Not a penny of taxpayer money can go towards a woman's right to choose!!!!
John Fisher
choose!!!!
What about making it so that not a penny of taxpayer money can go
towards those who would deny a woman her right to choose????? When
churches can blackmail our leaders to ensure political outcomes, its
time to give a measured response which includes a penalty!! (MNSVHO)
How is it that more than a penny can go towards the funding of
religious enterprise and its attempts to deny the individual rights of
various elements of society!!! The Hyde Amendment supports THE
BELIEFS of some and denies public funding for personal choice!!!
We need an amendment which supports the civil rights of everyone!!!
AND/OR one which denies funding to those who SEEK TO DENY THE CIVIL
RIGHTS of others because of religious beliefs. How about
eliminating tax deductions for contributions to churches??? How about
eliminating the tax free status of churches??? Often, actions of
many cults are more devastating than the actions of a woman who seeks
to rid her body of seeds which can produce parasites that she chooses
not to have materialize!!
GouldsofDerbyshire
"John Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0699d174-5bd8-43ce...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Eddie Haskell
"John Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0699d174-5bd8-43ce...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> choose!!!!
>
> What about making it so that not a penny of taxpayer money can go
> towards those who would deny a woman her right to choose?????
Choose what? What public school to attend? To opt out and put some SS into a
private account? To have a choice in healthcare after the left has everyone
under a government run single payer? Oh, no. Wait. You only want people to
have the choice to kill someone. What the fuck was I thinking. You don't
want people to have a choice in a fucking thing unless it has to do with
your immoral abortion mills.
Dollars to donuts you think late term PBA's are peachy keen. Why? Because
the left tells you so. You aren't capable of thinking for yourself. You're
too goddamned stupid.
> When
> churches can blackmail our leaders to ensure political outcomes, its
> time to give a measured response which includes a penalty!! (MNSVHO)
Fuck off, fascist. Christians have the right to voice their opinion and
participate in the political process just as any one else. Running
Christians underground is the work of authoritarians, Fisher, and that is
EXACTLY what your dumbass is.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"John Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0699d174-5bd8-43ce...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Often, actions of
> many cults are more devastating than the actions of a woman who seeks
> to rid her body of seeds which can produce parasites that she chooses
> not to have materialize!!
You SICK FUCK. You're not even human. You're just a goddamned brain dead
walking talking parrot for the DNC. Any critical thinking in you brain died
years ago. You are DEAD.
-Eddie Haskell
John Fisher
> "John Fisher" <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote in message
Such a nice man!!=:) COLLEGE EDUCATED????
Eddie Haskell
YOU are a parasite, Fisher.
-Eddie Haskell
Stile4aly
> "John Fisher" <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote in message
Quick question. You come across a fertility clinic that is on fire.
You go inside to see if you can help. On one side of the room, you
see a 5 year old boy, unconciouss but still alive. On the other side,
you see a wheeled cryogenic tank containing 10,000 frozen embryos.
You only have time to save one. Which do you choose and why?
John Q Public
They are fascists, claiming their for your privacy until they find
something they want to regulate
like your weight, your energy use, your income..... then its off to the
effin gulag with ya
Eddie Haskell
"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6ebc2039-559c-4995...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The boy because the embryos aren't viable.
CLANG!
Now, an elderly 100 year old woman under Obamacare needs a pace-maker. Do
you give her one or save those resources for people younger?
Heh heh..
Man, it's good to be me.
Heh heh..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
-Eddie Haskell
John Fisher
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the mother of several children becomes pregnant, the time of
delivery arrives, and there is a choice to save the life of only one,
the child or the mother, which would you choose and why???
John Fisher
> "Stile4aly" <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the mother of several children becomes pregnant, the time of
delivery arrives, and there is a choice to save the life of only one
the child or the mother, which should be saved???
John Fisher
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, flannigan, you are agreeing that potential parasites are not as
important as one life??? Seems to me you are talking out of both
sides of your mouth!!! If not (talking out of both sides of your
mouth, why do you not support birth control and a woman's right to
choose
When you speak of rationing life, you appear to be advancing the
causes of the wingers who, when push comes to shove, lose all sight of
values the proclaimj!!
Given the choice between the life of a mother, and a potential
newborn, the Catholic Church demands of its faithful that the life of
the newborn is more important than that of the mother who might be
leaving many orphans behind!! Do you support that as well 'n' WHY??
fost...@gmail.com
> Not a penny of taxpayer money can go towards a woman's right to
> choose!!!!
Wrong!!! Not a penny can go towards a woman's right (sic) to murder!!!
There is no right to murder in the US Constitution!!
fost...@gmail.com
> choose!!!!
Too bad a woman didn't have the right to "choose" an idiot like you!!
You just made me an abortion supporter!!!
Kill all the idiot fetus' like you!!!
fost...@gmail.com
>
> Quick question. You come across a fertility clinic that is on fire.
> You go inside to see if you can help. On one side of the room, you
> see a 5 year old boy, unconciouss but still alive. On the other side,
> you see a wheeled cryogenic tank containing 10,000 frozen embryos.
> You only have time to save one. Which do you choose and why?
I walk out and go to your house.
Cuts out the middleman.
fost...@gmail.com
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If the mother of several children becomes pregnant, the time of
> delivery arrives, and there is a choice to save the life of only one
> the child or the mother, which should be saved???
Definitely not yours.
John Fisher
Your ad hominem shows your inability to afford a reasonable argument
for your BELIEFS!!! Semen is not a baby, mange!!! If it were you
might be considered to be a murderer if you had a nocturnal emission.
There are extremes when it comes to decisions a woman chooses to
make. She may make the decision on her own or with the help of her
doctors, lawyers, and preachers. Essentially, it is her own life
over which she should have control. Lies and exaggerations by
religious zealots to work on the emotions, inspiring fear (as a
tool), and using blackmail, to get their way is despicable. (MNSVHO)
Eddie Haskell
> > You go inside to see if you can help. ?On one side of the room, you
> > see a 5 year old boy, unconciouss but still alive. ?On the other side,
> > you see a wheeled cryogenic tank containing 10,000 frozen embryos.
>
> The boy because the embryos aren't viable.
>
> CLANG!
