the sin of electoral fraud
€R.L. Measures
> the sin of electoral fraud
>
________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> The Associated Press
> MEXICO CITY
> Sunday, June 11, 2000
>
>
> Mexico's Catholic Church plans to blanket its parishes with warnings
against electoral fraud
> ahead of the presidential elections, the Mexican media reported Sunday.
>
> "To collaborate directly or indirectly in electoral fraud is a serious
sin that harms human rights
> and offends God," read posters that the Catholic Church, which has
started playing a more
> public role in national life, will put up in 7,000 parishes in the
weeks leading up to the July 2
> elections, the Reforma newspaper reported.
>
** maybe the Church needs to do this in Florida for the 2004 election?
--
Rich, 805 386 3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
remove ^ from e-mail address
Ephrem Bensusan
Funny, the counties where the was a problem were all Democratically
controlled too.
AGGreen
"Ephrem Bensusan" <jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PfOdnWQ3bu6...@comcast.com...
Ephrem Bensusan
see one.
My favourite is that Bush is not a legitimately elected president
because 3 Democratically controlled counties in South Florida weren't
give the chance to complete their voter fraud.
And of course, that day, every person of minority status that got
stopped for any kind of traffic infraction or roadblock/checkpoint
screamed how he was being disenfranchised.
€R.L. Measures
<jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
> No, at least not in the whole state--only in 3 particular counties.
>
> Funny, the counties where the was a problem were all Democratically
> controlled too.
>
** apparently not in the area of elections.
>
> R.L. Measures wrote:
> > In article <k3ik8v4oi6sgpla6v...@4ax.com>, gryb wrote:
> >
> >
> >>the sin of electoral fraud
> >>
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>The Associated Press
> >>MEXICO CITY
> >>Sunday, June 11, 2000
> >>
> >>
> >>Mexico's Catholic Church plans to blanket its parishes with warnings
> >
> > against electoral fraud
> >
> >>ahead of the presidential elections, the Mexican media reported Sunday.
> >>
> >> "To collaborate directly or indirectly in electoral fraud is a serious
> >
> > sin that harms human rights
> >
> >> and offends God," read posters that the Catholic Church, which has
> >
> > started playing a more
> >
> >> public role in national life, will put up in 7,000 parishes in the
> >
> > weeks leading up to the July 2
> >
> >> elections, the Reforma newspaper reported.
> >>
> >
> > ** maybe the Church needs to do this in Florida for the 2004 election?
> >
--
€R.L. Measures
<jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
> HAve you ever noticed a reasonable argument from them? I have yet to
> see one.
>
> My favourite is that Bush is not a legitimately elected president
> because 3 Democratically controlled counties in South Florida weren't
> give the chance to complete their voter fraud.
>
** should the constitutional right to vote be denied to people just
because they died ?
Phar-Lap
<jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
> No, at least not in the whole state--only in 3 particular counties.
>
Nope in the WHOLE country
The machines did not work properly either
The bottom line is that the Chief Executive and Supreme Commander in the
present war was not elected
Think about that as people die
(must be a law against it somewhere)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security."
(Declaration of Independence)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Phar-Lap
<agre...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> Ever notice the lame arguments liberals have and use???
I've noticed that the Theodotokos converts aren't real bright for the most part
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Phar-Lap
of your own prime minister being apparently desperate to kiss the butt of
another nations leader, one who was placed placed in power in a
fraudulent electoral process that his own nation did not have the self
respect to demand be re-run in the interests of democracy being seen to be
done
So much for government of, for, and by the people.
(It would seem to have "perished from the earth" - round here and over there)
Phar Lap
Australia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ephrem Bensusan
Beach, Dade, and Broward counties. And if the Democrats had agreed to a
recount of the whole state there would not have been an issue. But they
insisted on a recount ONLY of the 3 aforementioned counties. The Dems
would have had not ANY chance of perpetrating their voter fraud if the
whole state had been recounted.
Don't be an idiot. The President is never elected by popular vote--he's
elected by the electoral college, which did, in fact, elect him.
The bottom line is that he is the President, whether you like it or not.
Got a problem with it? File a brief with the Supreme Court.
Phar-Lap
as someone promises them that they "might" do what they want
Of course, it is an empty promise
But traditional Christians are often more interested in promises than action
Like where is the Second Coming?
Promises
Promises
Promises
And in the meantime where are equality, human rights, welfare, compassion,
love, decent health and education services?
And Peace
Don't forget Peace!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ephrem Bensusan
totalitarian domination to me. But then, you seem to be the kind of
chap that reads 1984 and wishes it could all turn out like that.
If Christianity is so offensive to you, why don't you just go peddle
your claptrap somewhere else?
Green, AG
" Phar-Lap" <grandn...@aintree.com> wrote in message
news:grandnational-0...@ppp55.dyn11.pacific.net.au...
> In article <XIDia.1404$J8....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "AGGreen"
> <agre...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Ever notice the lame arguments liberals have and use???
>
> I've noticed that the Theodotokos converts aren't real bright for the most
part
And I find that those who make fun of the Virgin Mary are despicable human
beings.
Remember, everything nasty you think and say about the Virgin Mary, I think
about your mother.
Al
Green, AG
" Phar-Lap" <grandn...@aintree.com> wrote in message
news:grandnational-0...@ppp55.dyn11.pacific.net.au...
> <jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > No, at least not in the whole state--only in 3 particular counties.
> >
>
> Nope in the WHOLE country
>
> The machines did not work properly either
>
> The bottom line is that the Chief Executive and Supreme Commander in the
> present war was not elected
You mean the Supreme Court was wrong????
Green, AG
> What are you talking about "the WHOLE country"? The crisis was in Palm
> Beach, Dade, and Broward counties. And if the Democrats had agreed to a
> recount of the whole state there would not have been an issue. But they
> insisted on a recount ONLY of the 3 aforementioned counties. The Dems
> would have had not ANY chance of perpetrating their voter fraud if the
> whole state had been recounted.
>
> Don't be an idiot. The President is never elected by popular vote--he's
> elected by the electoral college, which did, in fact, elect him.
Very true. The founding fathers set up the Electoral College, in part,
because they did not trust the judgment of the average citizen. It was a
brilliant invention. But the original concept has been modified.
Here is the ABC News story about the Electoral College electing George Bush:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/ELECTION_electoral_001218.
html
and from the CNN web site:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/18/electoral.vote.01/
Here's how the Electoral College works, from the Grolier web site:
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/elecollg.html
How the College Operates
The Constitution leaves the selection of electors to the state legislatures,
stipulating only that their number equal that of the congressional
delegation and that officers of the federal government are not eligible.
Candidates for elector usually are nominated by party conventions, in
PRIMARY elections, or by party organizations.
The electors, popularly elected on election day, meet in their respective
state capitals on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December in
presidential election years. They vote by BALLOT separately for president
and vice president. To discourage having a president and vice president from
the same state, at least one of the candidates for whom they vote must not
be a resident of the electors' own state. Certified lists of votes cast for
the two offices are transmitted to the president of the U. S. Senate--since
1950 through the General Services Administration. On the following January 6
the president of the Senate, presiding at a joint session of CONGRESS, opens
the certificates, and the votes are counted by tellers. The election is
decided by a majority of the total electoral college vote.
In the absence of a majority of electoral votes for president, the HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES proceeds quickly to elect by ballot from the three
candidates standing highest in electoral votes. Each state has only one
vote, cast as a majority of its representatives determines, and a majority
of all the states is necessary for election. For vice president, if a
majority is lacking in the electoral college, the Senate elects from the two
highest candidates. A majority vote is necessary for election.
Historical Development
The framers of the Constitution regarded the electoral college as part of a
procedure for electing the president by the people, at least indirectly. It
seemed probable to the framers that the system of electors voting by ballot
in the states would ordinarily serve also as a nominating device, with the
final election frequently left to the House.
Before the adoption of the 12th Amendment in 1804, the electors voted for
two persons without distinguishing between a vote for president and vice
president. The highest number of votes, if a majority, elected a president.
If two persons were tied for first place, the House, voting by states, chose
between them. If there was no majority, the House was required to choose
among the five highest. After the choice of a president, the highest
remaining electoral vote determined the vice president, the Senate being
authorized to make a selection in case of a tie.
This unworkable system was altered by the 12th Amendment because of defects
demonstrated in the election of 1800, when Thomas JEFFERSON and Aaron BURR,
nominees of the Democratic Republican party, each received a majority, with
exactly the same electoral vote (73). Despite Jefferson's designation as the
party's presidential candidate, it was not until the 36th ballot in the
House that Federalist party opposition was overcome and Jefferson was chosen
over Burr.
In the early years of the electoral college system, several state
legislatures chose electors without a popular vote. After 1828 only South
Carolina continued this practice, abandoning it after the Civil War.
Electors were chosen by the legislature in Florida in 1868 and in Colorado
in 1876.
Before 1828 a number of states permitted voter choice of electors by
districts. Michigan utilized this method for the election of 1892. Maine,
since 1969, and Nebraska, since 1988, have reintroduced variations of this
system, but most states now give all their electoral votes to the candidate
with a plurality of the popular vote.
When the names of electors are chosen individually by the voters, the
electoral vote of the state may be split, as in 1916 when West Virginia gave
seven votes to Charles Evans Hughes and one to Woodrow WILSON. Many states,
however, utilize the presidential short ballot, so that the voter makes only
one choice for all electors pledged to a given presidential candidate.
The 23d Amendment, adopted in 1961, which enfranchised residents of the
District of Columbia for presidential elections, provided that the District
choose electors equal to the number it would be entitled to if it were a
state, but not more than the least populous state.
Weaknesses of the System
The electoral college system generally gives all of a state's electoral
votes to the winner in that state, no matter how slim the margin. Thus it
has happened that candidates have been elected even though they received
fewer popular votes than their opponents. Both Rutherford B. HAYES, in 1876,
and Benjamin HARRISON, in 1888, were elected in this manner. In the case of
Hayes, a special electoral commission was called in 1877 to decide the
contested returns.
John Quincy ADAMS also received fewer popular votes than his opponent,
Andrew JACKSON, in the election of 1824, but his election was decided by the
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES because Jackson failed to win a majority of
electoral college votes. On several occasions the popular vote pluralities
of the electoral college victors have been razor thin or even questionable.
One instance was the election of John F. KENNEDY over Richard M. NIXON in
1960.
The feature of the electoral college most prone to attack is the requirement
that the election go into the House of Representatives to determine the
president and into the SENATE to determine the vice president if the
electoral college fails to reach a majority. There might be a paralyzing
delay in determining the victors, and the president-elect and vice
president-elect could be members of opposing political parties.
The House was called upon to elect a president in the cases of Jefferson and
John Quincy Adams, and the Senate chose Richard M. JOHNSON as vice president
after the election of 1836. The possibility of this happening again remains
very much alive. Should a third-party candidate carry enough states to
prevent an electoral vote majority for any candidate, the House, voting by
state delegation, might be prevented from reaching an absolute majority.
Pledged electors generally have been regarded as legally free to cast their
votes as they choose, and there have been cases of defection from pledged
positions. No such deviation has had a clear effect on an election result,
but the possibility raises an additional objection to the electoral college.
In 1820 a New Hampshire elector voted for John Quincy Adams instead of James
MONROE; in 1956 an Alabama elector voted for a circuit judge instead of
Adlai E. Stevenson; in 1960 an Oklahoma elector pledged to Richard Nixon
voted instead for Harry F. Byrd; in 1968 a North Carolina elector defected
from Nixon to George C. Wallace; and in 1988 a West Virginia elector voted
for Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr. instead of Michael S. Dukakis.
Proposed Changes
Major proposals debated for change in the electoral college have been: (1)
substitution of direct popular vote for the president; (2) choice of
electors by districts; (3) elimination of electors as individuals, but
retention of the electoral college principle, perhaps with an arrangement to
distribute a state's votes in proportion to voter support of candidates.
Many fear that any change would threaten the two-party system.
The appeal of a popular election is checked by the practical difficulty of
achieving it by constitutional amendment. Congressmen and state legislators
from small states usually favor retention of the electoral college,
reasoning that the college, which includes two votes for each state's two
senators, tends to increase the relative weight of the small states.
