OT - Most states remain blue ...and sane.
Too_Many_Tools
Republicans.
TMT
Poll: Most states remain blue
By: Andy Barr
February 1, 2010 12:02 PM EST
Despite strong Republican performances in recent off-year elections,
most states still favor Democratic candidates, according to a new
survey by Gallup.
The compiled results of Gallup’s year-long polling of more than
353,849 adults in all 50 states last year and the District of
Columbia, found that far more states are safe havens for Democrats
than for the GOP.
Democrats can count 24 states solidly in their column, according to
Gallup, as they have more than a 10 percentage point party
affiliation
advantage there. Another 10 can be counted as “lean” Democratic, with
a 5 percentage point advantage.
Republicans, meanwhile, can only point to four “solid” states and
only
one state leaning Republican.
Gallup identified 12 states as competitive with no clear advantage
for
either party.
Democrats have lost some ground nationally as 49 percent of those
polled said they “lean” Democratic, compared to 52 percent who said
the same in 2008. The share of Republican-leaning voters, meanwhile,
has only nudged up 1 percentage point, from 40 percent to 41 percent.
Only 2 states have gone from the “solid” or “lean” Democratic column
to “competitive.” And Republicans have not added a state to their
columns.
“Despite the modest shift toward a decreased affiliation with the
Democratic Party and an increased affiliation with the Republican
Party in 2009 compared to 2008, the United States remained a
Democratically oriented nation last year,” said Gallup pollster
Jeffrey Jones.
The District of Columbia remains the strongest Democratic territory,
with a 66 percentage point advantage for the party.
The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
Massachusetts,
Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.
The 10 most Republican states are Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, Idaho,
Alabama, Montana, Nebraska, Mississippi, Texas, North Dakota and
Kansas. Only Wyoming, Utah, Alaska and Idaho favor Republicans by at
least double digits in party affiliation.
Buerste
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:32a84355-446d-40b6...@k22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Hmm...looks like Americans can see through the craziness of the
Republicans.
TMT
Poll: Most states remain blue
<snip>
What happens when you libtards run out of people to steal from? Your
Utopia! The Government taking care of you from cradle to grave...at least
for those you don't abort. Is abortion mandatory yet? Got some eugenics
planned to breed the master race? Who's going to pay for it all? Are you
going to continue to borrow from China and print money? Good plan!
Meanwhile, anybody that actually produces something will just go away and
leave you hungry, homeless and without toilet paper.
edi...@netpath.net
> The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
> Massachusetts,
> Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
> Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
> percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.
Massachusetts? Sure didn't get Martha Coakley elected there in a
recent statewide election against Scott Brown, did it?
Wake up. The masses are rejecting liberalism and liberals - if they
haven't already. Even in Massachusetts.
Election Day - now 10 months and a couple days away. Bet LOTS of
liberals get Coakleyed.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Buerste
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:c3ec2c4e-454c-46fc...@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
***************************************
I can hardly wait to say that some stupid loser politician got "Obammyed"!
Morton Davis
"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
news:FQQ9n.86685$1m3....@newsfe11.iad...
>
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:32a84355-446d-40b6...@k22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Hmm...looks like Americans can see through the craziness of the
> Republicans.
>
>
Party base lives are blue.
Buerste
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:KIednZ5uN8f-UPXW...@mchsi.com...
I do believe you are correct!
RogerN
\"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:32a84355-446d-40b6-983c-\21cdf2...@k22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
\Hmm...looks like Americans can see through the craziness of the
\Republicans.
\
\TMT
Well, according to you and the Democrats, spending money to fight terrorists
is insane, spending money to defend them is OK though. Oh, you forgot to
post about Obama's all time record deficit. Make sure you get all Biblical
references out of the military and get homosexuals in.
RogerN
HH&C
> On Feb 1, 10:10 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
> > Massachusetts,
> > Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
> > Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
> > percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.
>
> Massachusetts? Sure didn't get Martha Coakley elected there in a
> recent statewide election against Scott Brown, did it?
> Wake up. The masses are rejecting liberalism and liberals - if they
> haven't already. Even in Massachusetts.
Yep. The masses are rejecting liberal Republicans, too.
> Election Day - now 10 months and a couple days away. Bet LOTS of
> liberals get Coakleyed.
>
> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com- your source for hard-to-find stuff!
HH&C
> \"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:32a84355-446d-40b6-983c-\21cdf29b1__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@k22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> \Hmm...looks like Americans can see through the craziness of the
> \Republicans.
> \
> \TMT
>
> Well, according to you and the Democrats, spending money to fight terrorists
> is insane, spending money to defend them is OK though. Oh, you forgot to
> post about Obama's all time record deficit. Make sure you get all Biblical
> references out of the military and get homosexuals in.
>
> RogerN
It's not a good time to be a politician of any stripe. Solid
conservatives are the only ones likely to make it through this.
Ed Huntress
"HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a32bf0a3-7e3e-46ee...@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 2, 11:46 am, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:10 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
> > Massachusetts,
> > Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
> > Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
> > percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.
>
> Massachusetts? Sure didn't get Martha Coakley elected there in a
> recent statewide election against Scott Brown, did it?
> Wake up. The masses are rejecting liberalism and liberals - if they
> haven't already. Even in Massachusetts.
>Yep. The masses are rejecting liberal Republicans, too.
Scott Brown supports a woman's right to abortion; he opposes having the
federal government ban gay marriage; and, having lived on welfare as a
child, he's "moderate" on that issue. He supports the Massachusetts
universal health care insurance plan that forces residents to buy insurance.
Sure, Massachusetts rejected a liberal Republican. Right. The Republicans
might find they should have supported Coakley. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
edi...@netpath.net
ultraliberal MASSACHUSETTS anymore - as the in-the-streets Tea Parties
proved to be the tip of a huge iceberg of public anger against Obama,
Obamacare, and Obamaism.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
RogerN
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b6cdfed$0$21783$607e...@cv.net...
Brown supports the woman's right to kill the baby inside her but not the
taxpayer funding of it. People on the inside of Planned Parenthood came out
and told that they said they wanted to push abortions because that's where
the money is. Obama wants to give taxpayer money to fund Planned Parenthood
for profit. Many Americans are against killing innocent babies and don't
want to fund it with their tax money. Many others are for killing babies
but don't want taxpayers to fund it. Obamacare and Planned Parenthood want
to kill babies because that's where the money is and I'll bet Obama got or
will get a portion of those dollars.
RogerN
Ramon F Herrera
> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >OT - Most states remain blue ...and sane.
>
> And bankrupt. Two thirds of states are in the red.
> And most of them are blue.
Most people in prison are right-handed.
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
The South secedes from the GOP:
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/08/the-south-secedes-from-the-gop.html
-RFH
Ed Huntress
"RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in message
news:cdidnRRZGbr_oPDW...@earthlink.com...
There's a moral dilemma for a libertarian Christian, eh? A libertarian
Christian must be something like a conservative corn farmer living on
subsidies. <g>
> People on the inside of Planned Parenthood came out and told that they
> said they wanted to push abortions because that's where the money is.
Which people? I happen to know the former head of the New York and San
Fransisco chapters of Planned Parenthood. I can assure you that the money
has nothing to do with it for her or her associates.
> Obama wants to give taxpayer money to fund Planned Parenthood for profit.
> Many Americans are against killing innocent babies and don't want to fund
> it with their tax money.
I wouldn't, either, if anyone were killing babies. Evangelical Christians
seem to have lost their minds around 150 years ago. They used to know
better.
> Many others are for killing babies but don't want taxpayers to fund it.
> Obamacare and Planned Parenthood want to kill babies because that's where
> the money is and I'll bet Obama got or will get a portion of those
> dollars.
>
> RogerN
You're deep into the paranoia gig, Roger. Your superstitious views on
abortion have nothing to do with historical Christian doctrine. They're more
like Voodoo than Christianity.
As for your paranoia, here's some good bedtime reading that you should
absorb and think about:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
--
Ed Huntress
RogerN
Abby Johnson, former affiliate director for Planned Parenthood
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115476
Honorable mentions:
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/the_planned_parenthood_agenda/
And Roe of Roe V Wade
http://worstgenerationseed.blogspot.com/2008/07/roe-speaks-out-against-abortion.html
>> Obama wants to give taxpayer money to fund Planned Parenthood for profit.
>> Many Americans are against killing innocent babies and don't want to fund
>> it with their tax money.
>
> I wouldn't, either, if anyone were killing babies. Evangelical Christians
> seem to have lost their minds around 150 years ago. They used to know
> better.
What are these:
(you can skip the first ~4 minutes of preaching)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MMzMiSZelg
This shouldn't bother anyone since they are not killing babies
>> Many others are for killing babies but don't want taxpayers to fund it.
>> Obamacare and Planned Parenthood want to kill babies because that's where
>> the money is and I'll bet Obama got or will get a portion of those
>> dollars.
>>
>> RogerN
>
> You're deep into the paranoia gig, Roger. Your superstitious views on
> abortion have nothing to do with historical Christian doctrine. They're
> more like Voodoo than Christianity.
>
> As for your paranoia, here's some good bedtime reading that you should
> absorb and think about:
>
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
In these days we have scientific things like ultrasound where they can watch
the baby fighting for its life while being pulled apart. Also now we have
many better forms of birth control that wasn't available 150 years ago. So,
for savages to act like savages is normal but today the liberals act like
savages. Why use birth control when you can just rip the living infant from
its mothers womb and throw it away? The Democrats need to get rid of their
150 year old outdated dogma and get up to date with science.
But, while we are on the topic, why is it woman's choice? A man and a woman
both choose to have sex, except rape or similar, but if the woman gets
pregnant she alone has the choice to abort, keep, or put up for adoption.
The man has no say, why can't he just pay his share of the abortion fee and
have no further obligation for the child if he doesn't want to be a father?
Because it's about the money, they want someone to pay for the child even
though it is only the woman's choice. It doesn't even mater if the person
that pays support is the Childs father or not, the liberals are just wanting
to extracting money from anyone they can.
So, while I believe abortion is murder, the people getting them are those
that believe in abortion. Darwinism at its finest!
RogerN
Wes
>Scott Brown supports a woman's right to abortion; he opposes having the
>federal government ban gay marriage; and, having lived on welfare as a
>child, he's "moderate" on that issue. He supports the Massachusetts
>universal health care insurance plan that forces residents to buy insurance.
Supporting Mass. universal health care is a state issue. I'm a big fan of states rights.
It is better to make a mistake in one state than in all fifty. Should something turn out
to be a good idea, the remaining forty-nine will latch on to it.
I support welfare when it isn't abused.
Abortion, well that position of his is sad. I was conceived out of wedlock, I'm glad mom
chose life.