>
> Now, an elderly 100 year old woman under Obamacare needs a pace-maker. Do
> you give her one or save those resources for people younger?
>
> Heh heh..
>
> Man, it's good to be me.
>
> Heh heh..
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
>
> -Eddie Haskell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> If the mother of several children becomes pregnant, the time of
> delivery arrives, and there is a choice to save the life of only one
> the child or the mother, which should be saved???
Cesarean Sections have all but eliminated that possibility, Fisher, so the
question is moot.
Try again..
-Eddie Haskell
fost...@gmail.com
>
> Quick question. You come across a fertility clinic that is on fire.
> You go inside to see if you can help. On one side of the room, you
> see a 5 year old boy, unconciouss but still alive. On the other side,
> you see a wheeled cryogenic tank containing 10,000 frozen embryos.
> You only have time to save one. Which do you choose and why?
I would cut the boy's stomach open and throw in the 10,000 frozen
embryos.
Then carry all 10,001 out of there!
fost...@gmail.com
>
> Your ad hominem shows your inability to afford a reasonable argument
> for your BELIEFS!!! Semen is not a baby, mange!!!
It's funny how child support is imposed on a man because a woman has
the right to choose.
If it takes an egg and a sperm to make a baby, then where are the
man's "choice"??
If I knock up a chick and I want to terminate the pregnancy then I
should have equal rights!
Why is the right to choose only a female option????
art clemons
> Wrong!!! Not a penny can go towards a woman's right (sic) to murder!!!
>
> There is no right to murder in the US Constitution!!
>
Abortion isn't defined as murder in the Constitution of the United
States either. Your point?
Capt. Bill
Is a fetus a human? Or is it not? When does it become a human?
Is it when a zygote splits and becomes two cells?
That's the debate. Third term abortion is definitely murder.
"Abortion should be legal, but rare" was Bill Clinton's quote.
Who is going to support the mother and child? Republicans aren't
into paying for it.
The Republicans, under the tutelage of the "Religious Right", stand
against birth control.
Bush spent more money than any US President in history on AIDS relief
in Africa, on the condition that birth control was not taught, and
instead the idea of abstinence was. In states where abstinence was
taught and condoms were said to be untrustworthy, teenage pregnancy
rates are higher than the states who taught birth control.
We all know that abortion is unsavory. Even the Liberal Controlled
Media says so.
When was the last time you saw a prime time TV show that supported
abortion?
But, it's not black and white. It's far more complex.
That's socialism.
But we all know that it's a tragedy.
For now? Abortion is legal in the USA.
fost...@gmail.com
> "Abortion should be legal, but rare" was Bill Clinton's quote.
Clinton the douchebag doesn't even know what the definition of "is"
is.
Quoting a retard makes your point moot.
fost...@gmail.com
>
> For now? Abortion is legal in the USA.
Justice Harry Blackmun, the man who wrote the infamous Roe opinion,
struggled to find a plausible justification to claim that the
Constitution permits abortion on demand.
Bradley C.S. Watson, a professor of American history and western
political thought at Saint Vincent College, has described Blackmun’s
twisting of the Constitution to locate a “right to abortion” in the
Constitution.
According to Watson, “… even so gifted a judicial artist as Blackmun
found it difficult to find such a right in the text of the
Constitution. So he suggested it may be located, perhaps, in the 14 th
Amendment. He also found some support for it in the ‘penumbras and
emanations’ of the Bill of Rights.”
Terry Eastland, publisher of the Weekly Standard, has also described
Blackmun’s twisting of the Constitution’s text to locate abortion on
demand. Eastland quotes from Blackmun’s papers, where he says: “I may
have to push myself a bit, but I would not be offended by the
extension of privacy concepts [from recent precedents] to the point
presented in the present case.”
Blackmun wrote a note to himself that once Roe was issued, “a majority
of state statutes [will] go down the drain.” But it didn’t matter to
him.
Justice Blackmun deliberately distorted the Constitution and the 14 th
Amendment to claim that women had a “right to abortion” because of a
penumbra or emanation of privacy rights coming from the 14 th
Amendment.
Supreme Court expert Mark Levin has also detailed how Blackmun
distorted the constitution to force abortion on our nation. Writing in
“Death by Privacy: Emanations, Penumbras and Bad Law,” for National
Review, Levin says that Blackmun’s Roe opinion included a history of
abortion throughout human history, but no legally defensible
rationale: “Blackmun felt that the right of privacy, wherever it comes
from, includes the right to abortion. Do not look any further for
legal argument amidst the voluminous opinion, because it does not
exist. Perhaps the extensive historical analysis was included to
compensate for the lack of legal analysis.”
art clemons
> According to Watson, ?? even so gifted a judicial artist as Blackmun
> found it difficult to find such a right in the text of the
> Constitution. So he suggested it may be located, perhaps, in the 14 th
> Amendment. He also found some support for it in the ?penumbras and
> emanations? of the Bill of Rights.?
I suggest the text of the 9th Amendment to the Constitution covers your and
Watson's claims quite handily.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
No need to look for more
fost...@gmail.com
If it were you
> might be considered to be a murderer if you had a nocturnal emission.
So every time a woman ovulates without getting pregnant she is also
guilty according to your standards!!!
If the egg drops you must convict!!!!
Capt. Bill
I just want to see how much money you have in your pocket to support
those women and their children, who you have denied the right to
choose.
It's fine to say "No". But what about the consequences?
art clemons
> If I knock up a chick and I want to terminate the pregnancy then I
> should have equal rights!
>
> Why is the right to choose only a female option????
>
It's because it's the woman's body that has to support the fetus during the
pregnancy, not the alleged father. Are you truly suggesting the equivalent
of slavery for women?
I also note that child support can't be waived by the mother and I suspect
that some sperm donors may soon face child support claims.
Stile4aly
> "Stile4aly" <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Why aren't the embryos viable? They're fertilized. If they were
implanted into a woman, they would grow to term. So, what you're
saying is that 10,000 embryos are not equal to one life. Therefore
embryos aren't alive. Therefore abortion is not murder.
> CLANG!
>
> Now, an elderly 100 year old woman under Obamacare needs a pace-maker. Do
> you give her one or save those resources for people younger?
