Who is Danny Devito?

[Gy]

Is he an expert on race relations?

[Don't Touch Me There]

On 1/25/2016 5:25 PM, Gy wrote:
> Is he an expert on race relations?

He's a senile wop midget.

[bartello]

On 25 Jan 2016, Don't Touch Me There
<Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> posted some
news:w2Bpy.147085$Jt4.1...@fx22.iad:

> On 1/25/2016 5:25 PM, Gy wrote:
>> Is he an expert on race relations?
>
> He's a senile wop midget.

He likes sucking black cocks and taking them up his ass too.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Don't Touch Me There]

On 1/25/2016 9:10 PM, bartello wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2016, Don't Touch Me There
> <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> posted some
> news:w2Bpy.147085$Jt4.1...@fx22.iad:
>
>> On 1/25/2016 5:25 PM, Gy wrote:
>>> Is he an expert on race relations?
>>
>> He's a senile wop midget.
>
> He likes sucking black cocks and taking them up his ass too.

Doubtless.

[Cort]

He's Ahnolds fudgepackee.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <XnsA59AD75...@202.81.252.44>,

bartello <bart...@nynex.com> wrote:

> On 25 Jan 2016, Don't Touch Me There
> <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> posted some
> news:w2Bpy.147085$Jt4.1...@fx22.iad:
>
> > On 1/25/2016 5:25 PM, Gy wrote:
> >> Is he an expert on race relations?
> >
> > He's a senile wop midget.
>
> He likes sucking black cocks and taking them up his ass too.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

--

JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <MiDpy.195971$b8.1...@fx29.iad>,

Don't Touch Me There <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

wrote:

Would you have a problem with it? And, if so, why?

--

JD

I靶e officially given up trying to find the bottom

[Don't Touch Me There]

On 1/26/2016 12:08 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <MiDpy.195971$b8.1...@fx29.iad>,
> Don't Touch Me There <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/25/2016 9:10 PM, bartello wrote:
>>> On 25 Jan 2016, Don't Touch Me There
>>> <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> posted some
>>> news:w2Bpy.147085$Jt4.1...@fx22.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 1/25/2016 5:25 PM, Gy wrote:
>>>>> Is he an expert on race relations?
>>>>
>>>> He's a senile wop midget.
>>>
>>> He likes sucking black cocks and taking them up his ass too.
>>
>> Doubtless.
>
> Would you have a problem with it? And, if so, why?

Would I personally have a problem with it? Yes, of course. I'm male
and heterosexual, i.e. normal. The act described is deviancy. Everyone
knows it.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <iWLpy.271175$rj1.1...@fx27.iad>,

Don't Touch Me There <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
wrote:

> On 1/26/2016 12:08 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <MiDpy.195971$b8.1...@fx29.iad>,
> > Don't Touch Me There <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/25/2016 9:10 PM, bartello wrote:
> >>> On 25 Jan 2016, Don't Touch Me There
> >>> <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> posted some
> >>> news:w2Bpy.147085$Jt4.1...@fx22.iad:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/25/2016 5:25 PM, Gy wrote:
> >>>>> Is he an expert on race relations?
> >>>>
> >>>> He's a senile wop midget.
> >>>
> >>> He likes sucking black cocks and taking them up his ass too.
> >>
> >> Doubtless.
> >
> > Would you have a problem with it? And, if so, why?
>
> Would I personally have a problem with it? Yes, of course.

Why? Your orientation is irrelevant to whether you have a problem with
it.

> I'm male
> and heterosexual, i.e. normal. The act described is deviancy. Everyone
> knows it.

No, they absolutely do not. Your fellow bigots are getting smaller in
number every day. Nobody gives a shit anymore. Pretty much everyone
knows at least one gay person and can see quite easily that that person
is as normal as they are; their sex lives are irrelevant.

Why don't you join the rest of us in the 21st century.

--

JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom

[Don't Touch Me There]

On 1/26/2016 7:47 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <iWLpy.271175$rj1.1...@fx27.iad>,
> Don't Touch Me There <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/26/2016 12:08 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <MiDpy.195971$b8.1...@fx29.iad>,
>>> Don't Touch Me There <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/25/2016 9:10 PM, bartello wrote:
>>>>> On 25 Jan 2016, Don't Touch Me There
>>>>> <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> posted some
>>>>> news:w2Bpy.147085$Jt4.1...@fx22.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/25/2016 5:25 PM, Gy wrote:
>>>>>>> Is he an expert on race relations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's a senile wop midget.
>>>>>
>>>>> He likes sucking black cocks and taking them up his ass too.
>>>>
>>>> Doubtless.
>>>
>>> Would you have a problem with it? And, if so, why?
>>
>> Would I personally have a problem with it? Yes, of course.
>
> Why? Your orientation is irrelevant to whether you have a problem with
> it.

