Ginsburg 'undercuts' U.S. justice

[J]

As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.









http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1531524









U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has left some
legal experts wondering whether she has any respect for her country's
constitution.


When she was sworn in on August 10, 1993, Ginsburg was administered the
judicial oath by then President Bill Clinton. In taking that oath she
agreed to "support and defend" the Constitution of the United States in
discharging her duties as a member of the nation's highest court.


Last week, during an interview on Egyptian television, Ginsburg
complemented that country on its election of lower house members -- but
then began chatting about Egypt drafting a new constitution.


"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a
constitution in the year 2012," recommended Justice Ginsburg in the
interview captured on MEMRITV (the Middle East Media Research Institute).


She then pointed to the constitutions of South Africa, Canada, and the
European Convention on Human Rights -- more liberal documents -- as good
examples. "Why not take advantage of what else there is in the world?
I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others," the
justice added.


Not every legal expert agrees with Ginsburg's approach.


"[It] literally undercuts the justice of the United States Supreme Court
and the institution of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the people,"
says Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver of the justice's remark. "It
certainly undermines the confidence of the American people that the
justices will actually look to our Constitution to interpret our own
laws as opposed to looking to foreign constitutions."


The attorney says "it's absolutely reprehensible and inexcusable" for a
Supreme Court justice to disparage America's own constitution.


"We ought to look to that," says Staver, referring to the U.S.
Constitution. "It's done us very well -- it's not outdated, it's not
antiquated, it's not second to any other constitution in the world. And
we ought to look to that as a shining example for others to follow as well."


Ginsburg has stated previously that she takes into account foreign law
as well as U.S. law when forming her legal opinions.












--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[Davej]

On Feb 8, 10:32 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
> on the SCOTUS.

Yeah, and we certainly respect your dimwitted opinion here...

The Constitution of the United States is crippled with vague language
that only has whatever meaning the currently installed Supreme Court
Justices want it to have. We might as well have the Supreme Court pull
the rules out of their asses rather than pretending they are derived
from an interpretation of this old piece of paper. Perhaps they couold
try interpreting tea leaves to determine what the rules are.

[Jeanne Douglas]

On Feb 8, 8:32 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.

You got shot down, hard, the first time you posted this idiocy, so why
are you posting it again?

JD

P.S. What the hell does this have to do with Texas poliltics? Or do
you just randomly choose newsgroups to post your garbage to?

[Paul David Wright]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in news:5cqtkp....@news.alt.net:

>
>
> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
> on the SCOTUS.

And, as we have told you repeatidly, yer opinion on any matter is
utterly worthless.

--
PDW

Check out my blog:
The first is a preview of my superhero comic book.
http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/


And my books:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pdwright42

[Paul David Wright]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:da083ffd-af1f-4900...@m24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

>
> On Feb 8, 10:32=A0am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to
>> sit on the SCOTUS.
>

> Yeah, and we certainly respect your dimwitted opinion here...
>
> The Constitution of the United States is crippled with vague language
> that only has whatever meaning the currently installed Supreme Court
> Justices want it to have. We might as well have the Supreme Court pull
> the rules out of their asses rather than pretending they are derived
> from an interpretation of this old piece of paper.

I thought that that was what the current rightard members are doing...

[Smiler]

Yes. Any way to get the attention he craves.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[John Baker]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:15:08 -0800 (PST), Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 8, 8:32 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
>> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
>> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
>> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.
>
>
>You got shot down, hard, the first time you posted this idiocy, so why
>are you posting it again?

Because he never learns from experience.

[Ray Fischer]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit

We KNOW that you nazi turds hate women.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[J]

On 2/8/2012 12:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:32 am, J<jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
>> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
>> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
>> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.
>
>
> You got shot down, hard, the first time you posted this idiocy, so why
> are you posting it again?

Because Mrs. Ginsburg needs to step down, the sooner the better.

>
> P.S. What the hell does this have to do with Texas poliltics? Or do
> you just randomly choose newsgroups to post your garbage to?

The last time I looked, Texas is still part of the United States.




--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5cs8uo....@news.alt.net>, J <jdyo...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> On 2/8/2012 12:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 8:32 am, J<jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
> >> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
> >> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
> >> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.
> >
> >
> > You got shot down, hard, the first time you posted this idiocy, so why
> > are you posting it again?
>
> Because Mrs. Ginsburg needs to step down, the sooner the better.

Why? Your attempt at character assassination is not a reason.

> > P.S. What the hell does this have to do with Texas poliltics? Or do
> > you just randomly choose newsgroups to post your garbage to?
>
>
> The last time I looked, Texas is still part of the United States.

That doesn't answer my question.

--
JD

"the lybian lier"

[W.T.S.]