As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At least as I read my
dictionary.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Ed Huntress
You picked an interesting one -- as of course I suspected you would. <g>
This amazing "conversion" occurred just days after she said this on a talk
radio show:
" [O]n Sept. 20, Johnson told of death threats "targeted at me and my
husband and my daughter" and being followed in her car. What's more, on the
day of Tiller's murder, her husband begged and pleaded for her not to leave
the house, she said. She also spoke of the "harassing things" the entire
staff would receive in the mail, the neighborhood-wide mailers activists
sent out announcing employees as "abortionists" and the picket lines in
front of workers' homes. "It's very scary," she said, "this group of people
that claim to be these peaceful prayer warriors, or whatever they call
themselves, it's kind of ironic that some of them would be sending death
threats."
Seven days later, on another talk radio show, she said this:
"on Sept. 27...she raised the issue of death threats: "They involve my
daughter and my husband, so it's ironic that these people who call
themselves pro-life are sending death threats."
Eight days after that, she resigned from Planned Parenthood. Quite a
"conversion," eh?
"Only 3 percent of all health services provided by Planned Parenthood are
abortion. Of course, Johnson knows this as well as anybody. In fact, she
cited this very statistic in one of her radio interviews in September. In
response, the host asked: "So, it's really not that much." She responded:
"No ... we think 3 percent is a very small amount."
That's what the supposed "profitability" is based on, Roger: 3% of Planned
Parenthood's business. Abby Johnson has since appeared on O'Reilly; she
apparently has a paid job with the "Coalition for Life" (she had been on a
"performance improvement plan" at PP; in other words, she was on her way out
anyway); and she's well on her way to a new career as a media darling.
Your other "cites" doubtless are as vacuous and as distorted as this one.
When you cite something from WorldNutDaily, you really aren't worth
debating. Only nuts like Gunner believe anything they say.
>
>>> Obama wants to give taxpayer money to fund Planned Parenthood for
>>> profit. Many Americans are against killing innocent babies and don't
>>> want to fund it with their tax money.
>>
>> I wouldn't, either, if anyone were killing babies. Evangelical Christians
>> seem to have lost their minds around 150 years ago. They used to know
>> better.
>
> What are these:
Stupid. We saw them before. You should get yourself some new material.
> (you can skip the first ~4 minutes of preaching)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MMzMiSZelg
> This shouldn't bother anyone since they are not killing babies
>
>>> Many others are for killing babies but don't want taxpayers to fund it.
>>> Obamacare and Planned Parenthood want to kill babies because that's
>>> where the money is and I'll bet Obama got or will get a portion of those
>>> dollars.
>>>
>>> RogerN
>>
>> You're deep into the paranoia gig, Roger. Your superstitious views on
>> abortion have nothing to do with historical Christian doctrine. They're
>> more like Voodoo than Christianity.
>>
>> As for your paranoia, here's some good bedtime reading that you should
>> absorb and think about:
>>
>> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
> In these days we have scientific things like ultrasound where they can
> watch the baby fighting for its life while being pulled apart.
So would an earthworm. And they knew these things 1600 years ago, when St.
Augustine formulated his doctrine of "delayed ensoulment," and again in the
13th Century, when Thomas Aquinas elaborated it. There was no mystery about
fetuses, nor that they would normally develop, be born, and become babies.
The dividing line was one of purely theological superstition -- as it is
today.
> Also now we have many better forms of birth control that wasn't available
> 150 years ago. So, for savages to act like savages is normal but today
> the liberals act like savages. Why use birth control when you can just
> rip the living infant from its mothers womb and throw it away? The
> Democrats need to get rid of their 150 year old outdated dogma and get up
> to date with science.
It's YOUR dogma that's based on a theological superstition that was made up
out of thin air.
>
> But, while we are on the topic, why is it woman's choice?
Because it's her body, not yours.
> A man and a woman both choose to have sex, except rape or similar, but if
> the woman gets pregnant she alone has the choice to abort, keep, or put up
> for adoption.
And she has the burden. You don't. That's why it's easy for you to impose
your tyranny on her body. It's none of your business.
> The man has no say, why can't he just pay his share of the abortion fee
> and have no further obligation for the child if he doesn't want to be a
> father?
That's pretty much how it works for a lot of people. They'll share the cost
of the abortion, and he has no further obligation.
> Because it's about the money, they want someone to pay for the child even
> though it is only the woman's choice. It doesn't even mater if the person
> that pays support is the Childs father or not, the liberals are just
> wanting to extracting money from anyone they can.
This is a stupid conclusion. If the birth isn't wanted and a child is born,
someone else usually DOES have to pay.
>
> So, while I believe abortion is murder, the people getting them are those
> that believe in abortion. Darwinism at its finest!
It has nothing to do with it. You're cooking up justifications in your head
for an indefensible idea. You have some personal gripes in this area, I
realize, but it looks like it's twisted your thinking into a self-serving
tyranny over the bodies of women.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:ljlbn.250817$H15.2...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Scott Brown supports a woman's right to abortion; he opposes having the
>>federal government ban gay marriage; and, having lived on welfare as a
>>child, he's "moderate" on that issue. He supports the Massachusetts
>>universal health care insurance plan that forces residents to buy
>>insurance.
>
>
> Supporting Mass. universal health care is a state issue. I'm a big fan of
> states rights.
> It is better to make a mistake in one state than in all fifty. Should
> something turn out
> to be a good idea, the remaining forty-nine will latch on to it.
It's the principle, Wes. What kind of Tea Bagger is going to support an
*enforced* requirement to buy insurance? State or federal, the principle is
the same.
>
> I support welfare when it isn't abused.
So do most normal people.
>
> Abortion, well that position of his is sad. I was conceived out of
> wedlock, I'm glad mom
> chose life.
Your personal circumstances do not represent a principle. <g>
>
> As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At least as I
> read my
> dictionary.
>
>
> Wes
That's the problem. Too many people let dictionaries do their thinking. It's
a form of word magic, in which the word substitutes for the thing in their
mind, instead of just being a convenient generalization, which is what words
are. See Alfred Korzybski, _Science and Sanity_ (General Semantics.) d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Gunner Asch
Of course. They historically are Democrat. The KKK wouldnt allow anyone
BUT a Democrat to join, for most of its history.
Gunner
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.
RogerN
Pretty bad if it's true. I can understand her wanting out of Planned
Parrenthood if her family is being threatened, but why doesn't Planned
Parenthood sue her for claiming they push abortion because that's where the
money is? If a group harassed me to quit my job the last thing I would do
is join them.
> "Only 3 percent of all health services provided by Planned Parenthood are
> abortion. Of course, Johnson knows this as well as anybody. In fact, she
> cited this very statistic in one of her radio interviews in September. In
> response, the host asked: "So, it's really not that much." She responded:
> "No ... we think 3 percent is a very small amount."
Maybe 3% of the services is 70% of the profit?
List of services:
1. Provide Abortion
2. Provide Abortion Counseling
3. Provide Family Planning by Abortion brochure
4. Provide Information on how to pay for an Abortion
5. Provide "Abortions are fun" brochure
In my little list of 5 thing only one was to actually provide abortions, I
could say that Abortion was just 20% of the services even though it would be
where the money was at. If I listed 95 more BS services I could say
Abortion was only 1% of the services. I'd just have to provide abortions
and 99 pamphlets to persuade people to get an abortion.
> That's what the supposed "profitability" is based on, Roger: 3% of Planned
> Parenthood's business. Abby Johnson has since appeared on O'Reilly; she
> apparently has a paid job with the "Coalition for Life" (she had been on a
> "performance improvement plan" at PP; in other words, she was on her way
> out anyway); and she's well on her way to a new career as a media darling.
>
> Your other "cites" doubtless are as vacuous and as distorted as this one.
> When you cite something from WorldNutDaily, you really aren't worth
> debating. Only nuts like Gunner believe anything they say.
>
>>
>>>> Obama wants to give taxpayer money to fund Planned Parenthood for
>>>> profit. Many Americans are against killing innocent babies and don't
>>>> want to fund it with their tax money.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't, either, if anyone were killing babies. Evangelical
>>> Christians seem to have lost their minds around 150 years ago. They used
>>> to know better.
>>
>> What are these:
>
> Stupid. We saw them before. You should get yourself some new material.
So, seeing them more than once changes what they are? Actually tonight was
the first time I saw that video, the others were similar but I thought that
was a bit more graphic. They sure did look like parts butchered human
babies, glad they weren't.
>> (you can skip the first ~4 minutes of preaching)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MMzMiSZelg
>> This shouldn't bother anyone since they are not killing babies
>>
>>>> Many others are for killing babies but don't want taxpayers to fund it.
>>>> Obamacare and Planned Parenthood want to kill babies because that's
>>>> where the money is and I'll bet Obama got or will get a portion of
>>>> those dollars.
>>>>
>>>> RogerN
>>>
>>> You're deep into the paranoia gig, Roger. Your superstitious views on
>>> abortion have nothing to do with historical Christian doctrine. They're
>>> more like Voodoo than Christianity.
>>>
>>> As for your paranoia, here's some good bedtime reading that you should
>>> absorb and think about:
>>>
>>> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>> In these days we have scientific things like ultrasound where they can
>> watch the baby fighting for its life while being pulled apart.
>
> So would an earthworm. And they knew these things 1600 years ago, when St.
> Augustine formulated his doctrine of "delayed ensoulment," and again in
> the 13th Century, when Thomas Aquinas elaborated it. There was no mystery
> about fetuses, nor that they would normally develop, be born, and become
> babies. The dividing line was one of purely theological superstition -- as
> it is today.
I can't help what Augustine formulated but back in the old testament God
said he knew people from their mothers womb.
>> Also now we have many better forms of birth control that wasn't available
>> 150 years ago. So, for savages to act like savages is normal but today
>> the liberals act like savages. Why use birth control when you can just
>> rip the living infant from its mothers womb and throw it away? The
>> Democrats need to get rid of their 150 year old outdated dogma and get up
>> to date with science.
>
> It's YOUR dogma that's based on a theological superstition that was made
> up out of thin air.
What is your claim? If it's a superstition, not a human baby, then a person
shouldn't be charged with a double murder for murdering a pregnant woman.
If it's a human baby if someone else murders it, then it is also a human
baby if the mother murders it. Abortion is killing a baby, those who
perform abortions are baby killers. It doesn't matter that they twisted
laws to say one thing in one case and something else in another case, the
object is the same in each case.
>> But, while we are on the topic, why is it woman's choice?
>
> Because it's her body, not yours.
Then why should my tax money be used to pay for it?
>> A man and a woman both choose to have sex, except rape or similar, but if
>> the woman gets pregnant she alone has the choice to abort, keep, or put
>> up for adoption.
>
> And she has the burden. You don't. That's why it's easy for you to impose
> your tyranny on her body. It's none of your business.
But Obama wants the taxpayer to pay for her burden and her decision for the
choice she imposes on the taxpayer.