No, it isn't. As a heterosexual - that is, normal - male, I can tell
you that the only thing that goes up my coal chute is a suppository, a
doctor's gloved finger to check the prostate, or a proctosigmoidoscope.
Normal men don't allow a penis into their rectums; only mentally
defective deviants do.

>
>> I'm male
>> and heterosexual, i.e. normal. The act described is deviancy. Everyone
>> knows it.
>
> No, they absolutely do not.

They most certainly do.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by reeking mackerel-snatch repaired]

On 1/26/2016 9:38 AM, hypatiab7 wrote:

> You would be, too, if he'd let you.

No, probably he wouldn't, because he's most likely normal, and normal
people don't do that; only deviants.

[Dechucka]

"Don't Touch Me There" <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:w2Bpy.147085$Jt4.1...@fx22.iad...

> On 1/25/2016 5:25 PM, Gy wrote:
>> Is he an expert on race relations?
>
> He's a senile wop midget.

dead man walking according to Rudy who wants to murder him

[Dechucka]

"Don't Touch Me There" <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:wGMpy.179225$L45.1...@fx09.iad...

What about women or should sex only occur in the missionary position and be
for creating babies

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:DdOpy.208243$qz7....@fx01.iad...

but you still want to murder him because you don't like his position?

[Rudy Canoza]

Not murder.

[Rudy Canoza]

It wouldn't be murder.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:4wQpy.205667$MN2....@fx07.iad...

Love to hear your defense, do the murder you for murder in your state?

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:kvQpy.205666$MN2.1...@fx07.iad...

you are quite delusional aren't you?

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

No.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:M6Rpy.165273$uJ5....@fx35.iad...

You're yet to explain on what basis lynching DD would be a lawful killing

[Rudy Canoza]

Who said anything about lawful killing? When and if the Great Cull
breaks out, laws won't be much of an impediment.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:ikRpy.208728$pV5.1...@fx21.iad...

So it is mob murder
>

[Rudy Canoza]

Not murder at all.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:c0Spy.226029$hF6....@fx38.iad...

When the great cull comes you will decide who to lynch under what law? Mob
rule? or will there by Citizen Kangaroo courts before hand?

[Rudy Canoza]

I'm not sure I'll be doing any of the deciding. I don't think it will
occur under any law.

[Fred Oinka]

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 3:08:26 AM UTC-5, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <XnsA59AD75...@202.81.252.44>,
> bartello <bart...@nynex.com> wrote:
>
> > On 25 Jan 2016, Don't Touch Me There
> > <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> posted some
> > news:w2Bpy.147085$Jt4.1...@fx22.iad:
> >
> > > On 1/25/2016 5:25 PM, Gy wrote:
> > >> Is he an expert on race relations?
> > >
> > > He's a senile wop midget.
> >
> > He likes sucking black cocks and taking them up his ass too.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>

Only mudshark, soon to be single mothers and disgusting sick freaks think it is a good thing.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:FnSpy.147355$Jt4....@fx22.iad...

You'll be part of the mob carrying out the lynchings and getting your rocks
off

> I don't think it will occur under any law.

So it is murder

[Rudy Canoza]

Just the lynchings of rats like DeVito.

>> I don't think it will occur under any law.
>
> So it is murder

No. There won't be any applicable law at the time.

[Dechucka]

snip

>> You'll be part of the mob carrying out the lynchings and getting your
>> rocks off
>
> Just the lynchings of rats like DeVito.

oh the murder

>
>>> I don't think it will occur under any law.
>>
>> So it is murder
>
> No. There won't be any applicable law at the time.

murder is murder

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/26/2016 2:59 PM, Dechucka wrote:
> snip
>
>>> You'll be part of the mob carrying out the lynchings and getting your
>>> rocks off
>>
>> Just the lynchings of rats like DeVito.
>
> oh the murder

No, not murder.

>>>> I don't think it will occur under any law.
>>>
>>> So it is murder
>>
>> No. There won't be any applicable law at the time.
>
> murder is murder

There has to be law.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:9XSpy.199919$b8.4...@fx29.iad...