In article <5cqtkp....@news.alt.net>, Jerk...@liar.com says...

>
> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.

And this is because you and your internet lie rag say so?
Justice Ginsburg is as or better qualified to sit on the Supreme Court
than any other member of the Supreme Court. You aren't fit to kiss her
little toe, "J", and neither are your internet lie rags. Go dream up
some more slander, "J".
>
> http://www.OneLiesNow.com/Lies/Propaganda/Disinformation/
>
<snip> Usual pro-liar bull shit, why bother to repost? </snip>
>
Summary: "J" and his pro-liar friends hate the idea of anyone
protecting the rights of the American people. So, what else is new?

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.

[W.T.S.]

In article <5cs8uo....@news.alt.net>, Jerk...@liar.com says...

>
> On 2/8/2012 12:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> > On Feb 8, 8:32 am, J<Jerk...@liar.com> wrote:
> >> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
> >> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
> >> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
> >> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.

Or what, butt hole?

> >
> > You got shot down, hard, the first time you posted this idiocy, so why
> > are you posting it again?
>
> Because Mrs. Ginsburg needs to step down, the sooner the better.

She isn't going to. Is that a problem with you?

>
> > P.S. What the hell does this have to do with Texas poliltics? Or do
> > you just randomly choose newsgroups to post your garbage to?
>
> The last time I looked, Texas is still part of the United States.

[duke]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:22:07 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In article <5cs8uo....@news.alt.net>, Jerk...@liar.com says...
>>
>> On 2/8/2012 12:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> > On Feb 8, 8:32 am, J<Jerk...@liar.com> wrote:
>> >> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
>> >> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
>> >> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
>> >> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.
>Or what, butt hole?
>> >
>> > You got shot down, hard, the first time you posted this idiocy, so why
>> > are you posting it again?
>>
>> Because Mrs. Ginsburg needs to step down, the sooner the better.
>She isn't going to. Is that a problem with you?

Yes, she may support abortions next, and that would be dangerous for human life.


duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****

[W.T.S.]

In article <0hg7j713iga1v2tdj...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...

> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:22:07 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <5cs8uo....@news.alt.net>, Jerk...@liar.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2/8/2012 12:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >> > On Feb 8, 8:32 am, J<Jerk...@liar.com> wrote:
> >> >> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
> >> >> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
> >> >> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
> >> >> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.
> >Or what, butt hole?
> >> >
> >> > You got shot down, hard, the first time you posted this idiocy, so why
> >> > are you posting it again?
> >>
> >> Because Mrs. Ginsburg needs to step down, the sooner the better.
> >She isn't going to. Is that a problem with you?
>
> Yes, she may support abortions next, and that would be dangerous for human life.

Support for abortion preserves human life. Abortion is a basic human
and constitutional right. Abortion is common decency. I think Justice
Thomas should resign. No one who doesn't support abortion should be
allowed on the Supreme Court, only abortion supporters should be allowed
on the Supreme Court!
>
> puke, AmeriKKKan - Liar.

[Spartakus]

J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.

Shouldn't you wait until President Santorum is sworn in* before
pushing for a new Supreme Court appointment?


* I kid! Santorum has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected
President.

[Sanders Kaufman]

"Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:c12e0b93-f691-4a66...@g4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

>
> Shouldn't you wait until President Santorum is sworn in* before
> pushing for a new Supreme Court appointment?

You're assuming the Evangelical will even recognize the Supreme Court?

[duke]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:23:17 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In article <0hg7j713iga1v2tdj...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:22:07 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <5cs8uo....@news.alt.net>, Jerk...@liar.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On 2/8/2012 12:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> >> > On Feb 8, 8:32 am, J<Jerk...@liar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
>> >> >> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
>> >> >> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
>> >> >> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.
>> >Or what, butt hole?
>> >> >
>> >> > You got shot down, hard, the first time you posted this idiocy, so why
>> >> > are you posting it again?
>> >>
>> >> Because Mrs. Ginsburg needs to step down, the sooner the better.
>> >She isn't going to. Is that a problem with you?
>>
>> Yes, she may support abortions next, and that would be dangerous for human life.
>Support for abortion preserves human life.

It is 100% murder for one participant. That's right up your alley, wanker.

[W.T.S.]

In article <qa5aj756kl7up98hr...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32

@cox.net says...
>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:23:17 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <0hg7j713iga1v2tdj...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >@cox.net says...
> >> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:22:07 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <5cs8uo....@news.alt.net>, Jerk...@liar.com says...
> >> >>
> >> >> On 2/8/2012 12:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >> >> > On Feb 8, 8:32 am, J<Jerk...@liar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
> >> >> >> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
> >> >> >> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
> >> >> >> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.
> >> >Or what, butt hole?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You got shot down, hard, the first time you posted this idiocy, so why
> >> >> > are you posting it again?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because Mrs. Ginsburg needs to step down, the sooner the better.
> >> >She isn't going to. Is that a problem with you?
> >>
> >> Yes, she may support abortions next, and that would be dangerous for human life.
> >Support for abortion preserves human life.
>
> It is 100% murder for one participant. That's right up your alley, wanker.