>> The man has no say, why can't he just pay his share of the abortion fee
>> and have no further obligation for the child if he doesn't want to be a
>> father?
>
> That's pretty much how it works for a lot of people. They'll share the
> cost of the abortion, and he has no further obligation.
Unless she decides to not get the abortion, then the father, or any man they
pin it on, pays a large chunk of his income until the child gets out of
college.
>> Because it's about the money, they want someone to pay for the child even
>> though it is only the woman's choice. It doesn't even mater if the
>> person that pays support is the Childs father or not, the liberals are
>> just wanting to extracting money from anyone they can.
>
> This is a stupid conclusion. If the birth isn't wanted and a child is
> born, someone else usually DOES have to pay.
Yes, anyone they can pin it on, you can have scientific DNA proof that
you're not the father and be put in jail if you don't pay child support for
someone elses child.
>> So, while I believe abortion is murder, the people getting them are those
>> that believe in abortion. Darwinism at its finest!
>
> It has nothing to do with it. You're cooking up justifications in your
> head for an indefensible idea. You have some personal gripes in this area,
> I realize, but it looks like it's twisted your thinking into a
> self-serving tyranny over the bodies of women.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
If a woman wants an abortion and is going to get it one way or another, I
would prefer she be able to get one legally from a doctor than from a
knitting needle. But I don't think taxpayers should pay for it. Being it
is her body, her decision, and no one else's, why should it be someone
else's expense? Obama said is should be between the woman and her doctor,
since it's none of my business, why should I pay for it with my tax money?
RogerN
Wes
>> As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At least as I
>> read my
>> dictionary.
>>
>>
>> Wes
>
>That's the problem. Too many people let dictionaries do their thinking. It's
>a form of word magic, in which the word substitutes for the thing in their
>mind, instead of just being a convenient generalization, which is what words
>are. See Alfred Korzybski, _Science and Sanity_ (General Semantics.) d8-)
OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a 'living document'
subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group that is in power?
As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings, coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.
Wes
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At least as
>>> I
>>> read my
>>> dictionary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wes
>>
>>That's the problem. Too many people let dictionaries do their thinking.
>>It's
>>a form of word magic, in which the word substitutes for the thing in their
>>mind, instead of just being a convenient generalization, which is what
>>words
>>are. See Alfred Korzybski, _Science and Sanity_ (General Semantics.) d8-)
>
>
> OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a 'living
> document'
> subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group that
> is in power?
Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause in the
Constitution means. d8-)
>
> As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
> coupled with a
> social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.
Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older people.
Are they not legitimate marriages, then?
The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from a
Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up from the
French, who applied it to grapes and animals. <g>
But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we somehow
believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman, expressly for the
purpose of having children in a "contractual" environment. That is, until we
begin to think...
--
Ed Huntress
RogerN
Unfortunately for most, the "begin to think" process happens over years of
attempting to get an education but all we really get is a liberal
indoctrination. If you go to school for years taught by liberal teachers,
and then "begin to think", that is, agree with them, then you have not
thought for yourself but been indoctrinated with their thinking. Liberalism
is kinda like going against the common sense flow by going with the nonsense
flow. The end result is you think you are thinking for yourself but you are
thinking like you were taught by your liberal educators and media. And you
end up with crazy ideas like a child needs parents permission to get an
aspirin at school but parents don't need to be consented to give the child
an abortion.
"Well little girl, we are going to perform surgery on you, we don't need to
let mommy or daddy know. But after surgery is done we'll have to ask your
parents if it's OK to give you a Tylenol for the pain. We thought of these
rules ourselves by beginning to think!"
You get liberalism crammed down your throat every time you go to school,
every time you watch TV, every you read a newspaper, and every time you read
a magazine article. But somehow they have brainwashed you to believe it you
agree with them you have began to think, no, you have just began to follow
without thinking!
RogerN
Ed Huntress
Does that mean you never went to school?
--
Ed Huntress
RogerN
It means I went to school, learned to think as I was taught, then later
learned to think for myself, which didn't agree with what the educated
idiots were teaching in the school.
RogerN
Ed Huntress
That's what most people think. They seem to think that education stinks,
that most of their fellow students are drones, but that *they*, outstanding
examples of humanity that they are, somehow avoided all of the
indoctrination and -- uniquely, or nearly so -- saw through all of the
foolishness and came out of the system as iconoclasts who think for
themselves, and who see through all of the indoctrination to which the
others fell victim.
Here's the short answer to that, Roger: If you're an independent thinker,
and came up with Christianity on your own, not to mention conservative
politics, yours must be one of the most outstanding examples of parallel
development in human history. d8-)
You took off on this tangent in response, apparently, to my recounting of
some facts about the word "marriage." I'll assume that you disagree with me.
If so, I'd like to see why. Your position on most things doesn't look at all
like "independent thinking" to me -- with all due respect. I have to wonder,
in fact, if you know what a "liberal" is, or why I, for example, don't begin
to fit your apparent definition.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> > As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
> > coupled with a
> > social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.
>
> Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
> intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older people.
> Are they not legitimate marriages, then?
>
> Ed Huntress
Not " Even if that were true." It is true. The majority of marriages
are entered into with the intention of having children. If there were
an easy way to tell which couples were not intending to have children,
then the law would probably differentiate between marriages made with
the intent of having children and marriages that have no intent of
having children as far as some of the tax advantages that married
couple have.
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:3030db05-1494-4f56...@s17g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 7, 7:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
> > coupled with a
> > social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.
>
> Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
> intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older
> people.
> Are they not legitimate marriages, then?
>
> Ed Huntress
>Not " Even if that were true." It is true. The majority of marriages
>are entered into with the intention of having children.
We aren't talking about a "majority" of marriages, Dan. Obviously, we're
talking about a minority, and why, or if, they should be excluded from the
institution of marriage.
> If there were
>an easy way to tell which couples were not intending to have children,
>then the law would probably differentiate between marriages made with
>the intent of having children and marriages that have no intent of
>having children as far as some of the tax advantages that married
>couple have.
I can think of no reason to believe such a law ever would be enacted.
>
> Dan
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>> OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a 'living
>> document'
>> subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group that
>> is in power?
>
>Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause in the
>Constitution means. d8-)
It isn't as important for me to understand it than for our judges to understand it. Of
course, there seems to have been a re-interpretation of that document to find all sorts of
powers for the government instead of doing what was done with women's suffrage and
prohibition. Imagine that, we actually amended the constitution, what a concept.
>
>>
>> As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
>> coupled with a
>> social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.
>
>Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
>intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older people.
>Are they not legitimate marriages, then?
It satisfies the male / female paring.
>
>The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from a
>Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up from the
>French, who applied it to grapes and animals. <g>
>
>But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we somehow
>believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman, expressly for the
>purpose of having children in a "contractual" environment. That is, until we
>begin to think...
You think too much and you won't know what you believe in.
But back to the situation with gays. They exist, they should be able to enter in certain
contracts with each other that the state recognizes. Things like probate, medical power
of attorney and likely a few others.
They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would have likely made a
lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a
>>> 'living
>>> document'
>>> subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group
>>> that
>>> is in power?
>>
>>Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause in
>>the
>>Constitution means. d8-)
>
> It isn't as important for me to understand it than for our judges to
> understand it.
Here's an important point: Nobody fully understands it. Even the Founders
disagreed about what it means. See, for example, Hamilton's versus Madison's
interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause. And they wrote it! <g>
It's full of ambiguities and contradictions. That's why the Supreme Court
has so many cases. Many of them question the meaning of provisions of the
Constitution.
> Of
> course, there seems to have been a re-interpretation of that document to
> find all sorts of
> powers for the government instead of doing what was done with women's
> suffrage and
> prohibition. Imagine that, we actually amended the constitution, what a
> concept.
You could try to illuminate your point with some examples. But there will be
a learned and expert rejoinder by a majority of Justices to every one. It
winds up being endless arguments, which are the result of applying different
levels of importance to different provisions. That's what most Court
arguments are about.
It's best not to waste one's time doing that. That's a game for fools who
not only haven't read the cases, but who, in most cases, have never even
read the Constitution or what the Founders said about it. That's not to say
you shouldn't have opinions about how things should be decided. It IS to say
that the fools who claim to know what "original intent" is, better than a
majority of Supreme Court Justices do, are mostly full of it. Very few of
them have studied it enough to have an opinion worthy of the name.
>
>>
>>>
>>> As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
>>> coupled with a
>>> social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.
>>
>>Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
>>intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older
>>people.
>>Are they not legitimate marriages, then?
>
> It satisfies the male / female paring.
As I said, the origins of the word will not help you there. You've adopted a
convention that used to be applied to grapes and goats. <g>
The most that can be said is that you favor the traditional meaning on the
basis of conservative reasoning -- that traditions and cultural conventions
have a value in themselves, which is the original idea behind intellectual
conservatism.
It's a legitimate point of view. But if we accept it without questioning the
premise of every such tradition, we wind up with things like not allowing
blacks or women to vote, or not allowing a Chinese to marry a Caucasian. In
the end, it appears to be nothing more than simple prejudice. Some day
people will shake their heads and say, "what were those bigots thinking?"
>
>>
>>The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from a
>>Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up from the
>>French, who applied it to grapes and animals. <g>
>>
>>But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we somehow
>>believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman, expressly for
>>the
>>purpose of having children in a "contractual" environment. That is, until
>>we
>>begin to think...
>
> You think too much and you won't know what you believe in.
If you don't think enough you'll believe in things that make no sense. As
Thomas Jefferson said, "I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an
intelligible proposition." I think so, too.
>
> But back to the situation with gays. They exist, they should be able to
> enter in certain
> contracts with each other that the state recognizes. Things like probate,
> medical power
> of attorney and likely a few others.
>
> They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would have
> likely made a
> lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.
Yeah. Like Lyndon Johnson said in 1957: "These Negroes, they're getting
pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got
something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them
a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a
difference."
--
Ed Huntress
RogerN
I don't mean it like that, I'm simply trying to state that just because I
don't accept all the liberal ideas that that are thrust upon me doesn't mean
that I don't think for myself. To the contrary, if I did accept them all
that would seem to be more of an indication of not thinking. Though on many
political topics I enjoy parroting what I've heard and sounds interesting to
argue about.
> Here's the short answer to that, Roger: If you're an independent thinker,
> and came up with Christianity on your own, not to mention conservative
> politics, yours must be one of the most outstanding examples of parallel
> development in human history. d8-)
Let me give you a little example of what I consider thinking for myself.
Many claim that the New Testament isn't accurate and wasn't written for two
to three hundred years after the fact. This is based on some of the
earliest writings they can find. I disagree with them because I thought for
myself. Now get this, the very same people that claim the NT wasn't written
till hundreds of years later and isn't an accurate account of Jesus, will
also tell you that the original writers thought Jesus would return in their
lifetime. That wouldn't be a very good thing to write if the claimed
authors were long dead before it was written. But on the other hand it is
clearly written about Jesus prophecying the destruction of 70AD but their is
no New Testament mention of its fullfillment in 70AD. So, if the johnny
come lately Bible experts are correct then we wouldn't have things in there
that should have been omitted and not have omissions that should have been
included.