Considering very few young people need pacemakers, I see not reason
why we couldn't give her the pacemaker provided that she wanted it.
art clemons
> Cesarean Sections have all but eliminated that possibility, Fisher, so the
> question is moot.
>
let's see, so far you've demonstrated you know little about the law and now
you're demonstrating even less knowledge about medical practice. C-sections
aren't always practical either.
Finally if I remember Catholic doctrine correctly, the RC Church does not
value the life of the mother any more than the fetus, making the decision to
save one at the expense of the other difficult indeed.
Eddie Haskell
"John Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a661931b-5d12-4c1e...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> > You go inside to see if you can help. ?On one side of the room, you
> > see a 5 year old boy, unconciouss but still alive. ?On the other side,
> > you see a wheeled cryogenic tank containing 10,000 frozen embryos.
>
> The boy because the embryos aren't viable.
>
> CLANG!
>
> Now, an elderly 100 year old woman under Obamacare needs a pace-maker. Do
> you give her one or save those resources for people younger?
>
> Heh heh..
>
> Man, it's good to be me.
>
> Heh heh..
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
>
> -Eddie Haskell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> If the mother of several children becomes pregnant, the time of
> delivery arrives, and there is a choice to save the life of only one
> the child or the mother, which should be saved???
The question is moot, stupid. The occasion NEVER occurs and is merely a
democrat talking point lie, DUMBASS.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
On Dec 11, 8:53?pm, "ma...@merde.com" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote:> > If the mother of several children becomes pregnant, ?the time of
> > delivery arrives, and there is a choice to save the life of only one
> > the child or the mother, which should be saved???
>
> Definitely not yours.
> Your ad hominem shows your inability to afford a reasonable argument
> for your BELIEFS!!! Semen is not a baby, mange!!! If it were you
> might be considered to be a murderer if you had a nocturnal emission.
> There are extremes when it comes to decisions a woman chooses to
> make. She may make the decision on her own or with the help of her
> doctors, lawyers, and preachers. Essentially, it is her own life
> over which she should have control. Lies and exaggerations by
> religious zealots to work on the emotions, inspiring fear (as a
> tool), and using blackmail, to get their way is despicable. (MNSVHO)
Cesarean section has made such situations a non sequester, DUMBASS.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
> > You go inside to see if you can help. ?On one side of the room, you
> > see a 5 year old boy, unconciouss but still alive. ?On the other side,
> > you see a wheeled cryogenic tank containing 10,000 frozen embryos.
>
> The boy because the embryos aren't viable.
>
> CLANG!
>
> Now, an elderly 100 year old woman under Obamacare needs a pace-maker. Do
> you give her one or save those resources for people younger?
>
> Heh heh..
>
> Man, it's good to be me.
>
> Heh heh..
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
>
> -Eddie Haskell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> So, flannigan, you are agreeing that potential parasites are not as
> important as one life???
Answer the fucking question, dumbass.
-Eddie Haskell
art clemons
>> you're demonstrating even less knowledge about medical practice.
>> C-sections
>> aren't always practical either.
>
> You're full of shit and have said nothing.
I guess you really don't understand that there are times when a C-Section
isn't possible or that a fetus, no matter how hard a neonatal team tries,
isn't viable when other factors intervene.
C-Sections also aren't necessarily good for saving the life of the mother.
Remember, they're designed to save the fetus normally unless the mother for
a variety of reasons just can't do a normal delivery. Even then, they're
more to save the life of the fetus than the mother. I suggest you need more
research time before you post in big letters.
Stile4aly
> "John Fisher" <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote in message
A) It's "non sequitur"
B) It's "Caesarean section"
C) C Sections are not a panacea against risk to the mother or child
during delivery. It is possible for a situation to occur during
childbirth which may result in the death of the mother and or the
child.
Eddie Haskell
"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b2dd317a-6324-44fb...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 14, 8:09 am, "Eddie Haskell" <f...@eeaeae.com> wrote:
> "John Fisher" <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:10ba4684-ea26-4f39...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 8:53?pm, "ma...@merde.com" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 8:27?pm, John Fisher <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > If the mother of several children becomes pregnant, ?the time of
> > > delivery arrives, and there is a choice to save the life of only one
> > > the child or the mother, which should be saved???
>
> > Definitely not yours.
> > Your ad hominem shows your inability to afford a reasonable argument
> > for your BELIEFS!!! Semen is not a baby, mange!!! If it were you
> > might be considered to be a murderer if you had a nocturnal emission.
> > There are extremes when it comes to decisions a woman chooses to
> > make. She may make the decision on her own or with the help of her
> > doctors, lawyers, and preachers. Essentially, it is her own life
> > over which she should have control. Lies and exaggerations by
> > religious zealots to work on the emotions, inspiring fear (as a
> > tool), and using blackmail, to get their way is despicable. (MNSVHO)
>
> Cesarean section has made such situations a non sequester, DUMBASS.
> A) It's "non sequitur"
Don't give a shit.
> B) It's "Caesarean section"
Still don't give a shit.
> C) C Sections are not a panacea against risk to the mother or child
> during delivery.
Yes they are.
> It is possible for a situation to occur during
> childbirth which may result in the death of the mother and or the
> child.
No it isn't.
Life and health of the mother bull shit is to cover legal PBA's. Nothing
more.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Outside the womb, moron.
> So, what you're
> saying is that 10,000 embryos are not equal to one life. Therefore
> embryos aren't alive. Therefore abortion is not murder.
Not unless the fetus is viable, moron.
> CLANG!
>
> Now, an elderly 100 year old woman under Obamacare needs a pace-maker. Do
> you give her one or save those resources for people younger?
> Considering very few young people need pacemakers, I see not reason
> why we couldn't give her the pacemaker provided that she wanted it.
Tell Hussein, moron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
On Dec 11, 1:26?pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You go inside to see if you can help. ?On one side of the room, you
> see a 5 year old boy, unconciouss but still alive. ?On the other side,
> you see a wheeled cryogenic tank containing 10,000 frozen embryos.
> text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> If the mother of several children becomes pregnant, the time of
> delivery arrives, and there is a choice to save the life of only one,
> the child or the mother, which would you choose and why???
C sections make the question moot, moron, no matter how much the left wants
to protect PBA's.
-Eddie Haskell
John Fisher
>
> - Show quoted text -
How's that???? Substantiate, please!!!