Murder is murder even in the anarchy of your lynch mob world

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/26/2016 3:09 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>

It's not murder if there's no applicable law.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:D2Vpy.184173$O41.1...@fx37.iad...

Technically maybe morally not. However trying to talk morals with a person
like you that thinks lynching is OK will be impossible

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/26/2016 5:46 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
> news:D2Vpy.184173$O41.1...@fx37.iad...
>> On 1/26/2016 3:09 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
>>> news:9XSpy.199919$b8.4...@fx29.iad...
>>>> On 1/26/2016 2:59 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You'll be part of the mob carrying out the lynchings and getting
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> rocks off
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just the lynchings of rats like DeVito.
>>>>>
>>>>> oh the murder
>>>>
>>>> No, not murder.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think it will occur under any law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it is murder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. There won't be any applicable law at the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> murder is murder
>>>>
>>>> There has to be law.
>>>
>>> Murder is murder even in the anarchy of your lynch mob world
>>
>> It's not murder if there's no applicable law.
>
> Technically maybe morally not.

"Technically" - ha ha ha ha!

I don't take moral lectures from the likes of you. No one would.
You're a statist who believes in positive rights. You have no moral
standing to lecture anyone, anywhere.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:QlVpy.203137$8P4.1...@fx30.iad...

Like the ones in your Bill of Rights?

> You have no moral standing to lecture anyone, anywhere.

you snip with no acknowledgement and have no morals. Have fun when the giant
cleansing arrives pity about those you want to murder

[Rudy Canoza]

There are no positive rights in the American Bill of Rights. They are
*all* negative rights: statements of what the state may not do.

We've been through this before, and I beat your poof Aussie ass bloody
then, too. Positive "rights" are statements that someone must provide
something to you, e.g. food, health care, housing, etc. Negative rights
are things that you are presumed to have a right to do because the state
has no lawful power to stop you or force you to do otherwise. The most
significant negative rights in the Bill of Rights are the first, second,
fourth and fifth. The state may not prevent you from speaking; it may
not prevent you from keeping and bearing arms; and it may not compel you
to testify against yourself. Note that there are no positive rights
contained therein. You do not have a right to have a printing press or
TV cameras and microphones provided to you; you do not have a right to
guns provided at state expense.

There are no positive rights. Your fellow citizens have no obligation
based on your "rights" to provide you with food, shelter, health care,
clothing, education, or anything else. Any obligation they have to
provide you with those things is simply confiscation at gunpoint. Rights
are always based on morality, and no one has a moral obligation to
provide you with any goods and services.

Once again, you are forced to concede that I'm smarter and more
intelligent than you.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:A%Vpy.215721$IX3.2...@fx36.iad...

All postive rights that the individual can expect. They are not written the
State may not.

>
> We've been through this before, and I beat your poof Aussie ass bloody
> then, too.

A self proclaimed Usenet victory! You'e a joke

> Positive "rights" are statements that someone must provide something to
> you, e.g. food, health care, housing, etc.

like the right to a speedy and public trial?

[Rudy Canoza]

None. There are no positive rights. You do not have any "right" to
stuff that someone else must provide to you.

>>
>> We've been through this before, and I beat your poof Aussie ass bloody
>> then, too.
>
> A self proclaimed Usenet victory!

No, a real and documented victory.

>
>> Positive "rights" are statements that someone must provide something
>> to you, e.g. food, health care, housing, etc.
>
> like the right to a speedy and public trial?

No. That's still a negative right: the state is prohibited from
holding you in a state of uncertainty and not reaching a conclusion in
their case against you. It's a negative right. Every knowledgeable
person knows this. That lets you out, doesn't it?

You're stupid. You admit it.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:iLWpy.176051$8u4....@fx39.iad...

Except in the BoR

>
>>>
>>> We've been through this before, and I beat your poof Aussie ass bloody
>>> then, too.
>>
>> A self proclaimed Usenet victory!
>
> No, a real and documented victory.

LOL you do realise everybody can see your posts don't you

>
>>
>>> Positive "rights" are statements that someone must provide something
>>> to you, e.g. food, health care, housing, etc.
>>
>> like the right to a speedy and public trial?
>
> No. That's still a negative right: the state is prohibited from holding
> you in a state of uncertainty and not reaching a conclusion in their case
> against you. It's a negative right. Every knowledgeable person knows
> this. That lets you out, doesn't it?