No baby involved in any abortion, thus no "murder". Try telling the
truth for a change, "duke".

[John Baker]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:32:51 -0800, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>
>As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
>on the SCOTUS.

And as *we've* stated previously, your opinion isn't worth the Charmin
it's printed on.

[John Baker]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:52:03 -0800, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On 2/8/2012 12:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 8:32 am, J<jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
>>> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
>>> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
>>> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.
>>
>>
>> You got shot down, hard, the first time you posted this idiocy, so why
>> are you posting it again?
>
>
>
>
>
>Because Mrs. Ginsburg needs to step down, the sooner the better.

The fact that you think she does indicates she almost certainly
doesn't.

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> P.S. What the hell does this have to do with Texas poliltics? Or do
>> you just randomly choose newsgroups to post your garbage to?
>
>
>
>
>
>The last time I looked, Texas is still part of the United States.

The last time *we* looked, *you* were still an idiot.

[John Baker]

We know that, but I suppose a disclaimer was necessary for the
righties. <G>

[Sanders Kaufman]

"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:41taj71l8a0hj73s5...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:01:59 -0800 (PST), Spartakus

>>* I kid! Santorum has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected
>>President.
>
> We know that, but I suppose a disclaimer was necessary for the
> righties. <G>

He's got as much chance as Bush had... think about it.

[Don Martin]

At least the printing is done by the outlet closest to his brain.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[duke]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:09:26 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In article <qa5aj756kl7up98hr...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:23:17 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <0hg7j713iga1v2tdj...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>> >@cox.net says...
>> >> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:22:07 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <5cs8uo....@news.alt.net>, Jerk...@liar.com says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 2/8/2012 12:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> >> >> > On Feb 8, 8:32 am, J<Jerk...@liar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
>> >> >> >> on the SCOTUS. Her mental capacities waning, she now looks to foreign
>> >> >> >> laws to form her opinions rather than the Constitution she has sworn to
>> >> >> >> uphold. Ruth Ginsburg should retire promptly.
>> >> >Or what, butt hole?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You got shot down, hard, the first time you posted this idiocy, so why
>> >> >> > are you posting it again?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because Mrs. Ginsburg needs to step down, the sooner the better.
>> >> >She isn't going to. Is that a problem with you?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, she may support abortions next, and that would be dangerous for human life.
>> >Support for abortion preserves human life.
>>
>> It is 100% murder for one participant. That's right up your alley, wanker.
>No baby involved in any abortion, thus no "murder". Try telling the
>truth for a change, "duke".

You're a baby killer, wanker.

[W.T.S.]

In article <qc9dj7pp7d3ni3mu7...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32

No baby is involved in any abortion.
Now, go wash your mouth out with soap until you stop lying, "duke".

[Smiler]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:43:07 -0500, Don Martin wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:43:08 -0500, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:32:51 -0800, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>As I've stated previously, Ruth Ginsburg is no longer qualified to sit
>>>on the SCOTUS.
>>
>>
>>And as *we've* stated previously, your opinion isn't worth the Charmin
>>it's printed on.
>
> At least the printing is done by the outlet closest to his brain.

"In the interest of economy, please 'print' on both sides of the paper..."

[duke]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:30:24 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> You're a baby killer, wanker.
>No baby is involved in any abortion.
>Now, go wash your mouth out with soap until you stop lying, "duke".

Satan is licking his chops at your imminent arrival at his house, wanker.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:04:19 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:

>On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:30:24 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> You're a baby killer, wanker.
>>No baby is involved in any abortion.
>>Now, go wash your mouth out with soap until you stop lying, "duke".
>
>Satan is licking his chops at your imminent arrival at his house, wanker.

You know that there is no evidence that the god you call Satan exists.

[W.T.S.]

In article <nmofj7l6ahmcbct9d...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:30:24 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> You're a baby killer, wanker.
> >No baby is involved in any abortion.
> >Now, go wash your mouth out with soap until you stop lying, "duke".
>
> Satan is licking his chops at your imminent arrival at his house, wanker.

"duke", you should pray every night that both "God" and "Satan" are
lies. If there is a Satan, then you're scheduled to be chewed up in
Satan's mouth for all eternity, swallowed, digested, excreted, repeat
forever. It's sort of a "parody" of holy communion, "duke". You are a
traitor, "duke". Whatever was good with the beginning of Christian
religion, you and your's have torn, twisted, degenerated and perverted
beyond all recognition! You and your "church" are nothing more than
festering, cancerous sores on the face of humanity, "duke", you'll never
be anything else.