Eddie Haskell
> > delivery arrives, and there is a choice to save the life of only one,
> > the child or the mother, which would you choose and why???
>
> C sections make the question moot, moron, no matter how much the left
> wants
> to protect PBA's.
>
> -Eddie Haskell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> How's that???? Substantiate, please!!!
Don't worry yourself, Fisher. It's simple, but WAY over your head.
-Eddie Haskell
John Q Public
They had a choice to spread em or to keep em closed, since she spread
em she should be
paying for em period or she should be paying to end their little lives
prematurely since you
think thats just great too.
Your so full of promoting choice for the irresponsible but, what about
our choice, don't give
a shit about that now do ya.
BTW, how many out of wedlock kids... would there be if the little sluts
knew they would end
up paying for them, a whole lot less I would bet on it!
art clemons
> The question is moot, stupid. The occasion NEVER occurs and is merely a
> democrat talking point lie, DUMBASS.
If you think so, why don't you find an obstetrician/gynecologist who will
make this claim. Even at hospitals which strongly follow Catholic
principles will do an abortion if said abortion will save the life of the
mother. I suggest you once again should do more research!
art clemons
> Oh, good. I have a right to anything I please then.
Nope, it just says that some rights accrue to the people and can't be taken
away. There is some point where you attempting to do anything you please
would intrude on the rights of others, like for example telling a woman she
can't choose to have or not have an abortion.
art clemons
> C sections are done more often to avoid lawsuits from the like of
> ambulance casers like the breck girl. That having been said C sections
> make life of the mother issues moot. That's a fact no matter how much you
> want to protect sick PBA's, you fanatic.
So uh do you have a REPUTABLE MEDICAL SOURCE for these claims. Note, I
don't want nonsense from idiots incorporated or some such, I asked for a
reputable source.
art clemons
>> It's because it's the woman's body that has to support the fetus during
>> the
>> pregnancy, not the alleged father.
>
> The baby has to have support after birth to live so that makes it okay to
> kill it, right?
Nope that wasn't the question being answered, I suggest you return and read
in context. The question concerned why only the woman got to choose whether
to have an abortion or not.
> Buh-but but but but..
See, now you are repeating sounds like a one year old.
>> Are you truly suggesting the equivalent
>> of slavery for women?
>
> No, we're suggesting that you're an idiot.
>
Gee, that would make me only four magnitudes brighter than you!
art clemons
>> So uh do you have a REPUTABLE MEDICAL SOURCE for these claims. Note, I
>> don't want nonsense from idiots incorporated or some such, I asked for a
>> reputable source.
> Sure thing.
>
> "C sections are done more often to avoid lawsuits from the likes of
> ambulance casers like the breck girl. That having been said C sections
> make life of the mother issues moot. That's a fact no matter how much you
> want to protect sick PBA's, you fanatic."
No brain-damaged, I asked a different question, namely for a reputable
source to justify your claim rather than you repeating the same nonsense.
Are you capable of reading and comprehending with words of more than one
syllable? What's ironic is that you quoted the question then gave the
nonsense above. Can you back what you claim with some reputable source or
are you relying on hallucinations and words from some fool?
art clemons
>> If you think so, why don't you find an obstetrician/gynecologist who will
>> make this claim. Even at hospitals which strongly follow Catholic
>> principles will do an abortion if said abortion will save the life of the
>> mother.
>
> The only time that is necessary is went the fetus is already dead or
> grossly deformed.
So when did you finish a residency in Obstetrics so that I should take your
word on the issue? If you can find an MPH willing to make that claim then
quote that MPH, gee all you have to do is find a reputable source to back
the claim.
What you seem to be missing is that your word isn't worth relying on, and
it's contradicted by medical literature. Try looking up ectopic pregnancy
and get back with your nonsense!
art clemons
>> can't choose to have or not have an abortion.
>
> When the fetus is viable, abortion intrudes on the right to life.
Consider what you just answered, you've just stated that first trimester
abortion doesn't intrude on a supposed "right to life". You're incredible!
art clemons
> The context was abortion being okay because the mother has to support it
> during pregnancy. She has to do that after pregnancy as well so logically
> it's okay to kill a baby.
Nope, the question being addressed was why the male didn't get to choose. I
suggest you consult google if you must. I guess reading for context is
really beyond you
Sid9
"art clemons" <artcl...@aolSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:hg9rp5$oks$1...@news.albasani.net...
RRRs just want to punish poor women.
Wealthy woman can get what they want, no problem.
A vendetta against the poor.
JayPee Vee
Who's Hussein, cunt?
JayPee Vee
Lookie, a retarded moron.
Hello, retarded moron!
Eddie Haskell
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hg9thu$pru$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Can poor girls go to a good private school via vouchers or public school
choice? No? Oh, that's right. The NEA pays democrats the big bucks to keep
them down and in failed schools. Yeah, Hussein and the democrats can piss
away money like there is no tomorrow, but when it comes to educating poor
kids, fuck that. Democrats gotta have POWER by fucking god!
Public money to kill fetuses? Sure yeah, what the fuck? Public money to
educate kids? Fuck that.
How you can support this kind of corrupt shit is beyond fucking
comprehension. You must be fuckin' sick.
"President Obama kills D.C. voucher program and Washington Scholarship Fund"
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"JayPee Vee" <jaype...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:58308464-3efc-412b...@r1g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> Who's Hussein, cunt?
Crawl back into your cave, shit-head.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
As clear a case of projection as yet seen.
-Eddie Haskell
art clemons
> Can poor girls go to a good private school via vouchers or public school
> choice? No? Oh, that's right. The NEA pays democrats the big bucks to keep
> them down and in failed schools. Yeah, Hussein and the democrats can piss
> away money like there is no tomorrow, but when it comes to educating poor
> kids, fuck that. Democrats gotta have POWER by fucking god!
Let's do some basic math. A voucher amounts to what percentage of an elite
private school's base tuition? Most vouchers don't even cover the cost of
attending a Roman Catholic parochial school, which is a substantially
cheaper tuition normally. I also note that when students who got vouchers
got tested, they appear to perform no better on standardized tests than the
students left behind. Is there a single voucher program which actually
worked?
> Public money to kill fetuses? Sure yeah, what the fuck? Public money to
> educate kids? Fuck that.