> You took off on this tangent in response, apparently, to my recounting of
> some facts about the word "marriage." I'll assume that you disagree with
> me. If so, I'd like to see why. Your position on most things doesn't look
> at all like "independent thinking" to me -- with all due respect. I have
> to wonder, in fact, if you know what a "liberal" is, or why I, for
> example, don't begin to fit your apparent definition.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
I know you agree with a lot of the liberal agenda but I don't consider you
as one of the left nuts, I mean at least you seem to believe we have the
right to own a gun. But I kind of figure there is more difference in a
citizen and a politician than there is difference between most liberals and
conservatives.
As far a gay marriage, marriage should not be changed to allow same sex
marriage anymore than it should be to allow a person to marry their pet
hamster. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't
mean it should be picked on more than other sins. According to the Bible we
are all sinners so we should not condemn a homosexual just because their sin
is different than our sin. I find it hypocritical that religious folks will
be OK watching a movie with adultery but then think a movie with
homosexuality is disgusting. If they are wanting to use Biblical reasoning
then they should find adultery as offensive as homosexuality. The Bible is
also clear that homosexuality would be an issue in the last days.
RogerN
Hawke
Why is it that unborn babies mean so much to you but living adults mean
so little? And didn't you know the earth has too many people living on
it? You just want more and more and more?
Hawke
John
What are the reasons for the emphasis on legalizing same sex
marriages? I had understood that the reasons were primarily financial
- next of kin and joint tax returns and that sort of things.
Another question that would seem to be a result of this is "what does
one call one's partner? Husband and wife would seem to be sexual
indicators so is it "my friend"? Or perhaps "my mate"?
Cheers,
John B.
(johnbslocomatgmaildotcom)
HHnC
> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4b6cdfed$0$21783$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Why don't they just come out and say this War on Babies is Amereica's
new growth industry and will get us out of this recession like WW-II
did the Great Depression?
Ed Huntress
"John" <johnb...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:30avm5d4423jgus5m...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:14:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>news:MsIbn.227900$oC1....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
<snip>
>>>
>>> But back to the situation with gays. They exist, they should be able to
>>> enter in certain
>>> contracts with each other that the state recognizes. Things like
>>> probate,
>>> medical power
>>> of attorney and likely a few others.
>>>
>>> They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would
>>> have
>>> likely made a
>>> lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.
>>
>>Yeah. Like Lyndon Johnson said in 1957: "These Negroes, they're getting
>>pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got
>>something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
>>uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give
>>them
>>a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a
>>difference."
>
>
> What are the reasons for the emphasis on legalizing same sex
> marriages? I had understood that the reasons were primarily financial
> - next of kin and joint tax returns and that sort of things.
I can't speak for them, but I suspect that's just a red herring. The issue
is equal treatment, and equal respect for their commitments.
>
> Another question that would seem to be a result of this is "what does
> one call one's partner? Husband and wife would seem to be sexual
> indicators so is it "my friend"? Or perhaps "my mate"?
Personally, I don't think it matters.
--
Ed Huntress
HHnC
> RogerN wrote:
> > "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:4b6cdfed$0$21783$607e...@cv.net...
> >> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Why is it that innocent life means so little to you and the lives of
convicted murderers means so much?
> And didn't you know the earth has too many people living on
> it? You just want more and more and more?
>
> Hawke
Offing yourself will help you achieve your goals.
HHnC
>
> >-RFH
>
> Of course. They historically are Democrat. The KKK wouldnt allow anyone
> BUT a Democrat to join, for most of its history.
>
> Gunner
They, like Alberto Cur-Lee Mitchel, didn't much care for Catholics,
either.
Ed Huntress
Roger, are you suggesting that I would misrepresent a quote? <g> If you have
the patience for it, here's the one from Sept. 20th:
For the one from Sept. 27th, go here:
http://www.livestream.com/fairandfeminist/video?clipId=pla_26dae5cc-bfcf-4e36-9238-6b7c32b50925
I hope you have patience. <g> The Sept. 27th interview, in light of what
she's said since, is worth listening to. There's a woman with very flexible
"principles."
> I can understand her wanting out of Planned Parrenthood if her family is
> being threatened, but why doesn't Planned Parenthood sue her for claiming
> they push abortion because that's where the money is? If a group harassed
> me to quit my job the last thing I would do is join them.
You'd have to ask them. They generally avoid publicity, but I don't know in
this case.
>
>> "Only 3 percent of all health services provided by Planned Parenthood are
>> abortion. Of course, Johnson knows this as well as anybody. In fact, she
>> cited this very statistic in one of her radio interviews in September. In
>> response, the host asked: "So, it's really not that much." She responded:
>> "No ... we think 3 percent is a very small amount."
>
> Maybe 3% of the services is 70% of the profit?
Why would you think that? Because you're looking under every possible rock
to support something you want to believe? Or because you have some reason to
believe it?
> List of services:
> 1. Provide Abortion
> 2. Provide Abortion Counseling
> 3. Provide Family Planning by Abortion brochure
> 4. Provide Information on how to pay for an Abortion
> 5. Provide "Abortions are fun" brochure
>
> In my little list of 5 thing only one was to actually provide abortions, I
> could say that Abortion was just 20% of the services even though it would
> be where the money was at. If I listed 95 more BS services I could say
> Abortion was only 1% of the services. I'd just have to provide abortions
> and 99 pamphlets to persuade people to get an abortion.
It's amazing how creative you can be when you don't want to believe
something.
>
>> That's what the supposed "profitability" is based on, Roger: 3% of
>> Planned Parenthood's business. Abby Johnson has since appeared on
>> O'Reilly; she apparently has a paid job with the "Coalition for Life"
>> (she had been on a "performance improvement plan" at PP; in other words,
>> she was on her way out anyway); and she's well on her way to a new career
>> as a media darling.
>>
>> Your other "cites" doubtless are as vacuous and as distorted as this one.
>> When you cite something from WorldNutDaily, you really aren't worth
>> debating. Only nuts like Gunner believe anything they say.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Obama wants to give taxpayer money to fund Planned Parenthood for
>>>>> profit. Many Americans are against killing innocent babies and don't
>>>>> want to fund it with their tax money.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't, either, if anyone were killing babies. Evangelical
>>>> Christians seem to have lost their minds around 150 years ago. They
>>>> used to know better.
>>>
>>> What are these:
>>
>> Stupid. We saw them before. You should get yourself some new material.
>
> So, seeing them more than once changes what they are? Actually tonight
> was the first time I saw that video, the others were similar but I thought
> that was a bit more graphic. They sure did look like parts butchered
> human babies, glad they weren't.
They were stupid then. They're still stupid now. Have you ever seen PETA's
videos? Same idea.
Yes? And?
>
>>> Also now we have many better forms of birth control that wasn't
>>> available 150 years ago. So, for savages to act like savages is normal
>>> but today the liberals act like savages. Why use birth control when you
>>> can just rip the living infant from its mothers womb and throw it away?
>>> The Democrats need to get rid of their 150 year old outdated dogma and
>>> get up to date with science.
>>
>> It's YOUR dogma that's based on a theological superstition that was made
>> up out of thin air.
>
> What is your claim? If it's a superstition, not a human baby, then a
> person shouldn't be charged with a double murder for murdering a pregnant
> woman.
Like everything surrounding this issue, that's a law based on emotional
response. But it does have a somewhat logical origin in law, because it's
assumed that a woman carrying a fetus intends to bring it to term. So it's a
pre-murder: the murderer has denied an anticipated and welcomed life-to-be.
Likewise, the law that, since ancient times, has differentiated an
early-term from a late-term fetus. The closer it gets to birth, the more
humanly attached we are to it. Thus, Aristotle had a dividing line; St.
Augustine's was 40 days (for boys -- longer for girls); Aquinas, IIRC, had a
somewhat longer term; and English common law deliniated the allowable time
for abortion as that previous to "quickening": roughly mid-term. Under Roe
v. Wade, this tradition of emotional attachment is ensconsed in the
different legal situations for first, second, and third trimesters.
If you're looking for a scientific basis for all of those prescriptions, you
won't find one. Just as with complete prohibition, the entire issue is an
emotional one, probably hardwired into our species. Only the hardwiring went
haywire around 150 years ago.
> If it's a human baby if someone else murders it, then it is also a human
> baby if the mother murders it. Abortion is killing a baby, those who
> perform abortions are baby killers. It doesn't matter that they twisted
> laws to say one thing in one case and something else in another case, the
> object is the same in each case.
That's your opinion. And your only real reason for it is purely emotional,
not scientific, and not traditionally Christian.
>
>>> But, while we are on the topic, why is it woman's choice?
>>
>> Because it's her body, not yours.
>
> Then why should my tax money be used to pay for it?
Because the society decides that you will. You can join another society if
you wish, but this one is essentially democratic, and that's how the law
came out of the process.
>
>>> A man and a woman both choose to have sex, except rape or similar, but
>>> if the woman gets pregnant she alone has the choice to abort, keep, or
>>> put up for adoption.
>>
>> And she has the burden. You don't. That's why it's easy for you to impose
>> your tyranny on her body. It's none of your business.
>
> But Obama wants the taxpayer to pay for her burden and her decision for
> the choice she imposes on the taxpayer.
The law as it's proposed does not allow federal funds to pay for abortion.
That's the one he's endorsed.
>
>>> The man has no say, why can't he just pay his share of the abortion fee
>>> and have no further obligation for the child if he doesn't want to be a
>>> father?
>>
>> That's pretty much how it works for a lot of people. They'll share the
>> cost of the abortion, and he has no further obligation.
>
> Unless she decides to not get the abortion, then the father, or any man
> they pin it on, pays a large chunk of his income until the child gets out
> of college.
That's another issue. It sounds now like you're arguing FOR abortion, right?
>
>>> Because it's about the money, they want someone to pay for the child
>>> even though it is only the woman's choice. It doesn't even mater if the
>>> person that pays support is the Childs father or not, the liberals are
>>> just wanting to extracting money from anyone they can.
>>
>> This is a stupid conclusion. If the birth isn't wanted and a child is
>> born, someone else usually DOES have to pay.
>
> Yes, anyone they can pin it on, you can have scientific DNA proof that
> you're not the father and be put in jail if you don't pay child support
> for someone elses child.
Or if it isn't pinned on anyone, chances are good that we taxpayers pay for
the unwanted child. You're Ok with that, I assume?
>
>>> So, while I believe abortion is murder, the people getting them are
>>> those that believe in abortion. Darwinism at its finest!