The district proposal is based on recognition of geographical divisions
within a state. It would also reduce the political dominance of the large
industrial states by splitting their electoral votes between the candidates.
This proposal has been objected to, however, as a crude substitute for more
accurate apportionment.
Distribution of electoral votes in proportion to voter support of candidates
has occasioned the sharpest controversy. It would eliminate many present
inequities of the all-or-none allocation of at-large electoral votes, but it
might weaken the two-party system. Candidates of minor parties having no
chance to win a state's votes under the all-or-nothing principle might enter
the race to win fractions of the apportioned vote.
--Franklin L. Burdette
Director, Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Maryland
John W
Maybe you should read the news/watch the news more. You miissed the
part where the election went to the US Supreme Court (part of the
Constitutional election process, since you apparently didn't know
that). The Supreme Court decided (correctly) that the Florida court/AG
had correctly followed Florida law. So blame Florida law, and don't
blame Bush for winning fair and square. You also didn't bother to note
that the international media did a recount within a year after the
2000 election, and the recount done by the international media found
Bush DID win, not only Florida (they counted the absentee ballots,
which Gore failed to block the counting of "Just count ALL the
votes!")
They also counted the 11 or 13 OTHER "contested" states, and Bush won
all of them. You ALSO forget that the popular vote doesn't decide the
election; the Electoral College does. Bush won both.
Get a life and quit debating an election that took place over 2 years
ago! Note also, please, that the Republicans/Bush picked up more
congessional seats in an off year election, the first time the
Republicans have done that in an off year in 40 years!
You'll have your chance to vote for Hilary in 2004!
Also please remember that the Clinton/Gore ticket put in power the
first national leader to legalize infanticide in the WORLD!
The bill Clinton signed into law, the Partial Birth Abortion law,
legalized murdering a child WHILE it's being born. And before you
argue with me, "there's no such law", as many dupes have, try using
your technology to do a search for Partial Birth Abortion.
This heinous law was passed through congress by the Femi-Nazi's (the
radical left Feminists), but George I refused to sign it. Clinton,
that scum bag promised that if he were elected, he'd sign it. The
first week he was in office, he signed it, thereby legalizing
infanticide in America.
You might also remember that during his last State of the Union
address, Bush announced his intentions to have that law repealed, and
congress is now working on repealing that law..
John W
John W
<jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>No, at least not in the whole state--only in 3 particular counties.
>
>Funny, the counties where the was a problem were all Democratically
>controlled too.
>
>I guess you all missed #1 the US Supreme Court decision that Florida/the
AG had followed the laws in Florida!
#2 You may also have missed the fact that Gore, while protesting "Just
count ALL the votes!" was secretly doing all he could do to block the
counting of the absentee ballots, which he believed would be HEAVILY
Republican (they were).
#3 And Florida wasn't the only contested state. Bush won ALL the
contested states (some 14 of them) by a recount conducted after the
election by an international media poll.
At least if you're gonna be ticked off, get the facts first!
John W
John W
wrote:
>Ever notice the lame arguments liberals have and use???
LOL!
They missed the international media poll which found that Bush had won
BOTH the popular vote (in Florida, too) AND that the election went to
the US Supreme Court (NOT a conservative court, and CERTAINLY not
beholding to Bush or Republicans, since USSC justices are appointed
for life), which found that Florida WAS following state laws.
John W
John W
<agre...@nospam.stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>" Phar-Lap" <grandn...@aintree.com> wrote in message
>news:grandnational-0...@ppp55.dyn11.pacific.net.au...
>> In article <XIDia.1404$J8....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "AGGreen"
>> <agre...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ever notice the lame arguments liberals have and use???
>>
>> I've noticed that the Theodotokos converts aren't real bright for the most
>part
>
>And I find that those who make fun of the Virgin Mary are despicable human
>beings.
What virgin Mary?
John W
Green, AG
"John W" <john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11bo8v4rm0l7foenn...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 15:54:31 GMT, "AGGreen" <agre...@stny.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ever notice the lame arguments liberals have and use???
>
> LOL!
>
> They missed the international media poll which found that Bush had won
> BOTH the popular vote (in Florida, too) AND that the election went to
> the US Supreme Court (NOT a conservative court, and CERTAINLY not
> beholding to Bush or Republicans, since USSC justices are appointed
> for life), which found that Florida WAS following state laws.
And, Bush won the Electoral College votes which is the election that really
counts, according to the Constitution, even in the College's revised form.
Al
Green, AG
> >And I find that those who make fun of the Virgin Mary are despicable
human
> >beings.
>
> What virgin Mary?
Hmmmm. You're not a Christian?
€R.L. Measures
<john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
** I did not vote for either Gore or Bush. I did not vote for CA
governor either. Gary "studs" Condit would have been a better choice
than Gray Davis.
>
> Get a life and quit debating an election that took place over 2 years
> ago! Note also, please, that the Republicans/Bush picked up more
> congessional seats in an off year election, the first time the
> Republicans have done that in an off year in 40 years!
>
> You'll have your chance to vote for Hilary in 2004!
>
** nah
> Also please remember that the Clinton/Gore ticket put in power the
> first national leader to legalize infanticide in the WORLD!
>
** Pope Gregory XIII legalized (for Catholics) medical abortion when it
first became available.
> The bill Clinton signed into law, the Partial Birth Abortion law,
> legalized murdering a child WHILE it's being born. And before you
> argue with me, "there's no such law", as many dupes have, try using
> your technology to do a search for Partial Birth Abortion.
** "Partial birth abortion" was a term invented by the anti-choice gang.
>
> This heinous law was passed through congress by the Femi-Nazi's (the
> radical left Feminists), but George I refused to sign it. Clinton,
> that scum bag promised that if he were elected, he'd sign it. The
> first week he was in office, he signed it, thereby legalizing
> infanticide in America.
>
> You might also remember that during his last State of the Union
> address, Bush announced his intentions to have that law repealed, and
> congress is now working on repealing that law..
>
** should infants/fetuses with no skull be allowed to be born alive if
the mother and her physican are opposed ?
cheers, John W
Jack
>
>Funny, the counties where the was a problem were all Democratically
>controlled too.
I live in Florida and NONE of our votes were counted.
Jeb Bush threw out alkl the ballots and ordered the Republican-controled State
Senate to elect a president (his brother).
I would not care which way the election went if my vote had been counted.
Jack
I am not a liberal, But I do resent Jeb Bush throwing out alkl the Ballots and
ordering the Republican-controlled State Senate to elect a president.
I think both honest Conservatives ans honest Liberals can agree that hijacking
an election like that is wrong.
Also there was the issue of the State Senate allowing the counting illegally
cast absentee ballots because they were pro-Republican.
Not a proud moment for the Republican Party!
Jack
>HAve you ever noticed a reasonable argument from them? I have yet to
>see one.
>
>My favourite is that Bush is not a legitimately elected president
>because 3 Democratically controlled counties in South Florida weren't
>give the chance to complete their voter fraud.
None of the Ballot in Florida were used for the elaection anyway. Gov Jeb
Bush threw all the Ballots out and essentially appointed his brother
President. He did this by disallowing all the Ballots and ordering the
Republical-controled State Senate to elect a president.
>
>And of course, that day, every person of minority status that got
>stopped for any kind of traffic infraction or roadblock/checkpoint
>screamed how he was being disenfranchised.
In many counties that were prodominately African-American, Democratic, there
were roadblocks in front of polling places were each potential voter had to be
checked by police and wait for a background check before voting.
Does that actually sound right to anyone?
Florida has never been a haven for fair elections. There is almost always
some type of voter fraud going on. Usually the margin for victory is so wide
that the fraud does not change the results, this time it did.
Nick's Pal Al
ever proven that the governor, nor anyone else in his government, ever did
anything wrong. These guys have been investigated and dissected to
death...no wrongdoing. What's up with that?
Did you miss the statewide recount (which Algore's people didn't want during
the recount mess) which showed Busdh won the popular vote overall. And did
we forget that the Electoral College, the election that really counts, went
for Bush?
Al
"Jack" <An...@noSpam.net> wrote in message
news:v8ojai3...@corp.supernews.com...
Nick's Pal Al
"Jack" <An...@noSpam.net> wrote in message
> In article <PfOdnWQ3bu6...@comcast.com>, Ephrem Bensusan
<jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
> >No, at least not in the whole state--only in 3 particular counties.
> >
> >Funny, the counties where the was a problem were all Democratically
> >controlled too.
>
> I live in Florida and NONE of our votes were counted.
> Jeb Bush threw out alkl the ballots and ordered the Republican-controled
State
> Senate to elect a president (his brother).
>
> I would not care which way the election went if my vote had been counted.
How do you know that your individual dangling chad ballot was thrown out?
Either way, it would not have changed the Electoral College outcome.
billu
truth. Can you back up any of it with news reports?
"Jack" <An...@noSpam.net> wrote in message
news:v8ojmgq...@corp.supernews.com...
John W
Phar-Lap) wrote:
>In article <PfOdnWQ3bu6...@comcast.com>, Ephrem Bensusan
><jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> No, at least not in the whole state--only in 3 particular counties.
>>
>
>Nope in the WHOLE country
>
>The machines did not work properly either
>
>The bottom line is that the Chief Executive and Supreme Commander in the
>present war was not elected
The bottom line is that Phar Lap, an Australian, has no clue what
happened during the election.
j#1 The US Supreme Court got the decision. The US Supreme Court is set
up to be non-partisan. And the Court decided that Florida law was
being followed. So much for Phar Lap's crackpot theories.
#2 Phar Lap also missed the international media's poll just after our
election, where it was determined, with ALL the votes counted
(including Florida's absentee ballots), that Bush DID win the popular
vote, including NOT just Florida, but the OTHER 11 - 13 states that
were contested. Phar Lap forgot the OTHER contested states.
ALL went for Bush.
#3 Phar Lap forgets (or not being a US citizen) doesn't know that the
popular vote does NOT elect the US president. The Electoral Colege
does. And he won that.
>
>Think about that as people die
Perhaps you should do some self-educating and thinking before you open
your heretical demoniac mouth.
Do a search on the International media poll on the election. Do a
search on the popular vote for the 2000 election. Do a search on the
electoral college vote as well.
In fact, never mind! Phar Lap isn't known for gathering the facts
before he pukes onto his computer and posts the results.
>
>(must be a law against it somewhere)
Why can't there be a law against YOU?
You aren't American, yet you tell us how to run our country?
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
>same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
>is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
>provide new Guards for their future security."
>
>(Declaration of Independence)
>
Funny you would say that. Many predicted that Ronald Reagan would
"take over", then many predicted that Clinton would "take over", now
many predict that Bush II will "take over". You perhaps don't realize
that the only "powre" our President has is given by the military.
And I suggest you see a provocative film based on your premise. It's
called "7 Days In May."
The military attempt a coup. But when the "troops" and the lower
echelon realize what's happening, they rebel. The "coup" is over in a
week, the leadership commit suicide.
Our military isn't gving ultimate allegiance to the Commander in
Chief. Our militray give ultimate allegiance to our CITIZENS. We are a
nation ruled by our CITIZENS, NOT the White House.
The White House may attempt to FOOL the people into going along, but
they figure it out eventually. And don't forget, we have an
opportunity to remove a bad president every 4 years, or sooner if we
impeach him. And so far, this nation has impeached 2 presidents.
Neither was convicted. Andrew Johnson (I believe) was the 1st
president impeached (accused/tried), but not convicted; the vote fell
1 short. A list of charges was agreed upon against Nixon, but he
resigned before trial (impeachment). Clinton was charged and impeached
(trial), but not convicted.
But at least Nixon and Clinton prove that an American president CAN be
impeached.
I know that concept is alien to you, Phar Lap, but you make dumb
comments like this, and you merely show yourself as a leftist,
mindless (incapable of original thought) America and Christian hater.
Get real for once!
John W
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AGG
> >"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
> >same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
> >is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
> >provide new Guards for their future security."
> >
> >(Declaration of Independence)
I don't know if this "quote" is from the Declaration of Independence or not,
but the Declaration carries no weight as far as the law is concerned. It is,
in fact, just a statement of why freedom from the tyranny of Merrie Ol'
England. What carries weight is the Constitution and the country's
subsequent acts, including the Constitutional Amendments, etc.