You have a right to a speedy public trial is a positive right. It is not
written 'the state is prohibited from holding you in a state of uncertainty
and not reaching a conclusion in their case against you.'

[Rudy Canoza]

Except nowhere. There are no positive rights anywhere. There can't be,
as I have shown. The Bill of Rights enumerates negative rights.

>>>>
>>>> We've been through this before, and I beat your poof Aussie ass bloody
>>>> then, too.
>>>
>>> A self proclaimed Usenet victory!
>>
>> No, a real and documented victory.
>
> LOL you do realise everybody can see your posts don't you

Yes. That's how we know the victory is documented.

>>>
>>>> Positive "rights" are statements that someone must provide something
>>>> to you, e.g. food, health care, housing, etc.
>>>
>>> like the right to a speedy and public trial?
>>
>> No. That's still a negative right: the state is prohibited from
>> holding you in a state of uncertainty and not reaching a conclusion in
>> their case against you. It's a negative right. Every knowledgeable
>> person knows this. That lets you out, doesn't it?
>
> You have a right to a speedy public trial is a positive right.

No. It's a statement that the government may not delay your trial.

It's a negative right.

Everyone knows this.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:JaXpy.362036$983.3...@fx06.iad...

FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights and the BoR
oblige action, speedy and public trial, not interfering with the right to
bear arms

>
>>>>>
>>>>> We've been through this before, and I beat your poof Aussie ass bloody
>>>>> then, too.
>>>>
>>>> A self proclaimed Usenet victory!
>>>
>>> No, a real and documented victory.
>>
>> LOL you do realise everybody can see your posts don't you
>
> Yes. That's how we know the victory is documented.

WE? how many in that head of yours?

>
>>>>
>>>>> Positive "rights" are statements that someone must provide something
>>>>> to you, e.g. food, health care, housing, etc.
>>>>
>>>> like the right to a speedy and public trial?
>>>
>>> No. That's still a negative right: the state is prohibited from
>>> holding you in a state of uncertainty and not reaching a conclusion in
>>> their case against you. It's a negative right. Every knowledgeable
>>> person knows this. That lets you out, doesn't it?
>>
>> You have a right to a speedy public trial is a positive right.
>
> No. It's a statement that the government may not delay your trial. It's a
> negative right.

which requires an action

[Rudy Canoza]

Yes, we: right-thinking people.

>>>>>
>>>>>> Positive "rights" are statements that someone must provide something
>>>>>> to you, e.g. food, health care, housing, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> like the right to a speedy and public trial?
>>>>
>>>> No. That's still a negative right: the state is prohibited from
>>>> holding you in a state of uncertainty and not reaching a conclusion in
>>>> their case against you. It's a negative right. Every knowledgeable
>>>> person knows this. That lets you out, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> You have a right to a speedy public trial is a positive right.
>>
>> No. It's a statement that the government may not delay your trial.
>> It's a negative right.
>
> which requires an action

Not a positive right.

You lose - again.

[Dechucka]

snip

> Not a positive right.

FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights and the BoR

obliges action, speedy and public trial, not interfering with the right to
bear arms etc

snip

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/26/2016 8:19 PM, Dechucka wrote:
> snip

Restore:

>>> FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights and the

>>> BoR oblige action, speedy and public trial, not interfering with the
>>> right to bear arms
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> We've been through this before, and I beat your poof Aussie ass
>>>>>>>> bloody
>>>>>>>> then, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A self proclaimed Usenet victory!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, a real and documented victory.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL you do realise everybody can see your posts don't you
>>>>
>>>> Yes. That's how we know the victory is documented.
>>>
>>>
>>> WE?
>>
>> Yes, we: right-thinking people.
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Positive "rights" are statements that someone must provide something
>>>>>>>> to you, e.g. food, health care, housing, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> like the right to a speedy and public trial?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. That's still a negative right: the state is prohibited from
>>>>>> holding you in a state of uncertainty and not reaching a conclusion in
>>>>>> their case against you. It's a negative right. Every knowledgeable
>>>>>> person knows this. That lets you out, doesn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a right to a speedy public trial is a positive right.
>>>>
>>>> No. It's a statement that the government may not delay your trial.
>>>> It's a negative right.
>>>
>>> which requires an action
>>
>> Not a positive right.
>>
>> You lose - again.
>

> FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights and the BoR
> obliges

It prohibits delay.

I win. You lose. Again.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:TCXpy.271430$rj1....@fx27.iad...