One of the reasons that vouchers are called for is precisely that not enough
money is spent educating poor children. The fact they don't seem to work is
irrelevant to those who want to limit public education funding even more.
> How you can support this kind of corrupt shit is beyond fucking
> comprehension. You must be fuckin' sick.
No the really corrupt nonsense is trying to create a system which will draw
off funds from public schools and create private schools which don't work
particularly well. Charter schools sometimes work but statistically do NOT
produce better results for the students over the long term.
> "President Obama kills D.C. voucher program and Washington Scholarship
> Fund"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ydc7hu2
Maybe if you actually read the Examiner article and note that it really
referenced an article by Birnbaum in the Washington Post, you might have
noticed that Obama had nothing to do with the provisions of the bill in
question.
art clemons
> "It's funny how child support is imposed on a man because a woman has
> the right to choose."
>
> -mange
>
> "It's because it's the woman's body that has to support the fetus during
> the pregnancy"
>
> -art clemons
>
> Hence, the woman has the right to choose because she has to support the
> fetus, so by the same token she has the right to choose after birth
> because she still has to support the baby.
First, let's note that child support doesn't normally provide enough income
to raise a child. Do the math sometime. 20% or so of a median male salary
isn't enough to raise a child.
2nd if you bothered to think, you'ld realize you're not reading in context.
Using your logic, having sex means that one has to be a mother if pregnancy
results, but men can just be anonymous sperm donors.
>
> Squeal in agony all you want, but face it, you lose.
How did I lose and note how you're attempting to ignore why a man doesn't
get to choose if a fetus is born or not. It's the woman's body not the
man's at stake. He only faces a potential monetary loss.
> Boy, being of superor intelect. What a joy it is..
I know, it's a shame you'll never experience being of superior intellect!
art clemons
>> No brain-damaged, I asked a different question, namely for a reputable
>> source to justify your claim rather than you repeating the same nonsense.
>> Are you capable of reading and comprehending with words of more than one
>> syllable? What's ironic is that you quoted the question then gave the
>> nonsense above. Can you back what you claim with some reputable source
>> or are you relying on hallucinations and words from some fool?
>
> Aw what the hell. I've toyed with you enough.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3290631&page=1
>
No, your lack of comprehensionship, you're missing the whole point. You
claimed that C-sections made considering a threat to the life of the mother
an irrelevant consideration. Your abc source doesn't even cover that issue.
All you've proved is that the number of such operations has gone up. Gee
did you even read the article. Where does it state or imply that threats to
the life of the mother are made moot by a C-Section. Actually any surgery
is a statistical risk and statistically it's likely more dangerous than an
abortion.
You blew it, you can't read apparently!
John Q Public
He likes paying for little sluts, he just can't find his little pecker
to do anything with em
art clemons
>> No brain-damaged, I asked a different question, namely for a reputable
>> source to justify your claim rather than you repeating the same nonsense.
>> Are you capable of reading and comprehending with words of more than one
>> syllable? What's ironic is that you quoted the question then gave the
>> nonsense above. Can you back what you claim with some reputable source
>> or are you relying on hallucinations and words from some fool?
>
Can you read? Platz's study doesn't imply or state that C-sections decrease
the need for abortion. It instead implies that there is some correlation
between malpractice insurance rates for ob/gyn practices and the number of
C-Sections. It incidentally ignores the apparently greater correlation
between drops in income from insurance investors and rises in malpractice
rates. I pointedly note that the number of malpractice suits hasn't risen
even in more likely to be sued fields like OB/GYN and payouts also haven't
risen, meaning that the expected justification for rising rates isn't there.
John Fisher
> On 2009-12-16 13:12:29 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <f...@eeaeae.com> said:
>
> > > "JayPee Vee" <jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lest we forget, JQP, we are not talking about Eddies pecker!!! The
topic is:
Not a penny of taxpayer money can go towards a woman's right to
choose!!!!
What about making it so that not a penny of taxpayer money can go
towards those who would deny a woman her right to choose????? When
churches can blackmail our leaders to ensure political outcomes, its
time to give a measured response which includes a penalty!! (MNSVHO)
How is it that more than a penny can go towards the funding of
religious enterprise and its attempts to deny the individual rights
of
various elements of society!!! The Hyde Amendment supports THE
BELIEFS of some and denies public funding for personal choice!!!
We need an amendment which supports the civil rights of everyone!!!
AND/OR one which denies funding to those who SEEK TO DENY THE CIVIL
RIGHTS of others because of religious beliefs. How about
eliminating tax deductions for contributions to churches??? How
about
eliminating the tax free status of churches??? Often, actions of
many cults are more devastating than the actions of a woman who seeks
to rid her body of seeds which can produce parasites that she chooses
not to have materialize!!
Sid9
> On Dec 16, 2:13?pm, John Q Public <my2ce...@me.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-16 13:12:29 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <f...@eeaeae.com>
>> said:
>>
>> > > "JayPee Vee" <jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:88baaf29-edb7-45aa...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
.
This is an attack on the rights of poorest most vulnerable women.
Anyone who can rub a few dollars together will always be able to make
a choice about their future.
Clairbear
news:hgbpup$vn2$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "John Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:abbf9199-043d-44e7-877f-7efbb63863c2
@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> On Dec 16, 2:13?pm, John Q Public <my2ce...@me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2009-12-16 13:12:29 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <f...@eeaeae.com>
>>> said:
>>>
>>> > > "JayPee Vee" <jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:88baaf29-edb7-45aa-adeb-015df268f6b6
@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.c
>>> >om...
And what of the future of the human life they CHOOSE to end
Governor Swill
>Lest we forget, JQP, we are not talking about Eddies pecker!!! The
>topic is:
>
>Not a penny of taxpayer money can go towards a woman's right to
>choose!!!!
>
>What about making it so that not a penny of taxpayer money can go
>towards those who would deny a woman her right to choose????? When
>churches can blackmail our leaders to ensure political outcomes, its
>time to give a measured response which includes a penalty!! (MNSVHO)
I'll spend my taxpayer dollars on condoms and other forms of birth
control IF I get a steep break on the price. As for abortions, that
is a non issue to me, but I won't pay for them as long as there's
birth CONTROL available.