[duke]

wanker is hoping and praying that it's true, but it isn't.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:12:47 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in

alt.atheism:

>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:30:31 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:04:19 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:30:24 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You're a baby killer, wanker.
>>>>No baby is involved in any abortion.
>>>>Now, go wash your mouth out with soap until you stop lying, "duke".
>>>
>>>Satan is licking his chops at your imminent arrival at his house, wanker.
>>
>>You know that there is no evidence that the god you call Satan exists.
>
>wanker is hoping and praying that it's true, but it isn't.

All you have to do is provide evidence and I will accept your claims.
You know that.

Why do you refuse to provide evidence?

Is it because you are intentionally trying to keep me from being a
believer?

Is it because you know that you have no evidence?

Have I missed a reason that you would have for not providing evidence?

[W.T.S.]

In article <ao3gj79krnjruv2ii...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:30:31 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:04:19 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
> >alt.atheism:
> >
> >>On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:30:24 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You're a baby killer, wanker.
> >>>No baby is involved in any abortion.
> >>>Now, go wash your mouth out with soap until you stop lying, "duke".
> >>
> >>Satan is licking his chops at your imminent arrival at his house, wanker.
> >
> >You know that there is no evidence that the god you call Satan exists.
>
> wanker is hoping and praying that it's true, but it isn't.

Oh, yes it is! And you should be grateful. You'd be in Satan's mouth
if it wasn't.
>
> puke, AmeriKKKan - Traitor.

[Sanders Kaufman]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nmofj7l6ahmcbct9d...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:30:24 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Satan is licking his chops at your imminent arrival at his house, wanker.

No, that's just you.

[duke]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:18:22 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:12:47 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:30:31 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:04:19 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:30:24 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You're a baby killer, wanker.
>>>>>No baby is involved in any abortion.
>>>>>Now, go wash your mouth out with soap until you stop lying, "duke".
>>>>
>>>>Satan is licking his chops at your imminent arrival at his house, wanker.
>>>
>>>You know that there is no evidence that the god you call Satan exists.
>>
>>wanker is hoping and praying that it's true, but it isn't.
>
>All you have to do is provide evidence and I will accept your claims.
>You know that.

Your confirmation will come at the moment you die, and then it's too late to
change your mind.

>Why do you refuse to provide evidence?

I havn't refused.

>Is it because you are intentionally trying to keep me from being a
>believer?
>Is it because you know that you have no evidence?
>Have I missed a reason that you would have for not providing evidence?

Yep, you refuse to accept.

[duke]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:01:51 -0600, "Sanders Kaufman" <<bu...@kaufman.net>>
wrote:

Why? I'm not supporting the murder of the unborn like you are.

[Sanders Kaufman]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:he3ij7514i7c3jc2h...@4ax.com...

>
> Why? I'm not supporting the murder of the unborn like you are.

You think I'm a Catholic woman?!

[Sanders Kaufman]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:he3ij7514i7c3jc2h...@4ax.com...

>
> Why? I'm not supporting the murder of the unborn like you are.

[W.T.S.]

In article <he3ij7514i7c3jc2h...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:01:51 -0600, "Sanders Kaufman" <<bu...@kaufman.net>>
> wrote:
>
> >"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:nmofj7l6ahmcbct9d...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:30:24 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Satan is licking his chops at your imminent arrival at his house, wanker.
> >
> >No, that's just you.
>
> Why? I'm not supporting the murder of the unborn like you are.

There are no unborn any more than you are undead. Life begins at birth,
never at conception. Did the Catholic Church teach you to lie so
constantly?

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:19:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in

I cannot accept evidence when you have never offered any.

[Patrick]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote

> I cannot accept evidence when you have never offered any.

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

[W.T.S.]

In article <4rKdndNt5riUWaTS...@posted.localnet>,
bark...@erinot.com says...

>
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote
> > I cannot accept evidence when you have never offered any.
>
> Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

You haven't, because there is none. "God" is a total lie. End of
story.

[duke]

Then why did you specifically reject it.

[duke]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:07:11 -0600, "Sanders Kaufman" <<bu...@kaufman.net>>
wrote:

Nope.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:12:05 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in

You have never offered any evidence for me to reject.

You know that.

[duke]

You ignored it all. You know that.

[Patrick]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote

> You have never offered any evidence for me to reject.

<yawn>

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:44:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in

We all know you lied to us.

You are boring me, again, I shall quit wasting my time on your attempt
to make me ignorant.

[duke]

You've already arrived. There's no way for you to go down further.