An action. If you knew what you were talking about with positive and
negatives rights you wouldn't continue to make and arse of yourself.

Why don't you snip a little, proclaim victory and stop being ignorant

[Rudy Canoza]

No. A denial of action.

You don't have a hope of winning this, Upchucka. It's a negative right
- full stop.

[Dechucka]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:OJXpy.271436$rj1....@fx27.iad...

which in itself is an action

>
> You don't have a hope of winning this, Upchucka.

I know you're radical religious right you don't think for yourself.

[Rudy Canoza]

No, fuckwit. It's not an action.

>> You don't have a hope of winning this, Upchucka.
>
> I know you're radical religious right

No, you don't know that at all. You couldn't - it's wrong.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <wGMpy.179225$L45.1...@fx09.iad>,

Don't Touch Me There <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

wrote:

> On 1/26/2016 7:47 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <iWLpy.271175$rj1.1...@fx27.iad>,

> > Don't Touch Me There <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/26/2016 12:08 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >>> In article <MiDpy.195971$b8.1...@fx29.iad>,

> >>> Don't Touch Me There <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

> >>> wrote:

> >>>
> >>>> On 1/25/2016 9:10 PM, bartello wrote:
> >>>>> On 25 Jan 2016, Don't Touch Me There
> >>>>> <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> posted some
> >>>>> news:w2Bpy.147085$Jt4.1...@fx22.iad:
> >>>>>

> >>>>>> On 1/25/2016 5:25 PM, Gy wrote:
> >>>>>>> Is he an expert on race relations?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He's a senile wop midget.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> He likes sucking black cocks and taking them up his ass too.
> >>>>

> >>>> Doubtless.
> >>>
> >>> Would you have a problem with it? And, if so, why?
> >>
> >> Would I personally have a problem with it? Yes, of course.
> >
> > Why? Your orientation is irrelevant to whether you have a problem with
> > it.
>
> No, it isn't. As a heterosexual - that is, normal - male, I can tell
> you that the only thing that goes up my coal chute is a suppository, a
> doctor's gloved finger to check the prostate, or a proctosigmoidoscope.

Yeah, so what? What makes you think you're normal?


> Normal men don't allow a penis into their rectums; only mentally
> defective deviants do.

Sez who?


> >> I'm male
> >> and heterosexual, i.e. normal. The act described is deviancy. Everyone
> >> knows it.
> >
> > No, they absolutely do not.
>
> They most certainly do.

Nope. You're living in the past. Join the 21st century where we don't
withhold basic rights from anyone.

--

JD

Iąve officially given up trying to find the bottom

[Don't Touch Me There]

I obviously am.

>> Normal men don't allow a penis into their rectums; only mentally
>> defective deviants do.
>
> Sez who?

Normal people.

>>>> I'm male
>>>> and heterosexual, i.e. normal. The act described is deviancy. Everyone
>>>> knows it.
>>>
>>> No, they absolutely do not.
>>
>> They most certainly do.
>
> Nope.

Yep.

> You're living in the past. Join the 21st century where we don't
> withhold basic rights from anyone.

Nothing to do with rights.

[Dechucka]

"benj" <no...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uM7qy.244330$xz4....@fx12.iad...

> Jeanne has it right. In the 21st century nobody is thought of as deviant
> anymore (well except all non-Lib whites who are all racis').
>
> Love doesn't know limitations in the 21st century, but we are not there
> yet! Sure same sex marriage is a "good first step" but why should love be
> limited by age? NAMBLA still has work to do. Why should marriage just be
> limited to two humans? Why should he bigots be allowed to ban interspecies
> marriages? So much work left for Libs to do!

Well done all the straw men in one post. If there is true consent why not
any of these, remember kids can't and neither can your pet as for polygamy
there is a rich history in the US

[dunno]

There is a rich history of people having sex with kids and animals too.

--
dunno

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <jLadnbb_Ac6fwjPL...@westnet.com.au>,

Children are incapable of giving informed consent, so pedophilia will
never be acceptable.

> > Why should marriage just be
> > limited to two humans?

I agree.

> > Why should he bigots be allowed to ban interspecies
> > marriages?

Because no animal is capable of giving informed consent.

> > So much work left for Libs to do!

Nope. We're not in favor of raping children or animals.

> Well done all the straw men in one post. If there is true consent why not
> any of these, remember kids can't and neither can your pet as for polygamy
> there is a rich history in the US

--

JD

I靶e officially given up trying to find the bottom

[Dave Taylor]

Which is why pregnant minor girls should not be allowed to receive
abortions without parental consent.