Al
John W
<agre...@nospam.stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"John W" <john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:o6bo8vkugh8blrc18...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 01:47:37 GMT, "Green, AG"
>> <agre...@nospam.stny.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> >And I find that those who make fun of the Virgin Mary are despicable
>human
>> >beings.
>>
>> What virgin Mary?
>
>Hmmmm. You're not a Christian?
>
Yes, I am a Christian. I was raised Southern Baptist, born again at
the ripe old age of 5, re-committed at the age of 11. Aand when I
realized they'd (SB;s) added laws to Christianity (no drinking
alchohol, no dancing, etc) I left and became "nondenominational,
Conservative, Bible believing, 1st Century (New Testament ) Christian.
And there's no "Virgin Mary' in 1st Century New Testament
Christianity. That phrase never appears.
Hmmmm. YOU're not a Christian?
John W
John W
Correct! So those who don't like how the 2000 vote turned out need to
re-read the Election process in our U. S. Constitution. The 2000
election, althought the first time in US history it happened to go to
the Supreme Court, was done by the book.
And if you haven't studied the election process at the University
level, I suggest you do that. I was required to take a 4-unit class
(the only 4 unit class I had in 5 years of J school) in the Law of
Mass Communications. As part of the curriculum, I was required to
memorize every detail of over 180 Landark US Supreme Court decisions.
(meaning I'm pretty adept at Constitutional law).
And if you don't understand "Landmark Supreme Court" decisions, they
deal with Bill of Rights issues.
The Dems are merely sore losers, and they figure that if they tell
these lies long enough and often enough, they'll win the next
election. They don't realize that Bush's popularity, before the war
and since is higher than one of our most popular Presidents ever (B.
Clinton). And looks like, unles he REALLY flubs up, Bush II will be a
two-term President. It'll take him 8 years to clean up the mess B.
Clinton and H Clinton made.
John W
>Al
>
John W
>In article <XIDia.1404$J8....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "AGGreen" <agre...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>>Ever notice the lame arguments liberals have and use???
>
>I am not a liberal, But I do resent Jeb Bush throwing out alkl the Ballots and
>ordering the Republican-controlled State Senate to elect a president.
You may not be " al liberal" but you're spouting leftist propaganda.
The 2000 election went by the book. You may remember that this
election went to the US Supreme Court. Since George II hadn't
appointed any of those justices, it's absurd to believe they were
biased in his favor. the High Court merely decided that Florida was
following Florida law.
And if you believe Jeb Bush threw out all the ballots, you are
believing Liberal propaganda. The international media did a recount,
and Bush won Florida. as well as all the other (between 11 and 13
states)
>
>I think both honest Conservatives ans honest Liberals can agree that hijacking
>an election like that is wrong.
YOU are wrong. The election was NOT hijacked. YOu should do some
searching on that computer you have hooked up to the internet. Look up
the international media poll on the election, which determined that
Bush won, fair and square. The last person I remember who stole an
election, literally, was JFK, and that didn't turn out so bad, did it,
except that he didn't live to complete even one term. Don't let the
left tell you Bush stole the election. The US Supreme Court says he
didn't.
>
>Also there was the issue of the State Senate allowing the counting illegally
>cast absentee ballots because they were pro-Republican.
>
>Not a proud moment for the Republican Party!
Sorry. You don't know what you are talking about. You have a VERY
warped view of what happened, and you may even believe the hype the
leftist media spouted. You should try some CONSERVATIVE news, like
News Max.
The counting was stopped because the state of Florida had a deadline
by which the count had to be reported, and the counters reported that
they would not finish in time. The AG had to decide to side-step the
law and allow the count for several more weeks, thereby interfering
with federal law, or whether to stop the counting by the state
deadline, thereby COMPLYING with federal guidelines. The AG decided,
with the US Supreme Court's concurrence, to stop the counting since it
wasn't going to be finished anyway. When the count was stopped, Bush
was ahead. If you don't remember that, you don't remember accurately.
Since I don't work I had my ear glued to the news 24/7.
>
And again, the international media did a recount, and Bush won both
the popular vote AND the Electoral College. Anyone who thinks Bush
stole the popular vote has forgotten the Electoral College elects the
president; we the people don't.
And every time there's a close election, the "other side' complains ho
"unfair that election was."
So change the Constitution! It may have been an ugly election, but
that's only because it was the closest one yet, and the 1st one that
ended up at the U. S. Supreme Court, BY THE BOOK.
John W
John W
wrote:
>Do you really believe this is the way it went down in Florida? No one has
>ever proven that the governor, nor anyone else in his government, ever did
>anything wrong. These guys have been investigated and dissected to
>death...no wrongdoing. What's up with that?
>
>Did you miss the statewide recount (which Algore's people didn't want during
>the recount mess) which showed Busdh won the popular vote overall. And did
>we forget that the Electoral College, the election that really counts, went
>for Bush?
>
Of COURSE the Left has forgotten the law. They claim that "Bush stole
the election", which just isn't possible, since the popular vote
doesn't really count. It's nice when the President wins the popular
vote, but several presidents have NOT won the popular vote, and were
elected by the Electoral College ANYWAY!
I bet the Left wouldn't be complaining if the election had been
equally messy, had gone to the Supreme Court (which the left chooses
to forget), and GORE had won.! They're only whining 2 years later
because they lost!
GROW UP!
John W
John W
<jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>What are you talking about "the WHOLE country"? The crisis was in Palm
>Beach, Dade, and Broward counties. And if the Democrats had agreed to a
>recount of the whole state there would not have been an issue. But they
>insisted on a recount ONLY of the 3 aforementioned counties. The Dems
>would have had not ANY chance of perpetrating their voter fraud if the
>whole state had been recounted.
>
>Don't be an idiot. The President is never elected by popular vote--he's
>elected by the electoral college, which did, in fact, elect him.
>
>The bottom line is that he is the President, whether you like it or not.
> Got a problem with it? File a brief with the Supreme Court.
>
>LOL! ROFL!
I couldn't have said it better myself! And if the left were correct,
the AG and the Gov would both have been impeached by now! They
followed the LETTER of Florida law AND Federal law!
John W
John W
>In article <PfOdnWQ3bu6...@comcast.com>, Ephrem Bensusan <jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>>No, at least not in the whole state--only in 3 particular counties.
>>
>>Funny, the counties where the was a problem were all Democratically
>>controlled too.
>
>I live in Florida and NONE of our votes were counted.
>Jeb Bush threw out alkl the ballots and ordered the Republican-controled State
>Senate to elect a president (his brother).
>
>I would not care which way the election went if my vote had been counted.
>
I don't remember it that way. However, even if you are correct (I
don't believe you are), you neglect the fact that it was LEGAL. The
Supreme Court decided that Florida HAD complied with state law.
And there was not merely 1 contested state (Florida). There were
roughly 12-14 contested states. When the international media
recounted, Bush won EVERY contested state.
Live with it. The election happened 2 years ago. Or if you don't wish
to live with it, see how far you get in impeaching your AG and your
Gov.
John W
AGG
Born and raised in the Methodist Episcopal Church (before its merger with
the United Bretheren to become the United Methodist Church), and dabbled
briefly with Billy Grahamism and born again-ism. After marriage, went on a
spiritual journey and spent many happy years in the Episcopal Church where I
was a licensed lay minister supplying pulpits for priest on vactaion or ill,
etc. When the Episcopalians went south with feminism, revised liturgies,
etc., (all in the wake of the RC's Vatican II), I was introduced to
Orthodoxy by my city editor when I was a journalist.
Despite the mention of Jesus being born of a virgin in the Gospels written
in the first century, explain how she's not mentioned as you describe. I'm
curious enough to hear you out.
Luke 1
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city
of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of
David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly
favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
King James Version
Al
John W
"Medical abortion" and Partial Birth Abortion" are not the same.
>
>> The bill Clinton signed into law, the Partial Birth Abortion law,
>> legalized murdering a child WHILE it's being born. And before you
>> argue with me, "there's no such law", as many dupes have, try using
>> your technology to do a search for Partial Birth Abortion.
>
>** "Partial birth abortion" was a term invented by the anti-choice gang.
You evidently are unable or unwilling to do a simple search on the
internet.
A Partial Birth Abortion is one in which the mother gives birth to a
term baby. As the child emerges from the womb, and the head "clears",
the doctor rotates the head to get to the back of the skull. He then
inserts a scalpel or other sharp object and shops up the brain,
killing the infant WHILE IT'S BEING BORN, A VIABLE CHILD. And your
comment indicates ignorance, and calloused disregard for life.
And since when did "Pro-Life" become "Anti-Choice"? When did
"Pro-Abortion" become "Pro-Choice". If you wish to be politically
correct, don't do it on my time.
>>
>> This heinous law was passed through congress by the Femi-Nazi's (the
>> radical left Feminists), but George I refused to sign it. Clinton,
>> that scum bag promised that if he were elected, he'd sign it. The
>> first week he was in office, he signed it, thereby legalizing
>> infanticide in America.
>>
>> You might also remember that during his last State of the Union
>> address, Bush announced his intentions to have that law repealed, and
>> congress is now working on repealing that law..
>>
>** should infants/fetuses with no skull be allowed to be born alive if
>the mother and her physican are opposed ?
You have changed the subject. A typical tactic of those who don't wish
to deal with reality.
>
>cheers, John W
John W
Phar-Lap) wrote:
>At least you haven't been dragged into a war with the unedifying spectacle
>of your own prime minister being apparently desperate to kiss the butt of
>another nations leader, one who was placed placed in power in a
>fraudulent electoral process that his own nation did not have the self
>respect to demand be re-run in the interests of democracy being seen to be
>done
>
>
>So much for government of, for, and by the people.
>
>(It would seem to have "perished from the earth" - round here and over there)
>
>Phar Lap
>
>Australia
Ah, shut up! You atheist, demoniac! You aren't American, so just don't
worry about it! Several of us have spelled out the facts; the facts
don't interest you! Our President was elected by a democratic process
that you neither know about nor understand. Have you heard of our
Electoral College?
Go away, demon!
John W
>
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John W
And I wonder what you'll say when He comes? "Oh, I didn't believe you
would! Sorry!"
Demoniac!
John W
On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:18:33 +1100, grandn...@aintree.com (
Phar-Lap) wrote:
>But then - of course Christians for the most part don't care just so long
>as someone promises them that they "might" do what they want
>
>Of course, it is an empty promise
>
>But traditional Christians are often more interested in promises than action
>
>Like where is the Second Coming?
>
>
>Promises
>
>Promises
>
>Promises
>
>And in the meantime where are equality, human rights, welfare, compassion,
>love, decent health and education services?
>
>And Peace
>
>Don't forget Peace!
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John W
<jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>You want the government to provide all that? Sounds like a recipe for
>totalitarian domination to me. But then, you seem to be the kind of
>chap that reads 1984 and wishes it could all turn out like that.
>
>If Christianity is so offensive to you, why don't you just go peddle
>your claptrap somewhere else?
>
Because he's a demoniac masochist. And he likes to spread his misery
and his poison around.
John W
€R.L. Measures
<john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 06:39:23 -0800, ^2...@vc.net (€R.L. Measures) wrote:
>
> >...
> >** "Partial birth abortion" was a term invented by the anti-choice gang.
>
> You evidently are unable or unwilling to do a simple search on the
> internet.
>
> A Partial Birth Abortion is one in which the mother gives birth to a
> term baby. As the child emerges from the womb, and the head "clears",
> the doctor rotates the head to get to the back of the skull. He then
> inserts a scalpel or other sharp object and shops up the brain,
> killing the infant WHILE IT'S BEING BORN, A VIABLE CHILD. And your
> comment indicates ignorance, and calloused disregard for life.
>
€ infants with an incomplete skull are not viable.
> And since when did "Pro-Life" become "Anti-Choice"?
€ from the beginning, anti-abortion/pro-life has been against giving
women a choice.
>When did
> "Pro-Abortion" become "Pro-Choice". If you wish to be politically
> correct, don't do it on my time.