I'd rather spend my money on a stellar quality orphanage system.
>How is it that more than a penny can go towards the funding of
>religious enterprise and its attempts to deny the individual rights
>of various elements of society!!! The Hyde Amendment supports THE
>BELIEFS of some and denies public funding for personal choice!!!
America was not founded on Christian principles per se, but the values
of Americans are firmly rooted in Christian, European and especially
Protestant practices and beliefs.
Religion changes with the times too, but more slowly. Fifty years
ago, large numbers of preachers proved the black man was inferior and
cursed by Noah and used the Bible to prove it. Good luck finding many
who do now.
>We need an amendment which supports the civil rights of everyone!!!
Well, we do have that, and when law gets broken, the offended party
has no choice but to roll over or take City Hall to court. Many
changes in our society have come about because of Supreme Court
rulings. The SCOTUS once sanctioned slavery, then rejected it but
accepted apartheid, finally it rejected all of these and 'by law', no
black or other color/creed/etc. has any less opportunity, right or
privilege than anybody else. But sometimes you have to press the
point.
>AND/OR one which denies funding to those who SEEK TO DENY THE CIVIL
>RIGHTS of others because of religious beliefs. How about
>eliminating tax deductions for contributions to churches??? How
>about
>eliminating the tax free status of churches???
You must be an atheist.
> Often, actions of
>many cults are more devastating than the actions of a woman who seeks
>to rid her body of seeds which can produce parasites that she chooses
>not to have materialize!!
Society tends to reach for what it wants and if they're rich, they get
it. Been Christmas shopping lately?
Swill
--
In the exam room . . .
Doctor: "Public Opt . . ."
Elephant: "SOCIALISM!"
Doctor: "Reflexes good."
Governor Swill
>This is an attack on the rights of poorest most vulnerable women.
Did you not catch the question about orphanages early in Obama's
campaign?
http://abbafund.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/warren-asks-obama-and-mccain-about-the-orphans-of-the-world/
All they have to do is carry to term, keep their medical prenatal
schedule and stay off the dope. Then pay them for a healthy baby.
>Anyone who can rub a few dollars together will always be able to make
>a choice about their future.
That will always be true.
art clemons
>> Let's do some basic math. A voucher amounts to what percentage of an
>> elite
>> private school's base tuition?
>
> Private schools are cheaper than what is spent in public schools per
> student, particularly in DC.
DC is an anomaly and you'll note that you quoted my reference to elite
private school tuition. Thus trying to claim that for example DC is
applicable to the whole country isn't going to work and I pointedly note
that elite private schools like for example Sidwell Friends cost more per
pupil than what DC is supposed to spend. DC's cost per pupil are also an
artifact of how DC gets funded.
>> Most vouchers don't even cover the cost of
>> attending a Roman Catholic parochial school, which is a substantially
>> cheaper tuition normally.
>
> Aside from the aforementioned. Not providing help toward tuition is NOT an
> argument.
You don't even know how vouchers work do you? Most voucher programs won't
allow the school receiving the voucher to seek extra funds for educating the
student from the family, thus the voucher amount being less than Parochial
school tuition basically requires the school to accept less in order to get
the voucher.
>> I also note that when students who got vouchers
>> got tested, they appear to perform no better on standardized tests than
>> the
>> students left behind.
>
> That's complete horseshit. Students from private schools do on average
> better than students in public schools.
That's not what I said, what I said was that vouchered students perform
either about the same or less than their public school cohort when measured
on standardized tests. You're going to have to learn to read with
comprehension if you claim to be responding to me. I actually read what you
claim and respond to the claims you make.
>> Is there a single voucher program which actually
>> worked?
>
> The one Hussein is eliminating did.
Who is Hussein? DC's voucher system isn't the success you apparently want
to claim. Any measured success isn't as great as some right wingers want to
claim and the most probative result appears that reading scores rose 4
months for the cohort, but and it's a key but, math scores were the same,
and students from really poor schools who got vouchers didn't perform any
better than the students at the schools they had left behind.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_10.htm
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20074009/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040302987.html?hpid=sec-education
>>> Public money to kill fetuses? Sure yeah, what the fuck? Public money to
>>> educate kids? Fuck that.
>>
>> One of the reasons that vouchers are called for is precisely that not
>> enough
>> money is spent educating poor children.
>
> You're nuts.
>
> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/03/06/vouchers-vs-the-district-with-
more-money-than-god/
The Cato institute often has studies which later prove unfounded or based on
slanted preliminary data. The other point to consider is that DC doesn't
spend its money on teacher salaries, new pedagogy or even new textbooks.
Golly, gee, you're trying to tell me that DC is typical of the country when
its per pupil rate is about twice that of any city approximately as large or
larger. Which other large city spends that much per pupil?
>> The fact they don't seem to work is
>> irrelevant to those who want to limit public education funding even more.
>>
>>> How you can support this kind of corrupt shit is beyond fucking
>>> comprehension. You must be fuckin' sick.
>>
>> No the really corrupt nonsense is trying to create a system which will
>> draw
>> off funds from public schools and create private schools which don't work
>> particularly well.
>
> Are you finished, NEA spokesman? When a kid goes to a private school as
> opposed to a public one the public school no longer needs the money for
> the student that is not there. My dog could figure that out. Further, it
> is a proven FACT that private schools do a better job teaching than public
> ones and at a cheaper cost.
Nice try but what you miss is that schools are funded on a per capita basis,
meaning that as schools lose pupils, the money from state and federal
sources also decreases. Vouchers thus have the perverse effect in most
places of reducing the actual amount of money to spend.
Incidentally did you miss this line in the Cato reproduction of the DC
school budget:
Non-public Tuition** $141,700,442
That non-public tuition figure is the figure for VOUCHERS, which are then
tucked into the per pupil spending for DC, raising the figure supposedly
spent per pupil. One of the reasons I distrust Cato Institute analysis is
that it constantly does things like this on hot button issues if favors even
if any reputable attempt at producing figures would mention just what that
non-public tuition figure really was.
> You either have a vested interest in seeing that public schools and / or
> the NEA keep the cash cow flowing or you're just a mouthpiece excuser for
> the democrat party because the things you are saying are old, worn out,
> stupid fucking talking points.