Well done.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <jQMry.243512$_r1....@fx24.iad>,

How did you come to that conclusion? What if the father is the girl's
father, or her uncle, or her mother's boyfriend? Or the parents are
known to beat the girl for any infraction of the rules and she's afraid
of being murdered if her parents discover she's pregnant?

Those are the only girls who would try to access an abortion without
going through her parents.

--

JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom

[Dave Taylor]

Because you said, "Children are incapable of giving informed consent".
That includes for medical procedures.

You're fucked.

> What if the father is the girl's
> father, or her uncle, or her mother's boyfriend?

Changes nothing.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <ydNry.850972$o41....@fx01.fr7>,

Yep, another misogynist who'd rather see a girl murdered than to let her
get the abortion that will save her life.

[Unknown]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
news:hlwdjsd2-744D0C...@news.giganews.com:

Age of consent in the US ranges from 16 to 18.

> How did you come to that conclusion? What if the father is the girl's
> father, or her uncle, or her mother's boyfriend?

Do you think that the mother might not have anything to say?

Or the parents are
> known to beat the girl for any infraction of the rules and she's
> afraid of being murdered if her parents discover she's pregnant?

She can seek asylum in a shelter for abused women.

> Those are the only girls who would try to access an abortion without
> going through her parents.





--

Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

"Inside every old person is a young person
wondering what the hell happened!"

Terry Pratchett in The Times/UK

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Dave Taylor]

No. I want to prevent you from fucking with well established rules to
advance a pernicious agenda. You shitbags do this all the time.

*You* said, "Children are incapable of giving informed consent". That
includes medical procedures. You have no valid basis for carving out
exceptions to your own categorical statements, you dumb cunt.

As a geography major and career low-paid secretary, you're simply not up
to logical consistency. It's just not something you can do.

[Dave Taylor]

Age of consent to what? A minor child - one under the age of 18 -
requires parental consent for *any* medical procedure, except that the
feminazis in some states have fucked with the law enough to get an
exception for abortion. In most states, a girl under 18 can't get an
abortion without parental notification, except there is still more
left-wing jiggery-pokery to try to get around it. Here's from the site
of the fetal tissue vendor, Planned Parenthood:

In most states with these (parental permission/notification)
requirements:

* You can ask a judge to excuse you from getting permission or
telling your parent or guardian. (This is called a "judicial
bypass.")
* A legal guardian can give permission or be notified in place of
[sic] a parent.
* If you meet legal rules showing that you are independent of the
care and control of your parents or a guardian, you do not need
to get their permission or notify them.

In some states, you can be excused from involving a parent without
going to a judge if you are the victim of abuse or neglect and you
or your doctor report this to the appropriate authorities

See more at:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/parental-consent-notification-laws#sthash.cWzvUKk2.dpuf


At every step of the way, the pro-fetus-murder feminazis have fucked
with the law. How is a minor girl going to petition a judge? As a
minor, she can't hire an attorney without her parents' consent. Why
would a minor have a legal guardian if the girl has one or both parents
who have custody (parental notification laws would apply to a guardian
anyway.) How can the girl lawfully be examined by a doctor to determine
if she's pregnant without first getting parental consent to
non-emergency treatment?

We note that the pro-fetus-murder feminazis are not *generally* looking
to get parental consent laws revoked or twisted, and we note as well
that they aren't asking for any such revocation for boys. Why not? Why
aren't they saying that parental consent/notification laws be lifted for
16 year old boys seeking sex "reassignment" [sic] surgery?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <VpNry.176666$Sn4...@fx44.iad>,

Why?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <VONry.291225$QG6....@fx31.iad>,

You can't murder a fetus.

[Dechucka]

"dunno" <du...@dunno.dunno> wrote in message
news:n8n6ar$ng9$1...@news.mixmin.net...

not legally and not with consent

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Child services is all over that long before abortions and if it;s family
then it's NO different than gay marriage, you can't tell people who they
can have sex with or marry. That means that it doesn't matter WHAT the
father is. All that matters is that someone is the father. There can't
be any discrimination for incest. Incest is legal as per the Supreme
court decisions on marriage. A persons sexual identity can't be used for
government discrimination. Incest is a sexual identity like gay. It's
all in their head and it's NOT genetic. It's delusional.

> Those are the only girls who would try to access an abortion without
> going through her parents.