>
> >>
> >> This heinous law was passed through congress by the Femi-Nazi's (the
> >> radical left Feminists), but George I refused to sign it. Clinton,
> >> that scum bag promised that if he were elected, he'd sign it. The
> >> first week he was in office, he signed it, thereby legalizing
> >> infanticide in America.
> >>
> >> You might also remember that during his last State of the Union
> >> address, Bush announced his intentions to have that law repealed, and
> >> congress is now working on repealing that law..
> >>
> >** should infants/fetuses with no skull be allowed to be born alive if
> >the mother and her physican are opposed ?
>
> You have changed the subject. A typical tactic of those who don't wish
> to deal with reality.
>
€ the reality is that the issue is not black and white. Sure, abortion
for convience is not a good thing, but there are ethical reasons for
abortion such as Fragile-X, Tay-Sachs, Downs, hydrocephalus, on and on.
Ephrem Bensusan
Period.
To say that Tay-Sachs and Downs are reasons to murder somebody is pretty
serious.
But then, why listen to the advocates of murder? Once they can't defend
their PRO-MURDER position, they fall back on really horrible ailments a
baby might have as reason to kill. Less than .05% of all cases.
You are defending a holocaust that has seen the murder of 45 Million
Innocent Babies in the US alone. To call yourself pro-choice is just a
semantic dodge to make you feel good about yourself.
If you take a "pro-choice" position, even if you oppose abortion for
your own situation, you advocate it for someone else's. You condone
murder, and oppose efforts to criminalise it.
€R.L. Measures
<eph...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
> Ted Bundy had a choice. Didn't have to be legal. Abortion is murder.
> Period.
>
> To say that Tay-Sachs and Downs are reasons to murder somebody is pretty
> serious.
>
€ To see serious first-hand, get thee to a hospice and see a child dying
of Tay-Sachs.
> But then, why listen to the advocates of murder? Once they can't defend
> their PRO-MURDER position, they fall back on really horrible ailments a
> baby might have as reason to kill. Less than .05% of all cases.
>
€ the incidence of births with fatal hydrocephalus is about 1 in 1300.
0.05% is 1 in 2000.
> You are defending a holocaust
€ the holoccaust is Planned Parenthood centers that are arsoned by the
most devout True Believers.
>that has seen the murder of 45 Million
> Innocent Babies in the US alone. To call yourself pro-choice is just a
> semantic dodge to make you feel good about yourself.
>
€ some imagine that a great reward from "God" awaits those who rabidly
deny women medical choice. Only time will tell.
> If you take a "pro-choice" position, even if you oppose abortion for
> your own situation,
€ ??
>you advocate it for someone else's. You condone
> murder, and oppose efforts to criminalise it.
>
€ the Church teaches that condoms murder the unborn. Do you believe it?
--
Jack
>Do you really believe this is the way it went down in Florida? No one has
>ever proven that the governor, nor anyone else in his government, ever did
>anything wrong. These guys have been investigated and dissected to
>death...no wrongdoing. What's up with that?
The local News announced the fact that all the ballots were disallowed Gov
Jeb Bush and that the Republical controled State Senate would appoint
Florida's electoral Votes. While this is legal under Florida Law, the rules
are highly subjective and most governors would not exercise the law without a
clear need and with such obvious ulterior motives.
>
>Did you miss the statewide recount (which Algore's people didn't want during
>the recount mess) which showed Busdh won the popular vote overall. And did
>we forget that the Electoral College, the election that really counts, went
>for Bush?
Did you forget that all of the ballot were disallowed by Gov Bush?
That was how he stopped the recounts before they were concluded.
Did you miss the fact that without the illegal ballots Al Gore won by 200
votes?
Did you miss the Forida Senate voting to allow the illegal ballots?
Jack
>This is the worst fiction I ever read. Not even close to the
>truth. Can you back up any of it with news reports?
It was all on our local news.
..even the pro-republican station.
Jack
They were ALL thrown out by order of Jeb Bush.
The State Senate assigned the Electoral College votes for Florida.
That is how Jeb Bush stopped the recount.
Jack
>On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:05:53 +1100, grandn...@aintree.com (
>Phar-Lap) wrote:
>
>>In article <PfOdnWQ3bu6...@comcast.com>, Ephrem Bensusan
>><jben...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No, at least not in the whole state--only in 3 particular counties.
>>>
>>
>>Nope in the WHOLE country
>>
>>The machines did not work properly either
>>
>>The bottom line is that the Chief Executive and Supreme Commander in the
>>present war was not elected
>
>The bottom line is that Phar Lap, an Australian, has no clue what
>happened during the election.
>
>j#1 The US Supreme Court got the decision. The US Supreme Court is set
>up to be non-partisan. And the Court decided that Florida law was
>being followed. So much for Phar Lap's crackpot theories.
Florida Law permitted Jeb Bush to throw out all ballots and allow the
Republical controlled State Senate to assign Florida's Electoral College
votes.
>
>#2 Phar Lap also missed the international media's poll just after our
>election, where it was determined, with ALL the votes counted
>(including Florida's absentee ballots), that Bush DID win the popular
>vote, including NOT just Florida, but the OTHER 11 - 13 states that
>were contested. Phar Lap forgot the OTHER contested states.
Bush lost the vote in Florida when the illagaly cast absentee ballot were not
counted.
>
>ALL went for Bush.
>
>#3 Phar Lap forgets (or not being a US citizen) doesn't know that the
>popular vote does NOT elect the US president. The Electoral Colege
>does. And he won that.
And Jeb Bush circumvented the Florida election of the Electoral College
Votes.
AGG
justifications people use to okay the killing of God's creatures in the
womb.
Al
"?R.L. Measures" <^2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:^2-0404030...@207.178.185.100...
> In article <p5-dnVQCOsA...@comcast.com>, Ephrem Bensusan
> <eph...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Ted Bundy had a choice. Didn't have to be legal. Abortion is murder.
> > Period.
> >
> > To say that Tay-Sachs and Downs are reasons to murder somebody is pretty
> > serious.
> >
> ? To see serious first-hand, get thee to a hospice and see a child dying
> of Tay-Sachs.
>
> > But then, why listen to the advocates of murder? Once they can't defend
> > their PRO-MURDER position, they fall back on really horrible ailments a
> > baby might have as reason to kill. Less than .05% of all cases.
> >
> ? the incidence of births with fatal hydrocephalus is about 1 in 1300.
> 0.05% is 1 in 2000.
>
> > You are defending a holocaust
>
> ? the holoccaust is Planned Parenthood centers that are arsoned by the
> most devout True Believers.
>
> >that has seen the murder of 45 Million
> > Innocent Babies in the US alone. To call yourself pro-choice is just a
> > semantic dodge to make you feel good about yourself.
> >
> ? some imagine that a great reward from "God" awaits those who rabidly
> deny women medical choice. Only time will tell.
>
> > If you take a "pro-choice" position, even if you oppose abortion for
> > your own situation,
>
> ? ??
>
> >you advocate it for someone else's. You condone
> > murder, and oppose efforts to criminalise it.
> >
> ? the Church teaches that condoms murder the unborn. Do you believe it?
> >
> > ?R.L. Measures wrote:
> > > In article <mctp8v8e23kufoica...@4ax.com>, John W
> > > <john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 06:39:23 -0800, ^2...@vc.net (?R.L. Measures) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>...
> > >>>** "Partial birth abortion" was a term invented by the anti-choice
gang.
> > >>
> > >>You evidently are unable or unwilling to do a simple search on the
> > >>internet.
> > >>
> > >>A Partial Birth Abortion is one in which the mother gives birth to a
> > >>term baby. As the child emerges from the womb, and the head "clears",
> > >>the doctor rotates the head to get to the back of the skull. He then
> > >>inserts a scalpel or other sharp object and shops up the brain,
> > >>killing the infant WHILE IT'S BEING BORN, A VIABLE CHILD. And your
> > >>comment indicates ignorance, and calloused disregard for life.
> > >>
> > >
> > > ? infants with an incomplete skull are not viable.
> > >
> > >
> > >>And since when did "Pro-Life" become "Anti-Choice"?
> > >
> > >
> > > ? from the beginning, anti-abortion/pro-life has been against giving
> > > women a choice.
> > >
> > >
> > >>When did
> > >>"Pro-Abortion" become "Pro-Choice". If you wish to be politically
> > >>correct, don't do it on my time.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>This heinous law was passed through congress by the Femi-Nazi's (the
> > >>>>radical left Feminists), but George I refused to sign it. Clinton,
> > >>>>that scum bag promised that if he were elected, he'd sign it. The
> > >>>>first week he was in office, he signed it, thereby legalizing
> > >>>>infanticide in America.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You might also remember that during his last State of the Union
> > >>>>address, Bush announced his intentions to have that law repealed,
and
> > >>>>congress is now working on repealing that law..
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>** should infants/fetuses with no skull be allowed to be born alive
if
> > >>>the mother and her physican are opposed ?
> > >>
> > >>You have changed the subject. A typical tactic of those who don't wish
> > >>to deal with reality.
> > >>
> > >
> > > ? the reality is that the issue is not black and white. Sure,
Ephrem Bensusan
Ephrem Bensusan
an Orwellian Revisionist or just willfully ignorant. Or insane, and
mistaking your paranoid delusions for reality.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Ephrem Bensusan wrote:
>> No, at least not in the whole state--only in 3 particular counties.
> Nope in the WHOLE country
> The machines did not work properly either
What machines did not work properly? Can you document this assertion?
> The bottom line is that the Chief Executive and Supreme Commander in the
> present war was not elected
What are you on about, you bloody drongo, you? You know not whereof you
speak. George W. Bush was most certainly legally and lawfully elected to the
office of President of the United States according to the election process as
it is set forth in the U.S. Constitution and in U.S. law.
Even though George W. Bush did not receive as many popular votes as did his
opponent, he received enough so as to prevail in the Electoral College. If
the Electoral College system seems somewhat strange to a foreigner such as
yourself, bear in mind that the Australian system of preferences (where a
greenie can get up as Senator even though he received less than one third of
the votes cast) seems just as strange to Americans. (And thank God that Sir
John Kerr was at the right place at the right time to dispatch that bloody
commo Gough.)
With regard to Bush, the facts are these: every time the votes were counted
in Florida, Bush came out ahead. Every single time. But Gore's people and
the Florida democrats challenged the results in 3 heavily democrat counties
-- where Gore had won overwhelmingly -- and asked for recounts (because here
democrats would be doing the recounting). And these were counties where the
Republicans had only a token presence (so that there shouldn't have been many
Republican observers). Their game plan was to keep counting and counting
until they came up with the result that they were after. But to do so, they
had to break Florida law -- and the democrat hack judges who make up the
Florida Supreme Court were more than willing to accommodate them. Had they
succeeded, this would have represented a veritable coup d'etat. Luckily, the
U.S. Supreme Court had the courage to put them in their place.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
AGG
associated with the court challenges, etc., relative to the vote in Florida.
Anyone who doesn;t think Bush won the state will read these link and WEEP!!!
:-)
http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/
Al
"Ephrem Bensusan" <eph...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Pe2cnUo4tcv...@comcast.com...
Theodore A. Kaldis
> The bottom line is that he is the President, whether you like it or not.
> Got a problem with it? File a brief with the Supreme Court.
He can't. He's Australian, a Sydney-sider most likely, certainly New South
Welsh.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> John W wrote:
>>> "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
>>> same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
>>> is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
>>> provide new Guards for their future security."
>>> (Declaration of Independence)
> I don't know if this "quote" is from the Declaration of Independence or
> not,
This quote is indeed from the Declaration of Independence. And I can tell
you that right off the top of my head, without having to consult the original
document. You should acquaint yourself with it. And learn a bit of the
history of it. As for example that Thomas Jefferson unequivocally condemned
slavery in the original draft, but that these passages were dropped so as to
win the support of the southern colonies.
> but the Declaration carries no weight as far as the law is concerned. It
> is, in fact, just a statement of why freedom from the tyranny of Merrie Ol'
> England. What carries weight is the Constitution and the country's
> subsequent acts, including the Constitutional Amendments, etc.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> John W wrote:
>> Phar-Lap wrote:
>>> Ephrem Bensusan wrote:
>>>> No, at least not in the whole state--only in 3 particular counties.