>>
>> It has nothing to do with it. You're cooking up justifications in your
>> head for an indefensible idea. You have some personal gripes in this
>> area, I realize, but it looks like it's twisted your thinking into a
>> self-serving tyranny over the bodies of women.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
> If a woman wants an abortion and is going to get it one way or another, I
> would prefer she be able to get one legally from a doctor than from a
> knitting needle. But I don't think taxpayers should pay for it. Being it
> is her body, her decision, and no one else's, why should it be someone
> else's expense?
Roger, are you opposed to abortion, or just opposed to paying for it? It's
getting hard to follow your complaint here.
> Obama said is should be between the woman and her doctor, since it's none
> of my business, why should I pay for it with my tax money?
Then don't. If you're within the law, no problem. If the law winds up saying
that we pay, then go picket Congress.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>> They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would have
>> likely made a
>> lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.
>
>Yeah. Like Lyndon Johnson said in 1957: "These Negroes, they're getting
>pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got
>something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
>uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them
>a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a
>difference."
I'm old enough to remember segregation. I read 'Black Like Me' in elementary school.
In case you don't remember it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me
I have a feeling you also read that book and it likely formed an opinion. I bet my
opinion matches yours.
Trying to say gay mariage is equivalent is absurd.
Wes
Ed Huntress
How is it different? That's a serious question.
And if you're going to tell us that it somehow damages the institution of
conventional marriage, I'd sure like to know how it does that.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
Did you read the book?
>
>And if you're going to tell us that it somehow damages the institution of
>conventional marriage, I'd sure like to know how it does that.
Hell Ed, maybe I should have been able to marry my dog back when he was still living. I
was responsible for his health and welfare. We had a bond. We were very close. I wanted
him with me for the rest of my life.
Conventional marriage. That says a lot. You are advocating unconventional or a
re-definition of marriage.
When in the last 2000 years or so has man man or female female marriage been considered?
normal?
Wes
Ed Huntress
Yeah, maybe 40 years ago. What is it you're trying to say here?
The racial hatred that blacks experienced undoubtedly was much greater than
gays experience today. But the principle of discrimination is the same. What
possible REASON is there to deny marriage to gay people? That's the real
question.
>>
>>And if you're going to tell us that it somehow damages the institution of
>>conventional marriage, I'd sure like to know how it does that.
>
> Hell Ed, maybe I should have been able to marry my dog back when he was
> still living. I
> was responsible for his health and welfare. We had a bond. We were very
> close. I wanted
> him with me for the rest of my life.
Ah, I suppose you could, but crosses species lines would require some more
thought. <g>
>
> Conventional marriage. That says a lot. You are advocating
> unconventional or a
> re-definition of marriage.
Remember grapes. It used to be grapes. Now we have a re-definition that
excludes grapes. <g>
>
> When in the last 2000 years or so has man man or female female marriage
> been considered?
> normal?
What's normal? Nero married two different men at different times. Apparently
the Romans were the first to call those relationships "marriage." How long
has interracial marriage been considered "normal" in the US? It happened
during my lifetime.
Think about it, Wes. All of these angles you're bringing up, especially
"normality," need a better explanation when you're talking about rights. I'm
left-handed, like 10% or 12% of the population. Is that "normal"? Not if
your definition is based on majorities.
I'm still questioning your reason for objecting. I've had to question my own
reasons for objecting, right up until a couple of years ago. But I couldn't
come up with anything legitimate. How about you?
--
Ed Huntress
Larry Jaques
<clu...@lycos.com> scrawled the following:
Although I've never understood the need for a marriage license, I also
don't understand what all the fuss is about gay marriage. It's their
life. Let 'em alone. I can understand their need as far as hospital
visitations, etc. Of course, marriage is a religious thang, and I've
never been partial to that little bit of manipulation, either.
Let the masses marry goats for all I care.
--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust
Wes
>Although I've never understood the need for a marriage license, I also
>don't understand what all the fuss is about gay marriage. It's their
>life. Let 'em alone. I can understand their need as far as hospital
>visitations, etc. Of course, marriage is a religious thang, and I've
>never been partial to that little bit of manipulation, either.
>
>Let the masses marry goats for all I care.
>
Larry, that is a libertarian position.
Mariage as a religious act should not have the state intruding via licensing.
Civil union (gays), well, while I'm not all that thrilled about it, call it that, and
leave traditional hetrosexual marriage alone. Unfortuantly, they (gays) want to be viewed
as normal and want to hijack marriage. I don't care how commited they are to each other,
it just isn't the same as man and woman joining with procreation as a likely outcome.
They really should take half a loaf with substantive equivalance in rights and be happy.
RogerN
The bigger issue is what it means to give them state recognized marriage or
legal unions. Before long it will be mandatory for school kids to take
classes on homosex education. If homosexuality is natural rather than a
learned behavior, then why do homosexuals want it taught? They have gay
pride parades showing off their perversion doing things that would get
anyone else arrested. If gays really want to be treated like a normal
person, they should demand the police arrest them for what they do in their
gay pride parades. Next thing you know there will be child molesters
claiming they are born that way and some liberals will be wanting to send
them children to molest because it's just the way they are.
The sad thing is that the Bible very clearly told that these things would
happen but liberals put their blinders on and can't see it right in front of
their face.
RogerN
Larry Jaques
<clu...@lycos.com> scrawled the following:
>Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>>Although I've never understood the need for a marriage license, I also
>>don't understand what all the fuss is about gay marriage. It's their
>>life. Let 'em alone. I can understand their need as far as hospital
>>visitations, etc. Of course, marriage is a religious thang, and I've
>>never been partial to that little bit of manipulation, either.
>>
>>Let the masses marry goats for all I care.
>>
>
>Larry, that is a libertarian position.
Si!
>Mariage as a religious act should not have the state intruding via licensing.
Well, that's true, but it's one of the ways people who are
discriminated against can fight back. (See "dissolve") below)
>Civil union (gays), well, while I'm not all that thrilled about it, call it that, and
>leave traditional hetrosexual marriage alone. Unfortuantly, they (gays) want to be viewed
>as normal and want to hijack marriage. I don't care how commited they are to each other,
>it just isn't the same as man and woman joining with procreation as a likely outcome.
>
>They really should take half a loaf with substantive equivalance in rights and be happy.
I'd just as soon dissolve any legal advantage the gov't gives to
married folks than to allow gays to have it, too. That's discrimintory
to singles. (Ditto restaurants which have B1G1F sales who don't allow
takeout or halve the savings for a single diner. I always thought that
the reason for a sale was to draw in new customers, but some owners
don't grok this.)
I do believe that friends should be allowed to visit patients in the
hospital, especially if the patient doesn't HAVE family. When you're
hurting, friend and family love helps.
--
In order that people may be happy in their work, these three things are
needed: They must be fit for it. They must not do too much of it. And
they must have a sense of success in it.
-- John Ruskin, Pre-Raphaelitism, 1850
Hawke
No, we start with the useless garbage, which puts you at the head of the
list of undesirables to be done away with. When someone is so dumb or
hypocritical as to not see that if you are pro life then you are against
killing people, any people, then you deserve culling. Once you start
deciding which people can be killed and which can't then you have lost
the title of pro life. Babys no, bad people, yes, that makes you for
killing but you have some arbitrary rules. If you are against killing
people, meaning really pro life you are like a Quaker. You are against
killing anyone. But you fake pro lifers are not really pro life, just
pro unborn baby life. So you're just hypocrites and who needs people
like you around anyway? Not me. Let the culling begin. You go to the
head of the line!
Hawke
RogerN
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hkvmms$8pb$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Against killing innocent people versus murderers and you can't tell the
difference? Would you argue that if you light street lights in the night
you should also be for lighting them in the day?
RogerN
Humperdink
Why do you hate veterans so much?
> When someone is so dumb or
> hypocritical as to not see that if you are pro life then you are against
> killing people, any people, then you deserve culling.
I'm good with life in prison w/o parole.
Are you good with no abortions?
Tell me which you are; dumb or hypocritical?
> Once you start
> deciding which people can be killed and which can't then you have lost
> the title of pro life.
What crime has a baby committed? Will you stop killing them and just
sentence them to life w/o parole?
> Babys no, bad people, yes, that makes you for
> killing but you have some arbitrary rules.
I said I was good with life w/o parole. I've always said that.
> If you are against killing
> people, meaning really pro life you are like a Quaker. You are against
> killing anyone. But you fake pro lifers are not really pro life, just
> pro unborn baby life. So you're just hypocrites and who needs people
> like you around anyway? Not me. Let the culling begin. You go to the
> head of the line!
Why do you hate veterans so much?
> Hawke
Hawke, did you ever figure out how many gallons are in a 5 gallon
carboy?
Humperdink
> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
He's upset because he's inadequate.
Hawke
>>>> Why is it that unborn babies mean so much to you but living adults mean
>>>> so little?
>>> Why is it that innocent life means so little to you and the lives of
>>> convicted murderers means so much?
>>>
>>>> And didn't you know the earth has too many people living on
>>>> it? You just want more and more and more?
>>>>
>>>> Hawke
>>> Offing yourself will help you achieve your goals.
>>
>> No, we start with the useless garbage, which puts you at the head of the
>> list of undesirables to be done away with. When someone is so dumb or
>> hypocritical as to not see that if you are pro life then you are against
>> killing people, any people, then you deserve culling. Once you start
>> deciding which people can be killed and which can't then you have lost the
>> title of pro life. Babys no, bad people, yes, that makes you for killing
>> but you have some arbitrary rules. If you are against killing people,
>> meaning really pro life you are like a Quaker. You are against killing
>> anyone. But you fake pro lifers are not really pro life, just pro unborn
>> baby life. So you're just hypocrites and who needs people like you around
>> anyway? Not me. Let the culling begin. You go to the head of the line!
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Against killing innocent people versus murderers and you can't tell the
> difference? Would you argue that if you light street lights in the night
> you should also be for lighting them in the day?
>
> RogerN
Hey, what do you think Jesus would say? You think he would be advocating
killing anybody? Because if you think that then you don't know much
about Jesus. If you are for executing people for any reason you are not
pro life. Real pro lifers would not even kill a murderer. I'm not pro
life. Never have been so I see nothing wrong with killing some people.
But at least I'm consistent.
Hawke
Hawke
>> What are the reasons for the emphasis on legalizing same sex
>> marriages? I had understood that the reasons were primarily financial
>> - next of kin and joint tax returns and that sort of things.
>
> I can't speak for them, but I suspect that's just a red herring. The issue
> is equal treatment, and equal respect for their commitments.
>
>> Another question that would seem to be a result of this is "what does
>> one call one's partner? Husband and wife would seem to be sexual
>> indicators so is it "my friend"? Or perhaps "my mate"?
>
> Personally, I don't think it matters.
>
I don't think it matters either but not for the same reason you do.