Then you want the girl to report the rape to get that abortion... it's
like ObamaCare where you have to do what the law says (because Obama
says that's good for you) or you face the penalty. The Child needs more
than a secret abortion, she needs legal help to get away from the
parents or relatives that raped her. The best way is to expose the
abuse NOT by getting a secret abortion.

--
That's Karma

If a marriage license *can't* tell you who you *must marry*
depending on sexual identity... how can a business license tell
you who you *Must engage in commerce with* depending on sexual
identity?

*Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

[Dave Taylor]

Because your statement was categorical, you stupid bitch. Because you
*agree* with it.

[Dechucka]

snip

Incest is legal as per the Supreme
> court decisions on marriage.

really? Cite please

[Dave Taylor]

>> includes medical procedures. You have no valid basis for carving out
>> exceptions to your own categorical statements, you dumb cunt.
>

> Why?

Because your statement was categorical, you stupid bitch. Because you
*agree* with it.

[Dave Taylor]

>> At every step of the way, the pro-fetus-murder feminazis have fucked
>> with the law. How is a minor girl going to petition a judge? As a
>> minor, she can't hire an attorney without her parents' consent. Why
>> would a minor have a legal guardian if the girl has one or both parents
>> who have custody (parental notification laws would apply to a guardian
>> anyway.) How can the girl lawfully be examined by a doctor to determine
>> if she's pregnant without first getting parental consent to
>> non-emergency treatment?
>>
>> We note that the pro-fetus-murder feminazis are not *generally* looking
>> to get parental consent laws revoked or twisted, and we note as well
>> that they aren't asking for any such revocation for boys. Why not? Why
>> aren't they saying that parental consent/notification laws be lifted for
>> 16 year old boys seeking sex "reassignment" [sic] surgery?
>

> You can't murder a fetus.]

No need to address that stupid fucking lie.

[Dechucka]

snip

>> You can't murder a fetus.]
>
> No need to address that stupid fucking lie.

Why not? Do you believe all miscarriages should be investigated? When would
the fetus be registered?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <cZOry.249566$IX3....@fx36.iad>,

What lie?

You can only murder a person. A fetus isn't yet a person.

[Dave Taylor]

Your lie right above.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <9%Sry.390188$983....@fx06.iad>,

Funny that you snipped what I said that proved what I said wasn't a lie.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Gy <jth...@gmail.com> wrote in news:146bfc09-e012-4eb8-b409-
ac2f71...@googlegroups.com:

> Is he an expert on race relations?
>

He's a malignant dwarf.

--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and
pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

[Dave Taylor]

It "proved" nothing of the kind. That was just another stupid lie.

[Dave Taylor]

This, of course, is just another stupid fucking lie. The fetus *is* a
person, in every moral and philosophical sense of the word. An
arbitrary legalism doesn't change that.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <DHUry.217411$dB4....@fx18.iad>,

Of course it isn't. Its brain doesn't even turn on completely until it's
born and takes its first breath.

Do you know nothing??

[Dave Taylor]

It is.

> Its brain doesn't even turn on completely until it's
> born and takes its first breath.

What pseudoscientific bullshit - a complete lie. But of course, that
has nothing to do with personhood.

[AlleyCat]

On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 22:09:09 -0800, Dave Taylor says...

[DoD]

"AlleyCat" <a...@aohell.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.311a0816f...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 22:09:09 -0800, Dave Taylor says...
>
>> > Its brain doesn't even turn on completely until it's
>> > born and takes its first breath.

IDIOT bitch jeanne douglas....

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 00:28:03 -0600, DoD says...

Ignorance is bliss.

[First Post]

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 00:28:03 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Such is the thinking of most liberals.
Just a shitty attempt to dehumanize the fetus just to try to ease
their own conscience.

If abortion is so righteous then why are liberals so reluctant to call
an unborn human "human"? Why do they not want to allow a woman to see
the ultrasound of the so called "mass of tissue" the same way they
allow anyone to see ultrasounds, x-rays, MRIs and CAT scans to see
tumors and other abnormalities?
If they are so cock sure that a fetus is nothing more than a lump of
cells then they shouldn't be afraid of semantics or any procedure that
allows a woman to see what is going on inside of her.

People that are acting out of true compassion don't have to lie about
anything or cover up anything with creative language.
Yet the ideologues who have been preaching "transparency" regarding
anything and everything are totally against such transparency when it
comes to one of their favorite and heaviest promoted activities,
abortion.