>>> Nope in the WHOLE country
>>> The machines did not work properly either
>>> The bottom line is that the Chief Executive and Supreme Commander in the
>>> present war was not elected
>> The bottom line is that Phar Lap, an Australian, has no clue what happened
>> during the election.
>> #1 The US Supreme Court got the decision. The US Supreme Court is set up
>> to be non-partisan. And the Court decided that Florida law was being
>> followed. So much for Phar Lap's crackpot theories.
> Florida Law permitted Jeb Bush to throw out all ballots and allow the
> Republical controlled State Senate to assign Florida's Electoral College
> votes.
But of course this is not what happened. After the recounts were finished,
Bush won Florida by 537 votes.
John W
"Born of a virgin" and "the Virgin Mary" are entirely separate, and
different concepts. "Virgin born" indicates His divine origin, which
is required belief for Christians. "Virgin Mary" is the title given by
the Roman cult for the "perpetual, ever virgin Mary," a concept alien
to both scripture and 1st century theology.
It was vital that Jesus' divine source be established, hence He was
conceived of a virgin. Once He had been born, her "purity" was no
longer an issue, which is apparent in that His younger brothers and
sisters are mentioned, James and Joses being two of His younger
brothers.
The notion that Mary was FOREVER a virgin is problematic. It means
that God stole Joseph's wife, and stole both Joseph's and Mary's
"marital rights" to the other's body. For what purpose did God deny
these two righteous people the ultimate in human pleasure?
None, other than the Roman/Orthodox pagan need to make Mary a goddess
who was/is worthy of worship.
And Jesus didn't even show her "eternal respect" as His spiritual
"superior", the "Mother of God" as many "churches" call her.
She and His brothers and sisters went to one of His indoor meetings
one day, and sent someone (I believe an apostle) in to get Him.
"Jesus, your mother and siblings are outside, and they want to talk
with you." Jesus sent word that He was not to be bothered. He was
doing His Father's business, and she'd have to wait.
Even Mary, when the angel Gabriel visited her, prayed, "I rejoice in
God, my Savior." If Mary had been "pure and holy" she would not have
needed a "savior."
Certainly she was blessed among women; she bore the Messiah. But
WORSHIPPED? No. Prayed to? No. Both are forbidden. "You shall have no
other gods before Me." "There is ONE Mediator between God and Man;
Jesus Christ!"
I've even read Catholic literature that indicates the Roman Catholics
consider her "The Fourth Person of the Trinity." "the Mother of God."
This is heresy! She was a person like you and me.
John W
John W
>In article <0tYia.10891$ii....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Nick's Pal Al" <a...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>Do you really believe this is the way it went down in Florida? No one has
>>ever proven that the governor, nor anyone else in his government, ever did
>>anything wrong. These guys have been investigated and dissected to
>>death...no wrongdoing. What's up with that?
>
>The local News announced the fact that all the ballots were disallowed Gov
>Jeb Bush and that the Republical controled State Senate would appoint
>Florida's electoral Votes. While this is legal under Florida Law, the rules
>are highly subjective and most governors would not exercise the law without a
>clear need and with such obvious ulterior motives.
>
>>
>>Did you miss the statewide recount (which Algore's people didn't want during
>>the recount mess) which showed Busdh won the popular vote overall. And did
>>we forget that the Electoral College, the election that really counts, went
>>for Bush?
>
>Did you forget that all of the ballot were disallowed by Gov Bush?
>That was how he stopped the recounts before they were concluded.
>Did you miss the fact that without the illegal ballots Al Gore won by 200
>votes?
>Did you miss the Forida Senate voting to allow the illegal ballots?
>
Did YOU miss the fact that the US SUPREME COURT declared this action
LEGAL under Florida law?
If you don't like the outcome of the 2000 election, change the
election laws! But quit bellyaching and yowling just because you lost
your marbles in a recess marble game!
While ugly, the LAW was adhered to. Like Clinton using the Partial
Birth Abortion bill to get elected. He promised to sign it if elected,
after George I refused to sign. The democrat controlled congress,
rather than killing the bill (which is normally what happens when the
President refuses to sign it) pulled the PBA bill back into committee
waiting for the election. When NOW got ahold of Congress and made
every threat and bought every vote they could by, Congress sent the
bill back to committee. When B. Clinton was elected, the first thing
he signed into law was the "payoff the NOW" PBA bill.
THAT's dirty politics. I guess if the Dems do it, it's okay. Without
the PBA bill pending, Clinton might very well have lost that 2nd
election!
Get real! You want the world to think the Dems are snow white and the
Republicans are pure dirt.
Tain't that simple, folks! And since when do Christians vote the party
and not the candidate? Suppose Satan ran on the Dem ticket against
Jesus Christ on the Republican (I'm in NO way saying God's a
Republican/ I'm merely making a point.) Would you STILL vote Democrat,
just because you HATE Republicans?
John W
John W
<kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>AGG wrote:
>
>> John W wrote:
I, John W would just like to point out that, although my name appears
at the top of this post, this sentence is the ONLY part of this post
that came from me. NOTHING below is mine.
John W
John W
You just can't handle the fact that the US Supreme Court declared this
a legal outcome, can you?
John W
AGG
Orthodox Christian reject your interpretation. The only interpretation that
matters to me is the Holy church's teachings.
2) As an Orthodox Christian, I could care less about what Roman Catholic
literature states. The Roman Catholic Church is a separate religious belief
system.
3) Mary's perpetual virginity, affirmed by the Holy Fathers, is not a
problem with me. The Holy Theotokos (Birthgiver of God) and St. Joseph (a
widower) were only betrothed under the Jewish Law, never married. St. Joseph
had six children by Salome, his wife, four sons and two daughters.
4) Eastern Orthodoxy's teaching on "Original Sin" is vastly different than
that of Blessed Augustine and which forms the basis of western Christian
belief. Orthodoxy teaches that Mary was born a into a world of sin like
every person, but never sinned by her own free will and with the help of the
Holy Spirit. There is no comparison of this teaching from the most ancient
Church on earth with any western Christian belief system.
Peace to you all. I affirm what the Holy Church, the Body of Christ,
teaches. No one with alternative beliefs will shake my devotion to the
teachings of Christ through the Holy Church. The Holy Church as a whole is
infallible in its teachings.
Al
"John W" <john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t1ct8v43960rojb5h...@4ax.com...
John W
You ALSO missed the part where the vote counters admitted that they
would NOT finish the counting by the FEDERALLY imposed deadline for
counting, so Gov Bush had the state congress decide it. AGAIN, messy,
yes; but legal.
>
>>
>>ALL went for Bush.
As well as the other contested 13 states. Don't forget them, Mr. Sore
Loser.
Would you be equally outraged if the entire situation were reversed
and Gore had ended up in the White House by the EXACT same process?
I bet not! Your bone to pick is that you're a hard-core Leftist, and
you want a Dem in the White House PERMANENTLY, by whatever means
necessary. Have you considered assassination? No! Wait, The VP is a
Republican, too!
Guess you'll have to wait 2 more years to try to put Hillary in the W
H.
LOL! I wonder who SHE'LL decide to add to the legal euthanasia list
after newborn infants ???
John W
John W
Yep. But don't confuse Jack with the facts. He forget that there were
TWO recounts. I had forgotten the American one. There was also a
European one. Bush won both. By the smallest margin in history, but
under US law, the President can win by 1 vote.
John W
John W
Kaldis) wrote:
You failed to mention that even while Gore wailed repeatedly "Just
count ALL the votes", he was working HARD behind the scenes to prevent
the counting of the absentee ballots, which he presumed would be
heavily Republican (they were). So Gore was engaging in "double-speak"
as he secretly maneuvered to "fix" the election. Bush's attorney's
succeeded in putting a check on Gore by appealing to the US Supreme
Court, which had the power to over-rule the HEAVILY leftist Florida
State Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court held a special session, and they agreed that
there just plain wasn't time to count the votes until Gore "got the
result he wanted", and then the counters admitted they wouldn't have
time to complete the count by the State law imposed deadline to meet
the Federally imposed deadline. Since the counting couldn't be
completed in time, Jeb Bush went to the State Congress.
Not necessarily nice, but totally legal, or Bush and the AG, Katherine
??? would have been impeached.
Revising history only works when the other side wasn't there, too.
John W
John W
Even so, it was still legal. And WHY did Gov Bush stop the recount?
Because there was a state deadline AND a federal deadline. You didn't
mention that for some reason. And when it was determined, that neither
the state deadline nor the federal deadline would be reached, Gov Bush
stopped the counting.
HOWEVER, you ALSO failed to mention that the recounting WAS finished
AFTER the election, and Bush WON Florida, albeit by less than 1,000
votes. He (Bush) also won EVERY OTHER (of some dozen) contested state.
So vote for Hillary in 2004!
:-)
John W
John W
>http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/
Thanks for the information. I get into a debate over this every week.
I live in Seattle, which is the most liberal city (statistically) in
the most liberal state (Washington state) in America, and I am
CONSTANTLY hearing weeping and wailing about how George ("Dubya")
should be imprisoned for "stealing the election." Or shot.
John W
AGG
Not true. Under U.S. law a candidate can lose the popular vote and still be
elected president. Don't forget that the Electoral College vote is the vote
that really counts. The founding fathers set up this sytem to prevent any
large state from dominating all elections. It's a brilliant system.
Al
AGG
Washington is more liberal than California???????????
John W
>In article <mctp8v8e23kufoica...@4ax.com>, John W
><john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 06:39:23 -0800, ^2...@vc.net (€R.L. Measures) wrote:
>>
>> >...
>> >** "Partial birth abortion" was a term invented by the anti-choice gang.
>>
>> You evidently are unable or unwilling to do a simple search on the
>> internet.
>>
>> A Partial Birth Abortion is one in which the mother gives birth to a
>> term baby. As the child emerges from the womb, and the head "clears",
>> the doctor rotates the head to get to the back of the skull. He then
>> inserts a scalpel or other sharp object and shops up the brain,
>> killing the infant WHILE IT'S BEING BORN, A VIABLE CHILD. And your
>> comment indicates ignorance, and calloused disregard for life.
>>
>€ infants with an incomplete skull are not viable.
Who said ANYTHING about "infants with an incomplete skull"?????
You are introducing a Red Herring to make a case that is not worthy.
Newborn infants have rights, or they did before B. Clinton. Before
this horrible bill became law, if a doctor had delivered a child,
fully out of the mother, spanked it until it cried, wiped it down, and
then stabbed it in the brain, that would have been called "murder."
The fact that the head is fully out so that the doctor can get behind
and UNDER the skull to stab the brain and then he kills it with the
rest of the body inside? 14" of baby is the difference between
"murder" and "legal abortion"? You are amoral!
>
>> And since when did "Pro-Life" become "Anti-Choice"?
>
>€ from the beginning, anti-abortion/pro-life has been against giving
>women a choice.
Since when did abortionists give the child the choice to live? And all
women who are pro-abortion are walking the earth because they were
born to pro-life mothers! Whatever happened to adoption?
>
>>When did
>> "Pro-Abortion" become "Pro-Choice". If you wish to be politically
>> correct, don't do it on my time.
>>
>> >>
>> >> This heinous law was passed through congress by the Femi-Nazi's (the
>> >> radical left Feminists), but George I refused to sign it. Clinton,
>> >> that scum bag promised that if he were elected, he'd sign it. The
>> >> first week he was in office, he signed it, thereby legalizing
>> >> infanticide in America.
>> >>
>> >> You might also remember that during his last State of the Union
>> >> address, Bush announced his intentions to have that law repealed, and
>> >> congress is now working on repealing that law..
>> >>
>> >** should infants/fetuses with no skull be allowed to be born alive if
>> >the mother and her physican are opposed ?
When/where did you come up with the notion of "infants/fetuses with no
skull"?
AGAIN a red herring to justify infanticide!
>>
>> You have changed the subject. A typical tactic of those who don't wish
>> to deal with reality.
>>
>€ the reality is that the issue is not black and white. Sure, abortion
>for convience is not a good thing, but there are ethical reasons for
>abortion such as Fragile-X, Tay-Sachs, Downs, hydrocephalus, on and on.