Homosexuals are always going to be a small percentage of the population.
They are different from the majority in an important way. They will
likely always be seen as "not like us" by the majority. So even if they
are able to get the legal system to see them and their partnerships as
equal under the law as a normal marriage is, the people are not going to
see it that way. Same sex marriages are always going to be seen as "gay
marriage" by most people. They will not see it as the same as their
marriage. They won't condemn it but they won't see it as just like
theirs. Gay people will get their way in the legal arena. Their
marriages will be judged the same as a male/female marriage. But it will
never be seen that way by most people, and that they will never get.
Which is ironic because that is what gay people really want, which is to
be accepted as the same as everyone else. Some things are just never
going to happen and that is one of them.
Hawke
RogerN
There is a mess with no consistency unless you look at it from only one
point of view. Many are pro-choice but believe it is OK to kill an innocent
unborn baby but think it's wrong to kill someone that has brutally murdered
multiple people. Many believe in Equal rights and believe in a woman's
right to choose. But what about a mans right? The baby is in the mother
for a mere 9 months but the man that has no say so is forced to pay large
sums of money for 18+ years. The usual response is the man had the choice
in having sex with the woman, unless it was rape the woman had the same
choice. If child support is set at $1000 per week and the man is in a car
wreck on the way home, and permanently disabled, perhaps paralyzed form the
neck down, he has to set a court date sometime after he gets out of the
hospital. He will forever owe the $1000 per week for every missed payment
until he can make it to court to get a change order. If he goes bankrupt
not one penny of child support will be reduced. He will be put in jail for
non payment even though he is unable to move a muscle. If a man dies owing
child support they will dig up his coffin and auction it off and feed his
remains to dogs.
Most people that I have heard that claim to be pro-life are referring to the
life of innocent unborn babies. Otherwise a person that is pro life could
not live because they would be causing death of plants or animals every time
they eat. They couldn't drive a car because a bug may be killed on their
windshield. They can't walk because they may kill an ant. They can't wash
because they may kill a germ. In other words, your definition of pro-life
only exists in your own imagination. Believing that it is wrong to kill the
innocent and right to punish the guilty is a lot more consistent than what
most liberals believe- OK to kill the innocent but wrong to kill a person
guilty of horrible crimes.
RogerN
Harold Burton
<32a84355-446d-40b6...@k22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Too_Many_Fools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hmm...looks like Americans can see through the craziness of the
> Republicans.
Except for the only ones who voiced a choice: New Jersey, Virginia, and
Massachusetts. Come November many others expected to follow suit.
DumboCRAPS like too many fools whine.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
<c3ec2c4e-454c-46fc...@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
"edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:10�pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
> > Massachusetts,
> > Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
> > Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
> > percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.
>
> Massachusetts? Sure didn't get Martha Coakley elected there in a
> recent statewide election against Scott Brown, did it?
> Wake up. The masses are rejecting liberalism and liberals - if they
> haven't already. Even in Massachusetts.
> Election Day - now 10 months and a couple days away. Bet LOTS of
> liberals get Coakleyed.
That's "Croakleyed"
Snicker.
Harold Burton
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a32bf0a3-7e3e-46ee...@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 2, 11:46 am, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 10:10 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
> > > Massachusetts,
> > > Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
> > > Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
> > > percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.
> >
> > Massachusetts? Sure didn't get Martha Coakley elected there in a
> > recent statewide election against Scott Brown, did it?
> > Wake up. The masses are rejecting liberalism and liberals - if they
> > haven't already. Even in Massachusetts.
>
> >Yep. The masses are rejecting liberal Republicans, too.
>
> Scott Brown supports a woman's right to abortion; he opposes having the
> federal government ban gay marriage; and, having lived on welfare as a
> child, he's "moderate" on that issue. He supports the Massachusetts
> universal health care insurance plan that forces residents to buy insurance.
but not the Chimp's plan. . . or anything close to it.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
and your basis for that lie is?
Harold Burton
<6bee2875-ffac-4855...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
HHnC <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bingo!
Harold Burton
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> killing people, any people, then you...
....are an ignorant leftard and are still in shock over New Jersey,
Virginia, and Massachusetts.
snicker.
Harold Burton
"RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
Clearly not, but he's a leftard so we don't expect to much sense out of
him.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
Why not . . . cite chapter and verse.
Snicker.
Lookout
Remind me again who's in the White House?
AAHAHHAHAHAHA
Lookout
The chumps are on the outside looking in.
That's YOU, chump.
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hkvmms$8pb$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
You'll probably get a cap busted in yer ass before the line even forms.
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hl23k5$1ip$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Yep. Each one of your posts shows you to be a moron. You are consistent.
No-bammer
There is nothing sane about a Left Wing Wacko.
Tater Gumfries
> On Feb 1, 10:10 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
> > Massachusetts,
> > Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
> > Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
> > percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.
>
> Massachusetts? Sure didn't get Martha Coakley elected there in a
> recent statewide election against Scott Brown, did it?
Scott Brown was a far superior candidate. It didn't have much to do
with a basic shift in sympathies.
Your argument is frail and transparent.
Tater
John Husvar
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> I don't think it matters either but not for the same reason you do.
> Homosexuals are always going to be a small percentage of the population.
> They are different from the majority in an important way. They will
> likely always be seen as "not like us" by the majority. So even if they
> are able to get the legal system to see them and their partnerships as
> equal under the law as a normal marriage is, the people are not going to
> see it that way. Same sex marriages are always going to be seen as "gay
> marriage" by most people. They will not see it as the same as their
> marriage. They won't condemn it but they won't see it as just like
> theirs. Gay people will get their way in the legal arena. Their
> marriages will be judged the same as a male/female marriage. But it will
> never be seen that way by most people, and that they will never get.
> Which is ironic because that is what gay people really want, which is to
> be accepted as the same as everyone else. Some things are just never
> going to happen and that is one of them.
>
> Hawke
Well, from the point of view of a fundamentalist crazymotherfucker*:
I see civil marriage as a legal contract implementing an agreement
between two people WRT assets, rights and responsibilities, inheritance,
etc. Religious marriage, OTOH, is the matter for the religions and
religious involved, who may perform a ceremony and/or recognize a
relationship, or not, at their discretion.
The two are separate realms that do not overlap.
*Copyright: Curly Surmudgeon
Transition Zone
> Republicans.
But good fish are only half of the barrel. Rotten fish spoil the
entire thing.
Hawke
>> Hey, what do you think Jesus would say? You think he would be advocating
>> killing anybody? Because if you think that then you don't know much about
>> Jesus. If you are for executing people for any reason you are not pro
>> life. Real pro lifers would not even kill a murderer. I'm not pro life.
>> Never have been so I see nothing wrong with killing some people. But at
>> least I'm consistent.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> There is a mess with no consistency unless you look at it from only one
> point of view. Many are pro-choice but believe it is OK to kill an innocent
> unborn baby but think it's wrong to kill someone that has brutally murdered
> multiple people. Many believe in Equal rights and believe in a woman's
> right to choose. But what about a mans right? The baby is in the mother
> for a mere 9 months but the man that has no say so is forced to pay large
> sums of money for 18+ years. The usual response is the man had the choice
> in having sex with the woman, unless it was rape the woman had the same
> choice. If child support is set at $1000 per week and the man is in a car
> wreck on the way home, and permanently disabled, perhaps paralyzed form the
> neck down, he has to set a court date sometime after he gets out of the
> hospital. He will forever owe the $1000 per week for every missed payment
> until he can make it to court to get a change order. If he goes bankrupt
> not one penny of child support will be reduced. He will be put in jail for
> non payment even though he is unable to move a muscle. If a man dies owing
> child support they will dig up his coffin and auction it off and feed his
> remains to dogs.
You're getting off on a tangent here by going into what are the
responsibilities of parents after they have a child. A lot of that is in
the area of law not morality. It's true that once a child is born it is
the responsibility of both parents. Legally, the man can't just walk
away from his offspring. But if you look at it realistically you see
that it's the woman who has had the biggest burden of caring for the
children. They have to grow them inside them, they have to bear them,
then the are the care takers for the life of the child. Often all men do
is contribute a check. Regardless of how much or how little a man does
to care for his children, it's almost always less than the woman does.
Men need to wake up and realize if they take the action of having
unprotected sex with a woman they risk having a lifelong financial
burden. I think that is fair because you know as well as I do that once
a woman has a child she's going to have the major burden of caring for
the child for the rest of its life. Occasionally, men get a bad deal
from having a child but the truth is they usually put less into the deal
than the woman does. Which, in my book, gives her a greater say in
whether she wants to go through with having the child or not. And that
is why it's the woman's right to choose. She has more "skin" in the game
than the man does.
> Most people that I have heard that claim to be pro-life are referring to the
> life of innocent unborn babies. Otherwise a person that is pro life could
> not live because they would be causing death of plants or animals every time
> they eat. They couldn't drive a car because a bug may be killed on their
> windshield. They can't walk because they may kill an ant. They can't wash
> because they may kill a germ. In other words, your definition of pro-life
> only exists in your own imagination. Believing that it is wrong to kill the
> innocent and right to punish the guilty is a lot more consistent than what
> most liberals believe- OK to kill the innocent but wrong to kill a person
> guilty of horrible crimes.
Agreeing on the meaning of terms is the first step in communication. So
if you want to agree that by pro life you only mean you are anti
abortion then that is fine with me. But most people think pro life means
you are against killing human beings for any reason. Then you have to
decide what is a human being. Is a glob of molecules in a womb a human
being? I don't think so. Is a 6 month old fetus in a womb that can
survive on it's own outside the womb a human being? I think you can say
it is. So for me it's a viability issue. If the baby can survive outside
the womb it's not okay to abort. But the day after conception with a
morning after pill. Yeah, that's okay. A month or two after conception?
That's okay too. As the survivability of a child increases then the
right to abortion shrinks. That's how I see it.
As for "innocent" versus guilty that is a legal matter. I don't like
giving the state the right to put people to death. They make too many
mistakes and they have killed thousands of people on purpose who didn't
deserve to die. So as a rule I don't want the state putting people to
death as a general rule. Now for some extreme cases like serial killers
or mass murderers, I think it's okay to execute them. But that's it.
Give the state the right to kill and it will abuse it. Better to err on
the side of life. Once you kill someone you can't go back and fix
things. All you can do is say you're sorry and that's not much
consolation to the dead or their family.
Hawke
Hawke
Ha, Ha, Ha, hey stupid, those were questions. Notice the question marks?
You want citations for questions? What an idiot!
Hawke
Hawke
>>> Against killing innocent people versus murderers and you can't tell
>>> the difference? Would you argue that if you light street lights in
>>> the night you should also be for lighting them in the day?