Of course we're talking about the same idiots who believe that because
the whistleblowers who got the Planned Parenthood butchers admitting
that they were in the body part business on tape lied about their
credentials in order to obtain the information, that it means that the
Planned Parenthood doctor never said it.

Either the leftists are dumber than a sack of rocks or they believe
that everyone else is dumber than a sack of rocks.
Regardless, it says a lot about their character, and all of it bad.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <cKXry.334193$rj1.1...@fx27.iad>,

Then you have a seriously fucked definition of personhood.

[Dave Taylor]

No, I don't. I have a consistent one - philosophically and morally
sound. You have a definition of mere expedience.

Why did you think you could get away with that pseudoscientific bullshit
lie?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Gay is all in your head and there is NO proof it exists it stays in your
head and *never breaths* . How fucked up an idea is it that, to believe
being gay is real and that it deserves any rights reserved to personhood.

If gays deserve that right then Witches should have been able to marry
animals and have sex with the dead... Because in their mind they're as
real as gays are in the gays mind.

And in the past the delusions of being a witch were so accepted by the
towns people that NOT only the witches believed they were witches but
the weak minded towns people believed it as well and they began to burn
the witches. It was a delusion in the heads of the witches and the towns
people were sucked into that delusion... just like today's delusions
that gays have and that the city Liberals are sucked into, they all
believe in this delusion that gay is real.... When it's all in their
head.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

> "AlleyCat" <a...@aohell.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.311a0816f...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 22:09:09 -0800, Dave Taylor says...
>>
>>> > Its brain doesn't even turn on completely until it's
>>> > born and takes its first breath.

A frog doesn't grow legs from day one, does that make it a fish until it
grows legs?

Tell whether a frog is a amphibian or a fish when it has NO legs.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

> "AlleyCat" <a...@aohell.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.311a0816f...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 22:09:09 -0800, Dave Taylor says...
>>
>>> > Its brain doesn't even turn on completely until it's
>>> > born and takes its first breath.

A frog doesn't grow legs from day one, does that make it a fish until it
grows legs?

Tell whether a frog is a amphibian or a fish when it has NO legs.

["""""""""""The life cycle is *completed* when they metamorphose into
adults. A few species deposit eggs on land or bypass the tadpole
stage."""""""""]

*Apparently a frog is a frog before it breathes air*


--
That's Karma





*Rumination*
"I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop
frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself."
-D. H. Lawrence-

[Unknown]

Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con> wrote in
news:VONry.291225$QG6....@fx31.iad:

Sounds like you have your mind made up before we start. Why start?

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

"Inside every old person is a young person
wondering what the hell happened!"

Terry Pratchett in The Times/UK

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Dave Taylor]

On what would we be starting?

[Alex W.]

On 02/02/2016 17:44, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

> Gay is all in your head and there is NO proof it exists it stays in your
> head and *never breaths* . How fucked up an idea is it that, to believe
> being gay is real and that it deserves any rights reserved to personhood.
>
> If gays deserve that right then Witches should have been able to marry
> animals and have sex with the dead... Because in their mind they're as
> real as gays are in the gays mind.

Reality isn't the issue.

Consent is.

Amazing how deniers never get that...

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Consent is irrelevant to the constitution, since an 8 year old can't
consent to sex and the Constitution makes it that way.

The fact two delusional people consent is meaningless since delusional
people are also incompetent like that 8 year old.

[Dechucka]

"Beam Me Up Scotty"
<Alinskyite-Liberals-attack-the-messenger-w...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
wrote in message news:1Yrsy.407810$qV1.2...@fx25.iad...

> On 02/03/2016 07:34 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>> On 02/02/2016 17:44, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>> Gay is all in your head and there is NO proof it exists it stays in your
>>> head and *never breaths* . How fucked up an idea is it that, to believe
>>> being gay is real and that it deserves any rights reserved to
>>> personhood.
>>>
>>> If gays deserve that right then Witches should have been able to marry
>>> animals and have sex with the dead... Because in their mind they're as
>>> real as gays are in the gays mind.
>>
>> Reality isn't the issue.
>>
>> Consent is.
>>
>> Amazing how deniers never get that...
>>
>>
> Consent is irrelevant to the constitution, since an 8 year old can't
> consent to sex and the Constitution makes it that way.
>
> The fact two delusional people consent is meaningless since delusional
> people are also incompetent like that 8 year old.

Finally an admission that you're incompetent