The reality is that none of those illnesses is mentioned in the law.
and Downs Syndrome children can be happy, productive individuals. How
DARE you choose to end the life of a Downs Syndrome child? Are YOU
God? Have you forgotten the Downs Syndrome teenager who was the star
of his own TV series for several years? I've gone to SEVERAL stores
and been waited on by QUITE competent clerks who were Downs Syndrome.
i was on the bus with a Downs Syndrome Care giver a few months ago.
She was pretty, she wore nice clothes, she could get around by
herself, and we had SEVERAL VERY nice conversations. I teased her
about "Do you have a boyfriend, or are you available?" (I'm 55, she
was 26) She took it in stride, and said, "Yes, I have a boyfriend, and
we're even talking about getting married."
What gives you the right to abort a Downs Syndrome child who could be
HAPPY and productive? Because he/she isn't PERFECT? Are YOU perfect?
And the law, as written, indicates merely that it's a decision left up
to the mother and her doctor. Meaning, if the woman wants a partial
birth abortion, for WHATEVER reason, she only has to find a dr who is
wiling to do it for "enough cash" or sex or whatever.
Such a radical, extreme procedure should be regulated. As it is, it's
PERFECTLY legal for a Femi-Nazi to give birth to a totally healthy
child and then murder it on its way out.
And if you agree with that, you are amoral, and God will SEVERELY
punish you. "Woe to those who harm the LEAST of these. It would be
better for them to have a millstone tied around their neck and then
cast into the deepest sea." Jesus Christ, 1st C.
John W
John W
<eph...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>Ted Bundy had a choice. Didn't have to be legal. Abortion is murder.
>Period.
>
>To say that Tay-Sachs and Downs are reasons to murder somebody is pretty
>serious.
>
>But then, why listen to the advocates of murder? Once they can't defend
>their PRO-MURDER position, they fall back on really horrible ailments a
>baby might have as reason to kill. Less than .05% of all cases.
>
>You are defending a holocaust that has seen the murder of 45 Million
>Innocent Babies in the US alone. To call yourself pro-choice is just a
>semantic dodge to make you feel good about yourself.
>
>If you take a "pro-choice" position, even if you oppose abortion for
>your own situation, you advocate it for someone else's. You condone
>murder, and oppose efforts to criminalise it.
>
Ditto! Well said! Thanks. And forgive my ignorance, but what is "Tay
Sachs?"
John W
>
>€R.L. Measures wrote:
>> In article <mctp8v8e23kufoica...@4ax.com>, John W
>> <john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 06:39:23 -0800, ^2...@vc.net (€R.L. Measures) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...
>>>>** "Partial birth abortion" was a term invented by the anti-choice gang.
>>>
>>>You evidently are unable or unwilling to do a simple search on the
>>>internet.
>>>
>>>A Partial Birth Abortion is one in which the mother gives birth to a
>>>term baby. As the child emerges from the womb, and the head "clears",
>>>the doctor rotates the head to get to the back of the skull. He then
>>>inserts a scalpel or other sharp object and shops up the brain,
>>>killing the infant WHILE IT'S BEING BORN, A VIABLE CHILD. And your
>>>comment indicates ignorance, and calloused disregard for life.
>>>
>>
>> € infants with an incomplete skull are not viable.
>>
>>
>>>And since when did "Pro-Life" become "Anti-Choice"?
>>
>>
>> € from the beginning, anti-abortion/pro-life has been against giving
>> women a choice.
>>
>>
>>>When did
>>>"Pro-Abortion" become "Pro-Choice". If you wish to be politically
>>>correct, don't do it on my time.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>This heinous law was passed through congress by the Femi-Nazi's (the
>>>>>radical left Feminists), but George I refused to sign it. Clinton,
>>>>>that scum bag promised that if he were elected, he'd sign it. The
>>>>>first week he was in office, he signed it, thereby legalizing
>>>>>infanticide in America.
>>>>>
>>>>>You might also remember that during his last State of the Union
>>>>>address, Bush announced his intentions to have that law repealed, and
>>>>>congress is now working on repealing that law..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>** should infants/fetuses with no skull be allowed to be born alive if
>>>>the mother and her physican are opposed ?
>>>
John W
>In article <p5-dnVQCOsA...@comcast.com>, Ephrem Bensusan
><eph...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Ted Bundy had a choice. Didn't have to be legal. Abortion is murder.
>> Period.
>>
>> To say that Tay-Sachs and Downs are reasons to murder somebody is pretty
>> serious.
>>
>€ To see serious first-hand, get thee to a hospice and see a child dying
>of Tay-Sachs.
>
>> But then, why listen to the advocates of murder? Once they can't defend
>> their PRO-MURDER position, they fall back on really horrible ailments a
>> baby might have as reason to kill. Less than .05% of all cases.
>>
>€ the incidence of births with fatal hydrocephalus is about 1 in 1300.
>0.05% is 1 in 2000.
>
>> You are defending a holocaust
>
>€ the holoccaust is Planned Parenthood centers that are arsoned by the
>most devout True Believers.
Boy have YOU been brainwashed by the left! When PP centers are bombed
or arsoned (not that I approve) on the RARE occasions that happens,
are normally not occupied. If they ARE occupied, most or all the
occupants are able to get out. Thus, the death / murder facilities are
shut down (no more babies murdered THERE for awhile).
On the other hand, those PP centers (murder warehouses) manage across
America, to murder over 1 Million infants YEARLY. You EXUSE the murder
of 1 Million infants yearly by every excuse you can think of, and yet
you condemn the stopping of those who close the clinics/murder houses
by hook or crook.
Whose side are you on? And you have mentioned / defended Tay Sachs and
hydrocephalus abortions. Yet you have YET to justify / defend the
aborting of Downs Syndrome children, who are aborted MERELY because
they aren't "perfect" by parents who aren't perfect.
>
>>that has seen the murder of 45 Million
>> Innocent Babies in the US alone. To call yourself pro-choice is just a
>> semantic dodge to make you feel good about yourself.
>>
>€ some imagine that a great reward from "God" awaits those who rabidly
>deny women medical choice. Only time will tell.
What is the medical "choice" in allowing a woman to murder her unborn
offspring whether it's sick or not? And the PBA doesn't require that
the baby be sick or sickly to kill it. The choice laws don't require
the child to be sick or sickly to be murdered. If the mother wants her
baby murdered, just to murder it, that's perfectly ok by US law. IT's
NOT okay by God's law! And He has warned us to not hurt the children,
or we'll answer to Him! Apparently you don't consider yourself
answerable to God.
>> If you take a "pro-choice" position, even if you oppose abortion for
>> your own situation,
>
>€ ??
He is saying that to advocate abortion on demand makes you as guilty
as those who actually undergo it or perform it. Either you are
fighting abortion and you oppose it, or you favor it and you're part
of the problem!
>
>>you advocate it for someone else's. You condone
>> murder, and oppose efforts to criminalise it.
>>
>€ the Church teaches that condoms murder the unborn. Do you believe it?
I find no such teaching in the Bible; therefore, I have no problem
with ANY form of contraception. And "the Church" doesn't control my
life. God does.
John W
>God, save us from ourselves. The lengths, the arguments, the so-called
>justifications people use to okay the killing of God's creatures in the
>womb.
>
Amen.
John W
AGG
>
> The fact that the head is fully out so that the doctor can get behind
> and UNDER the skull to stab the brain and then he kills it with the
> rest of the body inside? 14" of baby is the difference between
> "murder" and "legal abortion"? You are amoral!
Actually, the body is turned in the womb and all is brought out of the
vagina except the head which remains inside the woman. I have illustrations
of the Partial Birth Execution Procedure on my web site:
http://aggreen.net/pro-life/par_abor.html
Al
--
Orthodox Church and Bible Study Links
http://aggreen.net/orth_links/orthlink.html
Reuben Hick
> and not the candidate? Suppose Satan ran on the Dem ticket against
> Jesus Christ on the Republican (I'm in NO way saying God's a
> Republican/ I'm merely making a point.) Would you STILL vote Democrat,
> just because you HATE Republicans?
Hey the Bible even says the Left is foolish and the Right is wise:
Eccl 10:2 A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at
his left.
Jeff Shirton
news:Gkzja.14264$e8.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> 3) Mary's perpetual virginity, affirmed by the Holy Fathers,
Do you have specific citations for this?
Anything in the first few hundred centuries after Christ?
> St. Joseph had six children by Salome, his wife, four sons
> and two daughters.
What is your source for this information?
Is it historical information, or "revelatory"?
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Aurelius Augustine was a Calvinist. So was Thomas Aquinas.
All Calvin did was make it popular.
Reuben Hick
> baby murdered, just to murder it, that's perfectly ok by US law. IT's
> NOT okay by God's law! And He has warned us to not hurt the children,
> or we'll answer to Him! Apparently you don't consider yourself
> answerable to God.
What about church claims that all children below a certain age go to heaven?
Then how is sending a child to Heaven so wrong in the eternal perspective?
Doesn't the church spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars each year
to evangelize? That means that there must be many unsaved people that need
to hear the gospel. From what little I know about science, I believe babies
often grow up to be part of this group of "unsaved people" who will then
require millions of dollars and countless hours of time in the chance that
they may use their free will and believe. The abortionist assures a 100%
salvation rate for the price of a tax payer subsidized abortion. Instead of
putting up a huge and expensive multimedia system up in the church
auditorium that may persuade no one to seek God's grace, how many abortions
could be purchased where every operation is more successful in saving a soul
than a whole month of Prayer of Jabez lecturettes?
Also, all of those who are answerable to God will discover that even one sin
counted against them is sufficient to send them to Hell. In Romans 5, we
discover that Adam's sin is sufficient to send us to Hell. Therefore one
sin, or a long and prosperous career of murdering unborn children merits the
same punishment = death. The flip side to this is that there is also
unlimited forgiveness in those who are saved. That same abortion
practicioner who has "sent to heaven" thousands of children (which is far
more than almost all evangelists can claim) can make one prayer of
repentance and be forgiven of every "murder".
BTW, "Thou shall not murder" means "thou shall not kill illegally".
Presently it is legal to kill unborn babies. (see Romans 13,Mark 12:17) Then
Jesus Christ clarified this commandment :
(please read this in context of the delivery style in chapter 5)
Matt 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt
not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But
I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother,
Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool,
shall be in danger of hell fire.
The "murder" in Exodus 20 and Deut 5, was killing another in anger. Is the
abortionist sinning only when he is angry at the child victim?
€R.L. Measures
<john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 01:27:13 -0800, ^2...@vc.net (€R.L. Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <mctp8v8e23kufoica...@4ax.com>, John W
> ><john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 06:39:23 -0800, ^2...@vc.net (€R.L. Measures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >...
> >> >** "Partial birth abortion" was a term invented by the anti-choice gang.
> >>
> >> You evidently are unable or unwilling to do a simple search on the
> >> internet.
> >>
> >> A Partial Birth Abortion is one in which the mother gives birth to a
> >> term baby. As the child emerges from the womb, and the head "clears",
> >> the doctor rotates the head to get to the back of the skull. He then
> >> inserts a scalpel or other sharp object and shops up the brain,
> >> killing the infant WHILE IT'S BEING BORN, A VIABLE CHILD. And your
> >> comment indicates ignorance, and calloused disregard for life.
> >>
> >€ infants with an incomplete skull are not viable.
>
> Who said ANYTHING about "infants with an incomplete skull"?????
> You are introducing a Red Herring to make a case that is not worthy.
€ approximately one in every 1400 live births is not worthy of our
consideration?
>
> Newborn infants have rights, or they did before B. Clinton. Before
> this horrible bill became law, if a doctor had delivered a child,
> fully out of the mother, spanked it until it cried, wiped it down, and
> then stabbed it in the brain, that would have been called "murder."
>
> The fact that the head is fully out so that the doctor can get behind
> and UNDER the skull to stab the brain and then he kills it with the
> rest of the body inside? 14" of baby is the difference between
> "murder" and "legal abortion"? You are amoral!