>>>
>>> RogerN
>>
>>
>> Hey, what do you think Jesus would say? You think he would be
>> advocating killing anybody? Because if you think that then you don't
>> know much about Jesus. If you are for executing people for any reason
>> you are not pro life. Real pro lifers would not even kill a murderer.
>> I'm not pro life. Never have been so I see nothing wrong with killing
>> some people. But at least I'm consistent.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Yep. Each one of your posts shows you to be a moron. You are consistent.
Whew! I'm glad to hear you think that. Because the rule of thumb is that
when a right wing kook like you thinks someone is a moron that means
whatever he is saying is correct. I'm sure glad to hear your opinion
because if you thought what I said is right then I would surely be
mistaken. Guys like you would have said it was a good idea for George
Bush to be president and that starting a war in Iraq was the right thing
to do. So when you say go left then I know I should go right. For a
minute there I thought you would say I was right on and that would mean
I agreed with a slope head. That was a close one.
Hawke
Hawke
>>> Hmm...looks like Americans can see through the craziness of the
>>> Republicans.
>>
>> Except for the only ones who voiced a choice: New Jersey, Virginia, and
>> Massachusetts. Come November many others expected to follow suit.
>>
>> DumboCRAPS like too many fools whine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Snicker.
> Remind me again who's in the White House?
> AAHAHHAHAHAHA
All he's doing is crowing about small potatoes because he knows that the
big stuff is all in the opposition's hands. Congress, all Democratic
controlled; White House, Democratic controlled. Republicans win three
small elections that amount to not much of anything. Doesn't stop him
from crowing about them though. Football analogy; he's the guy that just
scored a touchdown for his team and goes through a ridiculously long and
elaborate celebration in the end zone. But the game is in the final two
minutes and the score is 49 to 7. That's him.
Hawke
Harold Burton
Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Plonk
I struck a nerve.
Snicker.
Gray Ghost
034b86...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
So is your skull. Or was Virginia and new Jersey "just bad candidates", too?
--
God, guns and guts made America great.
And Janet Napolitano nervous.
Which should tell you all you need to know about Democrats. How can one
restore America to greatness if greatness makes you uncomfortable?
RD (The Sandman)
news:hl4bth$c70$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> Lookout wrote:
>
>>>> Hmm...looks like Americans can see through the craziness of the
>>>> Republicans.
>>>
>>> Except for the only ones who voiced a choice: New Jersey, Virginia,
>>> and Massachusetts. Come November many others expected to follow
>>> suit.
>>>
>>> DumboCRAPS like too many fools whine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Snicker.
>> Remind me again who's in the White House?
>> AAHAHHAHAHAHA
>
>
> All he's doing is crowing about small potatoes because he knows that
> the big stuff is all in the opposition's hands. Congress, all
> Democratic controlled; White House, Democratic controlled.
Yep, but they are whining that they lost their 60 vote count. Apparently
some of them don't know that 59 is a bigger number than 41.
> Republicans
> win three small elections that amount to not much of anything.
Two governorships and a senatorial race that was predicated on breaking
the healthcare situation? You have a unique sense of what counts and
what doesn't make any difference. ;)
Doesn't
> stop him from crowing about them though. Football analogy; he's the
> guy that just scored a touchdown for his team and goes through a
> ridiculously long and elaborate celebration in the end zone. But the
> game is in the final two minutes and the score is 49 to 7. That's him.
It will be an interesting November, no matter which way it goes.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Some points to ponder:
Why is it good if a vacuum cleaner really sucks?
Why is the third hand on a clock called the "second hand"?
Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
Why do we sing "Take me out to the ballgame" when we are already
there?
Hawke
> Tater Gumfries <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote in news:46c8127f-483d-480d-868c-
> 034b86...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Feb 2, 9:46 am, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 10:10 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
>>>> Massachusetts,
>>>> Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
>>>> Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
>>>> percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.
>>> Massachusetts? Sure didn't get Martha Coakley elected there in a
>>> recent statewide election against Scott Brown, did it?
>> Scott Brown was a far superior candidate. It didn't have much to do
>> with a basic shift in sympathies.
>>
>> Your argument is frail and transparent.
>>
>> Tater
>
> So is your skull. Or was Virginia and new Jersey "just bad candidates", too?
>
Yep!
Hawke
Hawke
>> All he's doing is crowing about small potatoes because he knows that
>> the big stuff is all in the opposition's hands. Congress, all
>> Democratic controlled; White House, Democratic controlled.
>
> Yep, but they are whining that they lost their 60 vote count. Apparently
> some of them don't know that 59 is a bigger number than 41.
Yeah, the republicans are still a really small minority. One seat
doesn't do all that much. But it may force the Democrats to go nuclear
and end the filibuster. So it may work out badly for the republicans.
>> Republicans
>> win three small elections that amount to not much of anything.
>
> Two governorships and a senatorial race that was predicated on breaking
> the healthcare situation? You have a unique sense of what counts and
> what doesn't make any difference. ;)
It only would have mattered if the Democrats actually had 60 Democrats
they could count on. Two seats are independent and a number of seats are
so conservative they are hardly Democrats. So the Democrats didn't have
the majority they needed anyway. They still don't so I don't see that
much changing. Besides that what difference do two governorships make?
We know the Democratic candidates in those races were weak and they
lost. The question is what is going to happen to the republican
incumbents once the election happens. Are the people going to send them
packing too? The theory is that it's incumbents who are in trouble not
simply Democrats. We shall see.
> Doesn't
>> stop him from crowing about them though. Football analogy; he's the
>> guy that just scored a touchdown for his team and goes through a
>> ridiculously long and elaborate celebration in the end zone. But the
>> game is in the final two minutes and the score is 49 to 7. That's him.
>
> It will be an interesting November, no matter which way it goes.
Maybe, but maybe not. If you look at who the republicans have to run it
looks pretty bad for them. Their candidates are pretty lousy. I heard
yesterday that they also have 18 retirements in congress compared to 12
for the Democrats. This may be a pretty boring election with little
change at all. But if there are big changes you may be right and it will
be interesting.
Hawke
Sid9
.
It's time to end the 60 vote super majority.
It's time to end "holds" by one senator
Harold Burton
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
rhetorical questions.
Try again.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The chumps are on the outside...
...until January, 2011.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A chimp.
> AAHAHHAHAHAHA
Indeed.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> Lookout wrote:
>
> >>> Hmm...looks like Americans can see through the craziness of the
> >>> Republicans.
> >>
> >> Except for the only ones who voiced a choice: New Jersey, Virginia, and
> >> Massachusetts. Come November many others expected to follow suit.
> >>
> >> DumboCRAPS like too many fools whine.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Snicker.
> > Remind me again who's in the White House?
> > AAHAHHAHAHAHA
>
>
> All he's doing is crowing about small potatoes because he knows that the
> big stuff is all in the opposition's hands. Congress, all Democratic
> controlled....
Must be why they can't pass health care.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote:
Care for some cheese with that whine?
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
> >> All he's doing is crowing about small potatoes because he knows that
> >> the big stuff is all in the opposition's hands. Congress, all
> >> Democratic controlled; White House, Democratic controlled.
> >
> > Yep, but they are whining that they lost their 60 vote count. Apparently
> > some of them don't know that 59 is a bigger number than 41.
>
> Yeah, the republicans are still a really small minority. One seat
> doesn't do all that much. But it may force the Democrats to go nuclear
> and end the filibuster. So it may work out badly for the republicans.
>
>
> >> Republicans
> >> win three small elections that amount to not much of anything.
> >
> > Two governorships and a senatorial race that was predicated on breaking
> > the healthcare situation? You have a unique sense of what counts and
> > what doesn't make any difference. ;)
>
> It only would have mattered if the Democrats actually had 60 Democrats
> they could count on.
Gotta love leftard "logic". When they lose their excuse is Democrats
aren't "Democrats"
Snicker.
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hl4be7$bf0$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Glad to hear you say that because the rule of them is that you libtards
stick your thumbs in your ass and then after licking them clean, you stick
them in your ears and chant "0bama". "0bama the big loser, help us", "0bama
the big loser, give us hope"
Bwahaha, how's that hope doing loser? Bush may not have been perfect, but he
was elected twice and is so popular, that he almost got elected a third time
by you libtards even though he wasn't even running. We know you miss him and
wish he was in charge again. That's why whenever you are asked to list
Presidential accomplishments, you go silent on 0bama and bring up Bush
instead.
Still waiting for your list of accomplishments by Obama as President. Don't
list them all, it would take too long. Just list about 6 or 7 instead. List
them right here below, you loser. Start with one, and maybe the rest will
come easier. List them right here ->
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hl248u$2ga$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>> What are the reasons for the emphasis on legalizing same sex
>>> marriages? I had understood that the reasons were primarily financial
>>> - next of kin and joint tax returns and that sort of things.
>>
>> I can't speak for them, but I suspect that's just a red herring. The
>> issue is equal treatment, and equal respect for their commitments.
>>
>>> Another question that would seem to be a result of this is "what does
>>> one call one's partner? Husband and wife would seem to be sexual
>>> indicators so is it "my friend"? Or perhaps "my mate"?
>>
>> Personally, I don't think it matters.
>>
>
>
> I don't think it matters either but not for the same reason you do.
> Homosexuals are always going to be a small percentage of the population.
> They are different from the majority in an important way. They will likely
> always be seen as "not like us" by the majority. So even if they are able
> to get the legal system to see them and their partnerships as equal under
> the law as a normal marriage is, the people are not going to see it that
> way. Same sex marriages are always going to be seen as "gay marriage" by
> most people. They will not see it as the same as their marriage. They
> won't condemn it but they won't see it as just like theirs. Gay people
> will get their way in the legal arena. Their marriages will be judged the
> same as a male/female marriage. But it will never be seen that way by most
> people, and that they will never get. Which is ironic because that is what
> gay people really want, which is to be accepted as the same as everyone
> else. Some things are just never going to happen and that is one of them.
>
> Hawke
Well since it's not the same, you can't fault the normal people for not
seeing it to be the same thing. All the court cases, parades, and otherwise
lude behavior is really a cry for help and acceptance. You are right in one
way, that while the courts may find that they are entitled to some equal
rights, gays will never be able to convince normal people that their own
aberration is somehow normal.
RD (The Sandman)
news:hl4l3k$p3t$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
>>> All he's doing is crowing about small potatoes because he knows that
>>> the big stuff is all in the opposition's hands. Congress, all
>>> Democratic controlled; White House, Democratic controlled.
>>
>> Yep, but they are whining that they lost their 60 vote count.
>> Apparently some of them don't know that 59 is a bigger number than
>> 41.
>
> Yeah, the republicans are still a really small minority. One seat
> doesn't do all that much. But it may force the Democrats to go nuclear
> and end the filibuster. So it may work out badly for the republicans.
Perhaps, but when they have to have more gievaways than a game show to
even sell members of their own party.......
>>> Republicans
>>> win three small elections that amount to not much of anything.
