge of anything at
all, much less deciding what is or is not an editorial comment.


LOL!

Any news story you now post is suspect as you have been proven to change
the wording in
the story to suit your needs.

That is not called editorial comment.

You continue to prove yourself to be a class A nutcase Harry.




As I said before, nothing is beneath you. You are pathetic. And a
true nutcase.


High praise indeed, especially when it emanates from right-wing scum
like you. Thanks.


That is your only defense? On par with what a 10 year old may present.

Get help Harry. Really.




Oh, puh-lease. You don't really think I take any of these pathetic
right-wingers here seriously. As I have stated over and over, I toss
them a line or two when I feel like it, just to watch them act like
Pavlov's dog. Jim is a first-rate drooler, right up there with NOYB and
a few other of the "anon" righties here.

I see no need to waste any time typing in "reasoned" responses to their
drivel. If I did, it might be interpreted that I take any of the crap
they post seriously.

None of them are worth more than a few seconds of effort.

Get help Harry. Please.

As I was driving up the freeway late this afternoon, I dialed in the local
conservative talk radio station to see what the right wing buzz would be.

The moderator, (some local), actually had a reasonable perspective: Whether or
not
abortion is morally right it is legal, whereas
murder is neither morally right nor legal.

About a third of the callers to this talk show defended Hill, and praised his
actions. One guy went so far as to suggest that homosexuals should be targeted
as well as abortion doctors.
Scary to think that those people are loose in society- but they have a right to
think any way they want until it turns into actual violence.

The good news was the even with an ultra-conservative audience the majority of
callers seemed to feel that Hill's case was
an absolute tragedy on all fronts.

Just as many people were prepared with
biblical quotes to condemn Hill as were prepared with bibilcal quotes to defend
his action. Some of the people on both sides left the Bible out of the question
and only discussed the law and general morality.

Personally, I am farther to the right on the abortion issue than 99% of the
people on the planet. It should never be used for birth control. No exceptions
where the only issue is birth control. Rape and situations where the mother's
life could be endangered by a pregnancy.....reluctantly. BUT, the difference
between Hill and me.....I'd never interfere with another person's legal right
to
obtain one or presume to execute somebody for perfoming one. I mean, what if
Hill and I are wrong? Who are we to impose our standards on others?

Hill thought he was doing God's work and was an instrument of justice. What
goes around, comes around and this afternoon the instrument of justice was a
lethal injection gurney.

No winners in this deal. None.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
As I was driving up the freeway late this afternoon, I dialed in the local
conservative talk radio station to see what the right wing buzz would be.

The moderator, (some local), actually had a reasonable perspective: Whether or
not
abortion is morally right it is legal, whereas
murder is neither morally right nor legal.

Correct.


About a third of the callers to this talk show defended Hill, and praised his
actions. One guy went so far as to suggest that homosexuals should be targeted
as well as abortion doctors.

Truly an accurate representation, wouldn't you say Chuck? Or are you generalizing once
again?

BTW: Were the 1/3 radicals, conservatives or liberals? There are extremists among all
the groups Chuck. Or didn't you know that? Your friend Harry is a prime example.

Scary to think that those people are loose in society- but they have a right to
think any way they want until it turns into actual violence.

I agree. We have nut cases on both ends of the political spectrum.


The good news was the even with an ultra-conservative audience the majority of
callers seemed to feel that Hill's case was
an absolute tragedy on all fronts.
snip

Once again you generalize, this time about the make up of the audience.

Personally, I am farther to the right on the abortion issue than 99% of the
people on the planet. It should never be used for birth control. No exceptions
where the only issue is birth control. Rape and situations where the mother's
life could be endangered by a pregnancy.....reluctantly. BUT, the difference
between Hill and me.....I'd never interfere with another person's legal right
to
obtain one or presume to execute somebody for perfoming one. I mean, what if
Hill and I are wrong? Who are we to impose our standards on others?

We agree on something. Fantastic. I knew with enough work you would slowly turn
around.

May the force be with you Chuck. Leave the darkside behind you.