€ it is moral to allow an infant to be born with a fatal defect that will
cause great suffering before death? But of course it is if one belongs
to a Church which teaches that suffering is one of the paths to eternal
salvation. Is it any mystery that roughly half of female "Saints"
tortured themselves?
>
> >
> >> And since when did "Pro-Life" become "Anti-Choice"?
> >
> >€ from the beginning, anti-abortion/pro-life has been against giving
> >women a choice.
>
> Since when did abortionists give the child the choice to live? And all
> women who are pro-abortion are walking the earth because they were
> born to pro-life mothers! Whatever happened to adoption?
€ prove your position by adopting an infant with Tay-Sachs syndrome.
>
> >
> >>When did
> >> "Pro-Abortion" become "Pro-Choice". If you wish to be politically
> >> correct, don't do it on my time.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This heinous law was passed through congress by the Femi-Nazi's (the
> >> >> radical left Feminists), but George I refused to sign it. Clinton,
> >> >> that scum bag promised that if he were elected, he'd sign it. The
> >> >> first week he was in office, he signed it, thereby legalizing
> >> >> infanticide in America.
> >> >>
> >> >> You might also remember that during his last State of the Union
> >> >> address, Bush announced his intentions to have that law repealed, and
> >> >> congress is now working on repealing that law..
> >> >>
> >> >** should infants/fetuses with no skull be allowed to be born alive if
> >> >the mother and her physican are opposed ?
>
> When/where did you come up with the notion of "infants/fetuses with no
> skull"?
> AGAIN a red herring to justify infanticide!
>
> >>
> >> You have changed the subject. A typical tactic of those who don't wish
> >> to deal with reality.
> >>
> >€ the reality is that the issue is not black and white. Sure, abortion
> >for convience is not a good thing, but there are ethical reasons for
> >abortion such as Fragile-X, Tay-Sachs, Downs, hydrocephalus, on and on.
>
> The reality is that none of those illnesses is mentioned in the law.
> and Downs Syndrome children can be happy, productive individuals.
€ some can, most can not. Infants with Fragile-X, Tay-Sachs, and
moderate cases of hydrocephalus can't.
>How DARE you choose to end the life of a Downs Syndrome child?
€ I attended High School with a Downs victim. If I am a fetus with
Downs, please abort me. May God save us from do-gooders.
>Are YOU God?
€ no, but I sure as hell have some questions for him If I get the chance.
>Have you forgotten the Downs Syndrome teenager who was the star
> of his own TV series for several years?
€ I remember "Corky". He had the least severe form of Down's. He was
perhaps 1 in a 1,000. I also remember that when wonderful "Corky" was
dating a teenage girl with Downs. he reportedly dropped her because she
was too abnormal.
>I've gone to SEVERAL stores
> and been waited on by QUITE competent clerks who were Downs Syndrome.
> i was on the bus with a Downs Syndrome Care giver a few months ago.
> She was pretty, she wore nice clothes, she could get around by
> herself, and we had SEVERAL VERY nice conversations. I teased her
> about "Do you have a boyfriend, or are you available?" (I'm 55, she
> was 26) She took it in stride, and said, "Yes, I have a boyfriend, and
> we're even talking about getting married."
>
> What gives you the right to abort a Downs Syndrome child who could be
> HAPPY and productive? Because he/she isn't PERFECT? Are YOU perfect?
>
€ Oh hell no. I have two DNA defects. According to the stats, I should
have been outta here 7-yrs back. Perhaps The Devil is giving me some
extra time so I can continue to scrutinize the teachings of God's one true
Holy Church?
> And the law, as written, indicates merely that it's a decision left up
> to the mother and her doctor. Meaning, if the woman wants a partial
> birth abortion, for WHATEVER reason, she only has to find a dr who is
> wiling to do it for "enough cash" or sex or whatever.
>
> Such a radical, extreme procedure should be regulated. As it is, it's
> PERFECTLY legal for a Femi-Nazi to give birth to a totally healthy
> child and then murder it on its way out.
>
€ are you perhaps a Dittohead (?
> And if you agree with that, you are amoral, and God will SEVERELY
> punish you.
€ but at least, just in case I get the going-down elevator, I relish hot
weather. However, in Alaska, Christian missionaries told the Eskimos that
Hell is a place of eternal cold, so I could well be miserable.
>"Woe to those who harm the LEAST of these. It would be
> better for them to have a millstone tied around their neck and then
> cast into the deepest sea." Jesus Christ, 1st C.
>
€ John -- would buggering an altar-boy be considered harm ?
Reuben Hick
be
> elected president. Don't forget that the Electoral College vote is the
vote
> that really counts. The founding fathers set up this sytem to prevent any
> large state from dominating all elections. It's a brilliant system.
Also, another secret of the Electoral System. Each state can conjure up
their own means for recognizing electors.
Article II, Section 1:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct..."
The state legislature could therefore rule that Electors are determined by
lottery, a hash on their telephone numbers, or as ambidextrous blue eyed
blond males, or even through Voodoo and scatology. There is no requirement
that suffrage is guarenteed to all in the process of electing the president.
Reuben Hick
>
> Do you have specific citations for this?
> Anything in the first few hundred centuries after Christ?
>
> > St. Joseph had six children by Salome, his wife, four sons
> > and two daughters.
>
> What is your source for this information?
> Is it historical information, or "revelatory"?
No, I think that they want to make Christ's legal "father" an adulterer,
since Salome (assuming that we are not referring to Herodias' daughter) was
in attendance at the crucifixion (therefore alive), and married to Zebedee
(Mat 27:56) which would make her an adulterer.
Also, in a theme given to us by JohnW; apparently we are to believe that
the Father intended for his Son, Jesus, to have a dysfunctional family
environment and that while Mary would be the most blessed, Joseph would not
receive any blessing whatsoever.
Ps 127:3-5 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the
womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are
children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them:
they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the
gate.
Also, Joseph was supposed to lead a life of disobedience:
Jer 29:6 Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for
your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and
daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.
And it seems Joseph is to lead Mary into stumbling if he refuses to treat
her and their marriage as "one flesh":
1 Cor 7:5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that
you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan
tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
In order to make a fourth member of the Trinity, they need to trash many of
God's principles.
Reuben Hick
> consideration?
You don't have the moral authority to comment on the 1400 with "incomplete
skulls" since you are not only willing, but defend and advocate the deaths
of the millions who have complete skulls. What gross hypocricy to cold
heartedly sentence to death millions of viable lives and then show pain and
agony over 1400 exceptions.
vernonoj
"Reuben Hick" <reube...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QLCja.74$7%2....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
The Holy beliefs of the RCC and Orthodox
Jesus was legally a bastard.
Mary was cursed above all women.
Mary was ugly.
Mary probably ran a whore house.
Joseph was a simpleton.
Joseph was a heretic.
Joseph was a "lowly" carpenter.
vernonoj
And, as with Representatives and Senators, they are not bound to vote the
will or majority of the people.
vernonoj
"€R.L. Measures" <^2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:^2-0504030...@207.178.185.100...
> € I attended High School with a Downs victim. If I am a fetus with
> Downs, please abort me. May God save us from do-gooders.
>
A person with Down's Syndrome is much happier than you are.
As it is you have been born with a worse curse, the idea that you even think
you know.
AGG
"Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca> wrote in message
news:piCja.528$h%2.7...@read1.cgocable.net...
> "AGG" <A...@rr.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Gkzja.14264$e8.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> > 3) Mary's perpetual virginity, affirmed by the Holy Fathers,
>
> Do you have specific citations for this?
> Anything in the first few hundred centuries after Christ?
>
> > St. Joseph had six children by Salome, his wife, four sons
> > and two daughters.
>
> What is your source for this information?
> Is it historical information, or "revelatory"?
Historical information from the pseudogospel of St. James, the Brother of
our Lord who was one of Joseph's sons.
Need a URL?
Al
AGG
> > > 3) Mary's perpetual virginity, affirmed by the Holy Fathers,
> >
> > Do you have specific citations for this?
> > Anything in the first few hundred centuries after Christ?
> >
> > > St. Joseph had six children by Salome, his wife, four sons
> > > and two daughters.
> >
> > What is your source for this information?
> > Is it historical information, or "revelatory"?
>
> No, I think that they want to make Christ's legal "father" an adulterer,
> since Salome (assuming that we are not referring to Herodias' daughter)
was
> in attendance at the crucifixion (therefore alive), and married to Zebedee
> (Mat 27:56) which would make her an adulterer.
***St. Joseph's wife was named Salome. One of Their daughters was also named
Salome, and she was one of the myrrhbearers on Resurrection morning.
>
> Also, in a theme given to us by JohnW; apparently we are to believe that
> the Father intended for his Son, Jesus, to have a dysfunctional family
> environment and that while Mary would be the most blessed, Joseph would
not
> receive any blessing whatsoever.
***You would presume to explain the mysteries of God in such an ill-informed
manner?
>
> Ps 127:3-5 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the
> womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are
> children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of
them:
> they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the
> gate.
>
>
> Also, Joseph was supposed to lead a life of disobedience:
***Actually, St. Joseph the Betrothed was one of the most obedient people of
his time, accepting the dream that came to him when he sought to pout away
Mary for her so-called "shame" of being a unwed mother.
>
> Jer 29:6 Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for
> your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons
and
> daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.
>
> And it seems Joseph is to lead Mary into stumbling if he refuses to treat
> her and their marriage as "one flesh":
***You fail to understand Jewish Law concerning the two-fold nature of
marriage...betrothal and the actualk marriage that would have allowed them
to conjugate.
>
> 1 Cor 7:5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that
> you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan
> tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
>
>
> In order to make a fourth member of the Trinity, they need to trash many
of
> God's principles.
***Again, you're speaking of the RCC which has nothing to do with the
Eastern Orthodox. By harping on tbhis, you display an amazing amount of
ignorance of the Holy Church and Church history.
AGG
"vernonoj" <ver...@nonpamcontractor.net> wrote in message
news:w0Dja.729$1k.217@fed1read07...
>
>
> The Holy beliefs of the RCC and Orthodox
>
> Jesus was legally a bastard.
> Mary was cursed above all women.
> Mary was ugly.
> Mary probably ran a whore house.
> Joseph was a simpleton.
> Joseph was a heretic.
> Joseph was a "lowly" carpenter.
Your post displays an incredible amount of ignorance and further displays
why, with more than 22,000 denominations, sects, and cults, protestantism is
a huge failure.
Al
AGG
***You fail to grasp the Electoral College system.
Jeff Shirton
news:w0Dja.729$1k.217@fed1read07...
> The Holy beliefs of the RCC and Orthodox
>
> Jesus was legally a bastard.
> Mary was cursed above all women.
> Mary was ugly.
> Mary probably ran a whore house.
> Joseph was a simpleton.
> Joseph was a heretic.
> Joseph was a "lowly" carpenter.
I note that it is perfectly possible for a Christian to disagree
and speak out against heretical beliefs without stooping
down to being disrespectful, insulting, and downright
misleading (read: dishonest).
I don't believe either church (RCC or O) has teachings
of any of the above "facts", but they simply seem to
be *your* spins (only by extension) of what they actually
do believe. I'm sure that whatever beliefs you may
have can be "spun" negatively in very much the same way.
Patrick
>What about church claims that all children below a certain age go to heaven?
+ Do you make up church dogma as you go along?
+ Stop lying. The Church does not claim this at all.
>Then how is sending a child to Heaven so wrong in the eternal perspective?
>Doesn't the church spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars each year
>to evangelize? That means that there must be many unsaved people that need
>to hear the gospel. From what little I know about science, I believe babies
>often grow up to be part of this group of "unsaved people" who will then
>require millions of dollars and countless hours of time in the chance that
>they may use their free will and believe. The abortionist assures a 100%
>salvation rate for the price of a tax payer subsidized abortion.
+ What an idiot?
vernonoj
And your denomination is no closer to Christianity than Muslim.
I used words that you don't like.
YOU have stated "exactly" what I listed. You just use special holy words to
say the same thing.
vernonoj
> "vernonoj" <ver...@nonpamcontractor.net> wrote in message
> news:w0Dja.729$1k.217@fed1read07...
>
> > The Holy beliefs of the RCC and Orthodox
> >
> > Jesus was legally a bastard.