I'm none of the above. There for example is NO democrat party except in
minds of those who can't read or want to show ignorance. I have never been
a teacher in a public school, nor have I ever been a member of the NEA or
any similar entity. Which voucher programs are producing great results and
it should be noted that DC's voucher figures are at least twice the figure
of other known voucher programs in the states. Nice try to just mention DC,
but DC isn't typical nor do the results in DC actually justify what has been
spent on the program.
> And you should be ashamed of yourself, because in the end kids suffer
> because of your corrupt bullshit.
I'm not the fools suggesting that vouchers work well. One more time where
are the shining success stories. Incidentally, a surprising fact about DC's
voucher system, many of the students who got vouchers were already attending
Parochial schools (that's probably why there is such a gap between students
who originally went to public schools in DC and the rest of the students)
meaning in effect that vouchers really amounted to a subsidy for parochial
education in DC.
Sid9
"Governor Swill" <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g03ji55d6pfajd76k...@4ax.com...
.
You don't get it.
Sid9
.
You oppose abortion?
Don't have one.
Otherwise it's none of your business
art clemons
>> All you've proved is that the number of such operations has gone up. Gee
>> did you even read the article. Where does it state or imply that threats
>> to
>> the life of the mother are made moot by a C-Section.
>
> Graon. I'm getting real tired of holding your hand, clemons.
>
> "C sections are done more often to avoid lawsuits from the like of
> ambulance casers like the breck girl."
>
> -Eddie Haskell
>
> Now, read the bottom of the first page and the top of the second.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3290631&amp;page=1
>
> Do-you-un-der-stand-yet?
The problem for your argument is that you're trying to equate a supposed
risk of being sued with safety for the mother. Even the article notes that
a C-section is major abdominal surgery with attendant risks for the mother.
Try quoting a section of the article which states that most C-sections are
done to avoid a malpractice risk. It instead claims that the number and
percentage has risen.
There is no mention in the article of how a C-section can reduce the need
for an abortion. Which incidentally is what you were apparently trying to
claim. I do not fall for tangents like you're trying. The ABC URL doesn't
prove what you claim.
>> Actually any surgery
>> is a statistical risk and statistically it's likely more dangerous than
>> an abortion.
>
> Goddamn, Clemons. I said that a PBA is more dangerous than a c section.
> Especially on a viable fetus.
What the <blank> is a PBA. Further the normal definition of a viable fetus
is one that can survive on its own without being within the confines of its
mother. You do not seem to recognize that just the definition of viable for
a fetus is an argument in medical circles. It should also be noted that
most abortions occur within the FIRST trimester when a fetus is definitely
not VIABLE. For that matter, even the 2nd trimester abortions don't
normally involve a viable fetus. So are you arguing for no abortions or are
you trying to argue for nonsense about 3rd trimester abortions.
>> You blew it, you can't read apparently!
>
> The projection is off the charts.
>
No, you can't apparently read content. Your source doesn't state what you
claim. Besides try reading Platz's article before you rely on the ABC story
to prove what you claim it does. The ABC article has no mention of abortion
or comparisons to the relative safety of abortions versus a C-section. You
miss the point of the article if you think it does.
art clemons
>> Consider what you just answered, you've just stated that first trimester
>> abortion doesn't intrude on a supposed "right to life". You're
>> incredible!
>
> That's right. What about it? Sounds like you support abortion right
> through the ninth month and for any reason. PBA's were developed as a way
> of committing infanticide on viable fetuses under the guise of legal
> abortion. A c section and then killing the baby would be a safer procedure
> but then you couldn't pretend that is was simply an abortion.
What the <blank> is a PBA? Third trimester abortions are rarer than C-
sections and only a limited number of physicians ever did them. I also
suggest that politicians and people who favor forcing a woman to term with a
fetus but then offer no support for that woman are more guilty of
infanticide than a woman who has an abortion.
art clemons
> Can you think?
>
>> Platz's study doesn't imply or state that C-sections decrease
>> the need for abortion.
>
> Wtf..? I didn't say they did, nor did I say that study did.
Then why claim that C-Sections lower the need for abortion? You have no
backing for the claim that you originally made then and can't provide it.
Why are C-Sections an alternative to abortion then?
>> It instead implies that there is some correlation
>> between malpractice insurance rates for ob/gyn practices and the number
>> of C-Sections.
>
> What is says is that "Study shows fear of lawsuit drives up C-section
> rates." That means the number of them. Not how much they cost, moron.
So you're claiming that physicians will charge the same fees for OB services
despite having higher marginal costs in other words. That's some capitalist
analysis on your part. Incidentally the study doesn't claim what you and
the reporting about it does. The actual article says correlation.
> Hahahahahaha!
>
> "C sections are done more often to avoid lawsuits from the likes of
> ambulance casers like the breck girl."
>
What you're missing is that doing C-Sections also provides more revenue for
the OB/GYN who does the procedure. A C-Section provides a lot more
reimbursement than a straight delivery. That's the other point Platz
ignored, namely that there was a financial incentive to do more Caesarian
procedures even absent the threat of being sued. I also note the higher
risk of permanent harm or death associated with a Caesarian, meaning that in
striving to avoid suit for possible damage to a fetus or child (I know you
don't make such a distinction but medical practice does).
art clemons
>> What you seem to be missing is that your word isn't worth relying on, and
>> it's contradicted by medical literature. Try looking up ectopic
>> pregnancy and get back with your nonsense!
>
> The fetus cannot achieve viability under such a scenario.
>
> Back to the drawing board for you.
I mentioned ectopic pregnancy as an example of why some abortions might be
necessary.
Also there have been several different full term ectopic pregnancies, even
some mentioned in 1957 when obstetrics did not have all of the technology
and research available today.
Like I said your research skills and thinking are very limited.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1823771/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1251665
Anonymous Infidel
fact that you're a total fucking obamatard.
John Fisher
Not a penny of taxpayer money can go towards a woman's right to
choose!!!!
What about making it so that not a penny of taxpayer money can go
towards those who would deny a woman her right to choose????? When
churches can blackmail our leaders to ensure political outcomes, its
time to give a measured response which includes a penalty!! (MNSVHO)
How is it that more than a penny can go towards the funding of
religious enterprise and its attempts to deny the individual rights
of
various elements of society!!! The Hyde Amendment supports THE
BELIEFS of some and denies public funding for personal choice!!!
