http://tinyurl.com/o42at

http://tinyurl.com/o42at

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:31:23 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
hk wrote:
:
:Bush thinks he has dictatorial powers. Just check his history of
:"signing statements."
:

Hint: Bush didn't invent "signing statements". President Clinton
(for example) used more "signing statements" during his 8 years than
Bush has (381 to 157).

bush added 800+ signing statements fred

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0610c.asp

"George W. Bush has added more than 800 "signing statements" to new laws
since he took office. Earlier presidents occasionally appended such comments
to new statutes, but Bush is the first to use signing statements routinely
to nullify key provisions of new laws"

clinton did it 105 times

http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2006/...l-signing.html
as always fred, you are mistaken.


http://tinyurl.com/o42at

In article 818cd213-c808-4586-ab2c-4fecad5a6d38
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, says...
On Sep 1, 1:16*am, tankfixer wrote:
In article , raymond-
says...



"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
dying.

and telling people with nowhere to go and no cars to get there is rather
hopeless.
but nothing is ever georges fault is it.

If he had acted before being asked you would be howling how he excceed
his authority

straw man arguments is all you ever have.

PKB son.

The president does not have dictatorial powers, no matter what your
paranoid mind may think.


What about the presumptive nominee?


Which one ?
Either candidate will be no better nor worse than the last 10 we have
had.


--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

In article , raymond-
says...

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article , raymond-
says...

"tankfixer" wrote in message
. ..
dying.

and telling people with nowhere to go and no cars to get there is
rather
hopeless.
but nothing is ever georges fault is it.

If he had acted before being asked you would be howling how he excceed
his authority

straw man arguments is all you ever have.

PKB son.

The president does not have dictatorial powers, no matter what your
paranoid mind may think.


he didn't need dictatorial powers, all he had to do was exercise the ones
he did have.

What do you think Bush could have done ?




BDS slur snipped.


--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

In article , raymond-
says...



"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Fred J. McCall wrote:
hk wrote:

:Eisboch wrote:
: "hk" wrote in message :
. ..
: : Ain't that the truth. It is amazing and disgusting how the far
right uses : religion. If there is a hell, they'll all burn in it for
hypocrisy's sake : alone.
: : Right beside the "pro-choicers" who condemn women for choosing not
to abort : a child with a handicap.
: :
:Pro-choicers do not force their beliefs on anti-abortionists, ...
:

Well, yeah, they do.

:
:... but :anti-abortionists want to force their beliefs on pro-choicers.
:

I know it's hard for folks like you, but let's try and look at this
from the other side and then form an analogy that will feel the same
to you as abortion does to them.

Suppose I believe I should be able to murder unwanted people pretty
much at will for any reason or for no reason at all other than that
they inconvenience me. You disagree and go on about the sanctity of
human life and how killing them is wrong and want laws to stop me. My
response is that very few of the two leggers are actually human, so
killing the others is no worse than cutting a fingernail.

So, wouldn't there be something wrong with you NOT wanting to 'force
your view' on me?

That's how they feel about abortion. For you it's an intellectual
question. For them it's a case of whether murder is acceptable.
Discussion of the issue as if it is just an intellectual question for
them, as well, is simply a waste of time and effort and pretending
that there is something 'wrong' because they don't view it the way you
do is merely specious.



Your supposition is silliness.
If the anti-abortionists were truly against killing human beings, they
would be opposed to capital punishment and war. But most aren't; they
pervert their religious texts to justify capital punishment and war.

In my heart, I believe the anti-abortionists are that way because of
psychological, rather than religious reasons, anyway. It is a patriarchal
belief, even though some women share in it. It is a method to control
women.





"republicans believe the right to life starts at conception and ends with
birth"
barney frank.

Now there's an intellectual mind for you.




--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

John H wrote:

:On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:31:23 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:
:
:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..
: hk wrote:
: :
: :Bush thinks he has dictatorial powers. Just check his history of
: :"signing statements."
: :
:
: Hint: Bush didn't invent "signing statements". President Clinton
: (for example) used more "signing statements" during his 8 years than
: Bush has (381 to 157).
:
:bush added 800+ signing statements fred
:
:http://www.fff.org/comment/com0610c.asp
:
:"George W. Bush has added more than 800 "signing statements" to new laws
:since he took office. Earlier presidents occasionally appended such comments
:to new statutes, but Bush is the first to use signing statements routinely
:to nullify key provisions of new laws"
:
:clinton did it 105 times
:
:http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2006/...l-signing.html
:as always fred, you are mistaken.
:
:

As usual, Ray is confused and doesn't know the difference between "a
signing statement" (one per bill) and "clauses a signing statement
covers" (a much higher number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing...(United_States)

:
:http://tinyurl.com/o42at
:

I really don't think Ray needs a test.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:43:35 -0400, hk wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


In my heart, I believe the anti-abortionists are that way because of
psychological, rather than religious reasons, anyway. It is a patriarchal
belief, even though some women share in it. It is a method to control
women.


Sure. Right. A method to control women......

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the unborn child, does
it?

Eisboch




What rights?

Roe v. Wade states that abortions are permissible for any reason, up
until the point a fetus becomes viable, which means potentially able to
live outside a mother's womb. Viability typically takes place somewhere
between 24 and 28 weeks. Abortion is also available after viability when
necessary to protect a woman's health.

"Unborn child," by the way, is a favorite phrase of those who want to
reverse Roe v. Wade. It is an emotionally charged term, and elicits
precisely the response they want.

The proper term is embryo or fetus. In humans, the fetal stage doesn't
even begin until nearly three months into a pregnancy. Until then, it is
just an embryo.

Another poster just brought up the fly in the ointment that the
anti-choice folks just don't want to discuss, the fact that for many of
them, the right to life ends at birth. You know how that goes...no
abortions because that fetus in your womb is a life, but once that fetus
is born, well, it's pretty much on its own, and if it dies because of
inadequate health care or environmental conditions, or whatever, well,
that's just too bad, hey?



Harry, when your wife said, "Feel the baby kicking", did you really
say, "Beautiful bride, that's not a baby, it's just a fetus."

Did you go on to say, "It's little more than a ball of excrement that
could be expelled at will because it is meaningless."

With your attitude, I would think you'd have corrected your wife in
just such a manner.