> > Mary was cursed above all women.
> > Mary was ugly.
> > Mary probably ran a whore house.
> > Joseph was a simpleton.
> > Joseph was a heretic.
> > Joseph was a "lowly" carpenter.
>
> I note that it is perfectly possible for a Christian to disagree
> and speak out against heretical beliefs without stooping
> down to being disrespectful, insulting, and downright
> misleading (read: dishonest).
>
> I don't believe either church (RCC or O) has teachings
> of any of the above "facts", but they simply seem to
> be *your* spins (only by extension) of what they actually
> do believe. I'm sure that whatever beliefs you may
> have can be "spun" negatively in very much the same way.
They state it. I use politically incorrect words which mean EXACTLY what
they say. I'm not into vague "Christianese".
Noting your sig line below. If one is in any way Calvinist or a spinoff
such as Baptist, one must, at all costs, avoid the use of the word chosen.
Jeff Shirton
> > > Jesus was legally a bastard.
> > > Mary was cursed above all women.
> > > Mary was ugly.
> > > Mary probably ran a whore house.
> > > Joseph was a simpleton.
> > > Joseph was a heretic.
> > > Joseph was a "lowly" carpenter.
> >
> > Your post displays an incredible amount of ignorance and further
> > displays why, with more than 22,000 denominations, sects, and
> > cults, protestantism is a huge failure.
It is artificial and self-serving to simply lump "22,000 denominations"
together as if they were responsible for each other, or otherwise any
way relevant to the gospel.
It is just as accurate as pointing out that the Eastern Orthodox
is just part of 22,001 denominations that got Christ's gospel wrong.
> > Al
You and Vernon deserve each other with your mutual hatred.
AGG
>
>
> And your denomination is no closer to Christianity than Muslim.
***We are not a denomination. We ARE the original One Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church...the Body of Christ. To deny that is to deny Christ!!
>
> I used words that you don't like.
***Words which, BTW, show your Christian ignorance.
AGG
>
> > > > Jesus was legally a bastard.
> > > > Mary was cursed above all women.
> > > > Mary was ugly.
> > > > Mary probably ran a whore house.
> > > > Joseph was a simpleton.
> > > > Joseph was a heretic.
> > > > Joseph was a "lowly" carpenter.
> > >
> > > Your post displays an incredible amount of ignorance and further
> > > displays why, with more than 22,000 denominations, sects, and
> > > cults, protestantism is a huge failure.
>
> It is artificial and self-serving to simply lump "22,000 denominations"
> together as if they were responsible for each other, or otherwise any
> way relevant to the gospel.
***Look, protestantism is based on two "reformations"...Luthers and the
Anglican Church's. All denominations of protestantism can trace their roots
to one or the other of these events. There is only One Holy Orthodox Church.
There are more than 22,000 protestant churches.
>
> It is just as accurate as pointing out that the Eastern Orthodox
> is just part of 22,001 denominations that got Christ's gospel wrong.
***So, the Church that Christ founded in Jerusalem at Pentecost got the
Gospel wrong? If that's so, it's because Jesus made it so.
>
> > > Al
>
> You and Vernon deserve each other with your mutual hatred.
***Heck no, I don';t hate the chap. He's too ignorant of Church history to
hate. "Pity" is more like it. If he had some knowledge he would make such
silly inance statements.
Reuben Hick
heaven?
>
> + Do you make up church dogma as you go along?
> + Stop lying. The Church does not claim this at all.
Noticing the massive crossposting, I have to guess what you mean "the
Church". Presently the main stream baptists, pentecostals, calvary-chapel,
those infatuated with "last-days" and who knows how many others in the world
of Christianity subscribe to an Age of Accountability, where children,
retards and the insane are basically innocent until somebody declares by
fiat that they are accountable for some private sin since Adam's sin
unexplainedly is removed from their accounts. I do recognize that the
EO/RCC religions believe in baptismal regeneration and Purgatory, so the
whole concept of Hell and who goes there can be modified dynamically based
on prayers, money and prestige. Since EO/RCC soteriology is such a fluid
doctrine (sincerity in any belief system seems to merit salvation these
days), I am sure that some Post Modernist bishop or priest is teaching some
inherent sinlessness and automagic salvation mechanism.
So you really shouldn't shoot off at the mouth (er, keyboard) with your
apparently limited understanding of those around you. You can apologize now
for your reckless and mean spirited accusation of "liar".
Reuben Hick
> >
> >(2) Mary was cursed above all women.
> >(3) Mary was ugly.
> >(4) Mary probably ran a whore house.
> >(5) Joseph was a simpleton.
> >(6) Joseph was a heretic.
> >(7) Joseph was a "lowly" carpenter.
>
> I note that it is perfectly possible for a Christian to disagree
> and speak out against heretical beliefs without stooping
> down to being disrespectful, insulting, and downright
> misleading (read: dishonest).
>
> I don't believe either church (RCC or O) has teachings
> of any of the above "facts", but they simply seem to
> be *your* spins (only by extension) of what they actually
> do believe. I'm sure that whatever beliefs you may
> have can be "spun" negatively in very much the same way.
Actually I would love to know on what basis vernon feels 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 are
tenets (no matter how awkwardly stated) of the EO/RCC faith. Clearly, from
their vehement desire to dieify St Joseph, it isn't one of disresepect. In
fact, considering the apocrophal works, Joseph was in high society as a
carpenter, which makes me wonder how he couldn't have used his prestige and
influence to get better digs for his child bride when sojourning in
Bethlehem.
Reuben Hick
Please elaborate.
AGG
Some day, if you get to Heaven, you can ask the question? Your question may
just be one of the unanswered mysteries one finds throughout the Bible.
Reuben Hick
ill-informed
> manner?
Now you have done it.
I know that you wish to believe what your handlers have programmed you to
believe, and your post demonstrates the fact that all you are doing is
parroting the party line. For instance, I have demonstrated the problems
with your campfire story with principles in Scripture, you have just used
wave of the hand denials, and unsubstantiated repetition of your claims.
That is an indicator to all of us reading your posts that you don't have any
rational or objective reason to beleive what you believe and you choose to
take non-canonicals and tradition and treat them as superior to holy writ.
Lets look at your highly esteemed new testament apocryphal writings,
particularly "The History of Joseph the Carpenter".
As the legend goes, Joseph is married to some unnamed woman, and with this
woman he has four sons and two daughters before she dies of unknown causes.
About the time of her death, Mary is twelve years old and has been offered
to the temple since age three. The priests of this temple decided that she
needs to be in the care of an honorable man so that she would not be tempted
into sexual relations prior to her expected marriage. Enter Joseph.
Problem is, the so-called narrative offered by Jesus while on Mt Olives to
his disciples indicates that there was no intention of any marriage to go
between this old man and this child (v3). In fact v4 tells us that she
shacked up with Joseph for two years before getting pregnant. Compare this
line with Scripture:
Matt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his
mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child of the Holy Ghost.
Here the Bible says that Joseph was to marry this child, ~"and before they
came together"~ (which pretty much is in conflict with "two years in
Joseph's household") she was found pregnant. Since THoJtC says that she
stayed with Joseph merely for protection, and the Bible says that she was
"espoused" to Joseph, we have another conflict between this narrative and
Scripture.
Another problem I detected in (v2). "This same man [Joseph], being well
furnished with wisdom and learning, was made a priest in the temple of the
Lord." So much for the Bible declaring the tribe of Levi as priests in the
temple of the Lord. Joseph descends from the tribe of Jacob not Levi. In
Luke 2, Jesus is presented to Simeon to perform the circumcision, why not
Joseph the priest? Later why would Joseph, the priest, be unaware of his
twelve year old son's tarrying in the temple?
The prologue to the narrative declares that Joseph died at the age of 111.
It then tells us the day of his death, but nothing else so we are to guess
the year or any nearby occasion. This leads me to ask this question. The
lifespan of men rarely exceeded 70 years of age. Since Joseph is never
again mentioned at any part of Christ's life after the temple incident, and
we know Christ died at the age of 33, 111-33 gives us at bottom threshold of
78 years of age when Joseph got married to Mary. Verse 18 says that Jospeh
was 89 when his first wife died. Add two years before Mary, and we are
talking about a 91 year old man marrying a 14 year old girl. So what band
of idiots would entrust a man who should be dead or old age, the life and
possibly the marriage of a child. Talk about pedophilia or December January
relationships. Why, every one of Jesus' half brothers and sisters were
probably older if not significantly older than His mother. This is really
wierd because at the age of 12, Mary allegedly ran across James the Less who
was old enough to understand death and have a meaningful relationship with
his biological mother - yet "she brought him up". Since Joseph's alleged
first wife was wonderful and pure and her death is not associated to sin (as
every other death in this narrative is strongly tied) then we should assume
she died of old age, which makes sense because six children and an older
man, usually parents arrange the marriages of their children, and it would
be uncommon to espouse an old man to a child in this kind of arrangement.
Also, because of the age of menopause, these kids would have to be in their
teens up into their fourties and fifties. This is what makes the James the
Less/Mary event really perverted. It is because of this peculiar event
that James, and everyone who knows him, forever more considers Mary to be
his true mother. (clearly this lame excuse was fabricated to answer those
who point out that Scripture declares James a son of Mary by making
Scripture tell a white lie). In verse 11, we are told that at least two of
the sons were married and had children of their own, and both daughters were
out of the house and married. This further lends support to James the Less
being significantly older than Mary if this narrative is to be believed. If
he wasn't so old, then why isn't James mentioned when Joseph, Mary and baby
Jesus fled to Egypt? This narrative creates more problems than it tries to
answer.
There is another historical error that crops up in v8 where Herod the Great
(who died while Christ was in Egypt re:Matt2:15) was not the one who had
John beheaded, but it was his son Herod Antipas. (Mtt 14:1).
The narrative is rife with errors, none more so than in v23 where the
narrator
(Jesus) is saying that both Michael and Gabriel took Joseph's spirit to
heaven
in a "shining wrapper". This is utter heresey because it teaches a
salvation
that precedes the death and resurrection Jesus Christ. Christ is no longer
made
the first fruits; His death and resurrection have absolutely no bearing on
salvation,
and we are told that Joseph, not only never sinned, but didn't inherit the
sin of Adam.
If it is possible to be sinless and not be guilty via representation (see
Romans 5) of
Adam's sin, then why, by necessity, did Jesus Christ have to be born of a
virgin?
Your narrative make Jesus Christ a heretic, and teaches a myth that good
people
die nicely and get special treatment from angels, while evil people die
horribly.
(see how other deaths are described in the narrative) This battle for
Joseph's soul
and body makes a mockery of the single angel dealing with Moses' (Jude 1:9).
I await your rebuttal, and why you feel that the error and heresey ridden
apocryphal
letters are to be accepted before Scripture.
AGG
> > ***You fail to grasp the Electoral College system.
>
> Please elaborate.
From the Federal Election Commission web site:
How the Electoral College Works
The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design
and experience. As it now operates:
Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S.
Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may
change each decade according to the size of each State's population as
determined in the Census).
The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to
the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their
candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote.
Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in
their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party
leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate
theirs.
Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited
from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the
legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their
candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions
traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and
independent candidates follow different procedures according to the
individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then
officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they
might appear on the general election ballot.
On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by
four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of
Electors representing their choice for president and vice president
(although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say
"Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual
Electors on each slate).
Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that
State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the
most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two
exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by
statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each
Congressional district].
On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in
federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals
and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.
In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their
home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside
their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have
consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from
different States).
The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the
President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads
them before both houses of the Congress.
The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it
is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president.
Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of
electoral votes is declared vice president.
In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for
president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the
people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each
State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being
required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for
vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top
two contenders for that office.
At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are
sworn into office.
Occasionally questions arise about what would happen if the pesidential or
vice presidential candidate died at some point in this process.For answers
to these, as well as to a number of other "what if" questions, readers are
advised to consult a small volume entitled After the People Vote: Steps in
Choosing the President edited by Walter Berns and published in 1983 by the
American Enterprise Institute. Similarly, further details on the history and
current functioning of the Electoral College are available in the second
edition of Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, a real
goldmine of information, maps, and statistics.