>>
>> Two governorships and a senatorial race that was predicated on
>> breaking the healthcare situation? You have a unique sense of what
>> counts and what doesn't make any difference. ;)
>
> It only would have mattered if the Democrats actually had 60 Democrats
> they could count on.
IOW, as I said....they had problems selling that healthcare elephant even
to their own members.
Two seats are independent and a number of seats
> are so conservative they are hardly Democrats.
They are Democrats the way Democrats used to be. That party has really
moved left.....at least as far as its shrill voices are concerned.
> So the Democrats didn't
> have the majority they needed anyway.
Of course they did. They just couldn't sell that pig to their own party
without extra-curricular inducements.
> They still don't so I don't see
> that much changing. Besides that what difference do two governorships
> make? We know the Democratic candidates in those races were weak and
> they lost.
Yes, that is the latest tactic of explanation. Croakley was a good
canditate until she got her ass kicked and now she is considered to have
been weak and run a poor campaign. ;)
> The question is what is going to happen to the republican
> incumbents once the election happens. Are the people going to send
> them packing too? The theory is that it's incumbents who are in
> trouble not simply Democrats. We shall see.
Yep.....expect to lose some seats on left side of the aisle.
>> Doesn't
>>> stop him from crowing about them though. Football analogy; he's the
>>> guy that just scored a touchdown for his team and goes through a
>>> ridiculously long and elaborate celebration in the end zone. But the
>>> game is in the final two minutes and the score is 49 to 7. That's
>>> him.
>>
>> It will be an interesting November, no matter which way it goes.
>
> Maybe, but maybe not. If you look at who the republicans have to run
> it looks pretty bad for them. Their candidates are pretty lousy.
That's true. It may make for some interesting discussions, however when
the Democrats still lose seats. ;)
I
> heard yesterday that they also have 18 retirements in congress
> compared to 12 for the Democrats. This may be a pretty boring election
> with little change at all. But if there are big changes you may be
> right and it will be interesting.
Time will tell. The big problem is that the people always get the
representation that they deserve.
--
Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it or allowed bipartisan input,
signed by a president who hasn't read it or provided the public with the
C-Span overview of the plan or the process, with funding administered by
a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand
TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country
that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?
Gray Ghost
news:hl4p0j$nhk$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Then just burn down the Reichstag, Adolph.
Hawke
>>> Except for the only ones who voiced a choice: New Jersey, Virginia, and
>>> Massachusetts. Come November many others expected to follow suit.
>>>
>>> DumboCRAPS like too many fools whine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Snicker.
>> Remind me again who's in the White House?
>
>
> A chimp.
>
>
>> AAHAHHAHAHAHA
>
>
>
> Indeed.
>
>
> Snicker.
You think republicans should run things. How stupid can you be?
Snicker, Snicker, Snicker, Snicker, Snicker!
Hawke
Hawke
You still want the citations?
Snicker.
Hawke
Hawke
>> Whew! I'm glad to hear you think that. Because the rule of thumb is
>> that when a right wing kook like you thinks someone is a moron that
>> means whatever he is saying is correct. I'm sure glad to hear your
>> opinion because if you thought what I said is right then I would
>> surely be mistaken. Guys like you would have said it was a good idea
>> for George Bush to be president and that starting a war in Iraq was
>> the right thing to do. So when you say go left then I know I should go
>> right. For a minute there I thought you would say I was right on and
>> that would mean I agreed with a slope head. That was a close one.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Glad to hear you say that because the rule of them is that you libtards
> stick your thumbs in your ass and then after licking them clean, you
> stick them in your ears and chant "0bama". "0bama the big loser, help
> us", "0bama the big loser, give us hope"
Okay, you got your little kid playground baloney in. Too bad it means
nothing except you can't think of anything to counter the facts. So go
ahead rely on the childish stuff. It's your strong suit.
> Bwahaha, how's that hope doing loser? Bush may not have been perfect,
> but he was elected twice and is so popular, that he almost got elected a
> third time by you libtards even though he wasn't even running. We know
> you miss him and wish he was in charge again. That's why whenever you
> are asked to list Presidential accomplishments, you go silent on 0bama
> and bring up Bush instead.
That's right, go ahead and accuse me of what it is you really want. I
never wanted Bush from day one. You can't say that. You voted for him,
twice I bet. Tell everyone you didn't help put that moron in office. I
haven't heard you mention any of Bush's accomplishments either. So you
tell me Bush's to get things going.
>
> Still waiting for your list of accomplishments by Obama as President.
> Don't list them all, it would take too long. Just list about 6 or 7
> instead. List them right here below, you loser. Start with one, and
> maybe the rest will come easier. List them right here ->
First off I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of making a list for you
to criticize. Why do I owe you a list or anything else? No reason I can
think of. Besides, everyone knows that you would deny anything anyone
said was an accomplishment by Obama. Here's one for you to reject. Obama
was the first African-American to win election to the presidency. You
can't even acknowledge that as an accomplishment. So you see, it's you
that has a problem. You hate Obama so much that you can't accept
anything he does as being any good. You have a psychological problem. We
call it Obama Derangement Syndrome or ODS. You might have heard of
something similar a year or two ago. It means you hate someone so much
you lose mental function. Sorry to hear about your affliction. There is
no cure for it.
Hawke
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hl9v3i$huh$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
You are so wrong, you don't know how wrong you are. I did help a moron get
elected President, I voted for that chimp loser zero 0bama. Admittedly, I'm
not proud of it. It was a big mistake, he won't be getting any of my votes
this next time. He hasn't even had any accomplishments as President, and
nobody else can either. They here the word accomplishment and right away
they think of Bush.
Hawke
> You are so wrong, you don't know how wrong you are. I did help a moron
> get elected President, I voted for that chimp loser zero 0bama.
> Admittedly, I'm not proud of it. It was a big mistake, he won't be
> getting any of my votes this next time. He hasn't even had any
> accomplishments as President, and nobody else can either. They here the
> word accomplishment and right away they think of Bush.
One simple question. Do you consider Obama getting himself elected
president of the United States to be an accomplishment? Second question;
what exactly would Obama have to to before it would meet your standards
as being an accomplishment?
Personally, if Obama gets anything passed at all, considering that the
republicans have made it their goal to stop everything Obama tries, it
would be a huge accomplishment. But for George Bush getting tax cuts
passed with a compliant republican congress is no feat at all. I think
your idea of what constitutes and accomplishment and what everybody else
thinks are completely different.
And you still have shown you haven't the guts to admit you helped put
George Bush in office. Why, too embarrassed?
Hawke
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hla9o6$vo3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Burled Frau wrote:
>
>> You are so wrong, you don't know how wrong you are. I did help a moron
>> get elected President, I voted for that chimp loser zero 0bama.
>> Admittedly, I'm not proud of it. It was a big mistake, he won't be
>> getting any of my votes this next time. He hasn't even had any
>> accomplishments as President, and nobody else can either. They here the
>> word accomplishment and right away they think of Bush.
>
>
>
> One simple question. Do you consider Obama getting himself elected
> president of the United States to be an accomplishment? Second question;
> what exactly would Obama have to to before it would meet your standards as
> being an accomplishment?
The question was has 0bama accomplished as President? You said you watched
him on TV listing off lots and lots of accomplishments as President. Are you
trying to tell me that 0bama claims getting elected before taking office was
an accomplishment after he took office? He's a big loser zero. As for your
second question, are you admitting then that he accomplished nothing, zero,
and that is why you are struggling with how to define an accomplishment?
It's much easier to come up with a list of failures, isn't it? Let's see,
some simple things he set out to accomplish...
Slash earmarks...Fail
Close Gitmo...Fail
State of world address on national security...Fail
End no bid contracts...fail
Affordable health care...Fail
Tax cuts for 95% of Americans...Fail
Rid the world of nuclear weapons...Fail
Catch Osama bin Laden...Fail
Shrink the military...Fail
Flying cars...Fail
You see, 0bama is a big zero failure. He's failed at the things that are
important to Americans. The fact that he is able to pick a booger out of his
nose and flick it clean across the Oval Office is hardly an accomplishment
to be proud of.
>
> Personally, if Obama gets anything passed at all, considering that the
> republicans have made it their goal to stop everything Obama tries, it
> would be a huge accomplishment. But for George Bush getting tax cuts
> passed with a compliant republican congress is no feat at all. I think
> your idea of what constitutes and accomplishment and what everybody else
> thinks are completely different.
>
>
> And you still have shown you haven't the guts to admit you helped put
> George Bush in office. Why, too embarrassed?
Sigh, let me explain it to you again, in case you didn't understand the
first time. Obama won the election by beating out everyone who ran against
him, including other democrats as well as Republicans. Even if I would have
liked to help Bush get into office, there's nothing I could do. He's not
allowed a third term. So even if 0bama did win, and you think he finally
beat Bush, you'll have to learn to deal with reality instead of some fantasy
of 0bama the superhero defeating Bush. Bush was undefeatable when he ran, he
can't run any more. Deal with your BDS.
Day Brown
> No, we start with the useless garbage, which puts you at the head of the
> list of undesirables to be done away with. When someone is so dumb or
> hypocritical as to not see that if you are pro life then you are against
> killing people, any people, then you deserve culling. Once you start
> deciding which people can be killed and which can't then you have lost
> the title of pro life. Babys no, bad people, yes, that makes you for
> killing but you have some arbitrary rules. If you are against killing
> people, meaning really pro life you are like a Quaker. You are against
> killing anyone. But you fake pro lifers are not really pro life, just
> pro unborn baby life. So you're just hypocrites and who needs people
> like you around anyway? Not me. Let the culling begin. You go to the
> head of the line!
who are moving up in the power elites that will be setting policy. One
of the things the thirty something career women see is that Mr. Wright
is already married to a sexy bimbo who didnt wait to get educated. As a
result, they are going to fertility clinics. If they cant have the
perfect husband, they'll settle for the perfect baby.
And just as male management has always moved sons into the firm, so also
these kids will be taken in by their corporate management moms. Only in
this case, they wont be the same stupid morons because eugenics, not sex
appeal, determined the DNA.
Well, history shows us how often some innovation starts with the elite
before being delivered to the lower classes. So its a no brainer to see
corporate female management subsidize fertility clinic services as a
matter of equal opportunity to all women. And when that happens, the DNA
of the ranters you refer to above will be filtered out of the gene pool.
In the meantime, if they make enuf trouble, case managers at sanity
hearings will decide on the correct meds to adjust their egos and
personality and send them home to their moms to supervise rather than
using up cell space or having to euthanize.
Recent neurological data show how new brain neurons and networks can be
formed with proper meds and nutrition, so these conditions which'd been
seen as terminal may be at least ameliorated. And of course, the insane
rants will be presented at sanity hearings to determine who needs
treatment.
Harold Burton
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
Still waiting.