We need an amendment which supports the civil rights of everyone!!!
AND/OR one which denies funding to those who SEEK TO DENY THE CIVIL
RIGHTS of others because of religious beliefs. How about
eliminating tax deductions for contributions to churches??? How
about
eliminating the tax free status of churches??? Often, actions of
Onward � Morons
I fully agree, I WANT my taxes to help pay for a woman's RIGHT TO CHOSE (and
I'm a man btw), why the fuck do other piece-of-shit pissants, RELIGIOUS
FUCKING IDIOTS OR NOT, think they get to control my taxes paid-in and
allotted-out?
When I heard Ben Nelson was going to take his Senate Amendment language to
get approved by "his clergyman" in essence to overturn Roe v. Wade I about
blew a fucking gasket...seems to me the way this is going there's going to be
a lot more bloodshed in the streets in the future as "AmericanÝ" becomes more
"retro-civilized" lol
--
THEOCRACY IS DEAD! LONG LIVE THE SIN!
https://www.cafepress.com/YbeLIEve
https://www.cafepress.com/FreeDumbOf
https://www.cafepress.com/FreeDumbFrom
Got Conscience?
Governor Swill
>We need an amendment which supports the civil rights of everyone!!!
This won't do? (emphasis added)
"AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
"Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by
section 2 of the 14th amendment.
"Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any *person* of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
*person* within its jurisdiction the *equal protection* of the laws."
John Fisher
Sounds good!!!--:) Sure takes a long time to have it recognized.
Look how long it took for women and people of color!!! There are
still barriers to that "equal protection". Some are more equal than
others, it appears!!-:) Now for women, who deserve complete control
over their bodies, and for equal rights/protections for GLBT
citizens, it's been somewhat farcical. (mnsvho)
John Fisher
Blackmailers and extortionists - The Catholic Bishops influence, and
Right Wing Politicians, manage to subvert a woman's right to
choose!!! Perverts galore manage to have their way, amongst
Democrats, because of Nelson and a handful of blue dog Democrats
Of course, the fight ain't over but, if Congress tries to introduce
anything to which Nelson disagrees, he still holds millions who need
health care hostage because of his particular beliefs. Apparently,
he
thinks if more noble to let 45,000 die, each year, because they don't
have health insurnce than to allow for a woman's right to choose!!!
I wonder if he wouldn't think it proper that a woman be stoned to
death if she made a choice with which he didn't agree?? After all,
their followers sure don't mind murdering doctors who help women
exercise their right. Given more power, to what extremes will they
carry their hatreds????
John Fisher
"I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the
health care bill.
I just didn’t expect it from the United States Council of Catholic
Bishops (USCCB).
Who elected them to Congress?
The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which
unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage
for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.
They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed
to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a
perfectly legal surgical procedure.
And this political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the
Council enjoys tax-exempt status.
When I visit churches in my district, we are very careful to keep
everything “non-political” to protect their tax-exempt status.
The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to
influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and
elections.
Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn’t
be."
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is co-chair of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus.
art clemons
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
> the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> State wherein they reside.
I guess you missed the requirement that a person had to be born or
naturalized to be covered. You even quoted it. Funny how requirements like
that get ignored when folks like you claim constitutional backing.
Incidentally in order to be naturalized, one has to be BORN in another
country. Reading with comprehension is necessary for understanding!
JayPee Vee
> Time to change your name again JayPee...People have caught on to the
> fact that you're a total fucking obamatard.
Blah blah blah... more rightard rant...
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
John Fisher
> Time to change your name again JayPee...People have caught on to the
> fact that you're a total fucking obamatard.
Now, that's just not nice!!! Afte what we've been thru, over the
rightard decade, Obama is a breath of fresh air!!!-:)
I think this will help you determine some truths about corruption and
Republicans ('n' rightard hypocrites)!!! It's time to come to the
support of the best leader we've had in such a long time!!-:)(mnsvho)
JayPee Vee
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Time to change your name again JayPee...People have caught on to the
> fact that you're a total fucking obamatard
Time to change your record, rightard, this one is broken!
John Fisher
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
John Fisher
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Time to change your name again JayPee...People have caught on to the
> fact that you're a total fucking obamatard
Now, that's just not nice!!! Afte what we've been thru, over the
Governor Swill
>On Dec 19, 9:46?pm, Governor Swill wrote:
>> John Fisher <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >We need an amendment which supports the civil rights of everyone!!!
>> This won't do? (emphasis added)
>> "AMENDMENT XIV
>> Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
>> "Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by
>> section 2 of the 14th amendment.
>> "Section 1.
>> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
>> the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
>> State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
>> which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>> United States; nor shall any State deprive any *person* of life,
>> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
>> *person* within its jurisdiction the *equal protection* of the laws."
>Sounds good!!!--:) Sure takes a long time to have it recognized.
>Look how long it took for women and people of color!!! There are
>still barriers to that "equal protection". Some are more equal than
>others, it appears!!-:) Now for women, who deserve complete control
>over their bodies, and for equal rights/protections for GLBT
>citizens, it's been somewhat farcical. (mnsvho)
Women have had abortion freely for decades. Three and a half of them.
John Fisher
>
> - Show quoted text -
Limited rights for which we've had to fight to keep!!! There could
come a time when religionists, if they gained the power, could take to
stoning. Given their way, certain religions would have all forms of
birth control declared illegal. If they can make the beliefs,
practices, and personal controls illegal, perhaps we shoud start to
think about making the practice of religion illegal. At the least, we
should seek to have their tax free status revoked!!! No public
funding birth control - no public funding religion or any religious
beliefs/symbols!!!
art clemons
>>I guess you missed the requirement that a person had to be born or
>>naturalized to be covered. You even quoted it. Funny how requirements
>>like that get ignored when folks like you claim constitutional backing.
>>Incidentally in order to be naturalized, one has to be BORN in another
>>country. Reading with comprehension is necessary for understanding!
>
> I didn't ignore it. Why do you think I did?
Yes, you did. Did you note that it ONLY applies to those born or
naturalized within the United States? Your analysis thus falls apart simply
because fetuses by definition haven't been born and can't have been
naturalized.