Ruth Ginsberg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
J
Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for a long
time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has no
undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones here
illegally. It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
dignity.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many
of'
In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973
Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as
she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday
but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon
titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html
� 2009 WorldNetDaily
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -
Socrates
Ray Fischer
>Once again I've been proven right;
Once agin you've been proven a nazi turd.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a56b96e$0$1642$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>Once again I've been proven right;
>
> Once agin you've been proven a nazi turd.
>
Once again, you prove my sig. true
Ray Fischer
>>>Once again I've been proven right;
>>
>> Once agin you've been proven a nazi turd.
>
>Once again, you prove my sig. true
If it's true then you lost when you called Ginsburg senile.
>--
>J Young
>Jvis...@live.com
>
>
>"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -
>Socrates
>
>
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Once again I've been proven right;
Once again you're proven to be a nazi turd.
>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
>Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
If one reads the actul interview is turns out that that's NOT what she
said at all, and the WhorledNutDaily is lying, as is naz turd.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Syd
> Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for a long
> time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has no
> undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones here
> illegally. It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
> dignity.
>
At least she still has hers; You lost yours long ago.
<Snip propaganda>
PDW
Sanity's Little Helper
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4a56b96e$0$1642$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>Once again I've been proven right;
>>
>> Once agin you've been proven a nazi turd.
>>
>
>
> Once again, you prove my sig. true
Slander is only possible if what is being said isn't true. Nazi is as Nazi
does, Josef.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"God" (n). A casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve
impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal
expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority,
resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that
should not be questioned.
Not authentic without this signature.
Sanity's Little Helper
> Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for a long
> time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has no
> undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones here
> illegally. It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
> dignity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
>
>
>
>
>
> Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many
> of'
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
> says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973
> Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as
> she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
>
> Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday
> but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon
> titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html
"JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v.
McRae 嚙碼 in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use
of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was
decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth
in populations that we don嚙踝蕭t want to have too many of. So that Roe was
going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some
people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they
didn嚙踝蕭t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came
out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been
altogether wrong."
Josef, I wouldn't expect you to be able to pick up on the nuances in a
complex statement, but since it was one, and you can't, the best policy on
your part is to not try to form an opinion about it. This might cause you
to cease to look like a complete moron.
Adam A. Wanderer
news:2v32j5....@news.alt.net...
> Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for a
> long time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has no
> undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones here
> illegally. It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
> dignity.
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
broadly enough. Until we have unrestrained, compulsive abortion everywhere,
our over populated society will continue to be flooded with filth. The
costs of dealing with the filth of society will keep going up and up and
never stop. Children destroy lives and happiness, they must be wiped from
the face of the Earth.
Baby, bad. Abortion, good.
LC
Caught in another lie, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:2v32j5....@news.alt.net...
> America has no undesirables
That's not what you've said in the past.
Remember?:
"America, with the exception of the jews and niggers, are not a
nation of pigs."
From: "J" <bi...@ass.com>
Message-ID: <1f4mfa....@news.alt.net>
Perhaps you'd like to clarify?
<crickets>
pnyikos
> On Jul 9, 11:37 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for a long
> > time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has no
> > undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones here
> > illegally.
I wonder...did "J" mean to suggest that Ginzburg has either handed
down rulings or made statements to that effect?
> >It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
> > dignity.
>
> At least she still has hers;
Does she? She used blatant propaganda, unbefitting a Supreme Court
Justice:
"The poor little woman, to regret the choice that she made."
Obvious sarcasm, and misogynist in the sense of suggesting that if a
woman regrets her choice, she's "a poor little woman." But the
propaganda didn't stop there:
"Unfortunately there is something of that in Roe. It’s not about the
women alone. It’s the women in consultation with her doctor."
She is even misrepresenting Roe. It did NOT say "the woman in
consultation with her doctor" which is shamelessly propagandistic; it
said "...with the attending physician [read: the abortionist]".
In ordinary conversation, when one refers to a woman and "her doctor"
one naturally thinks of "her family doctor" or "her gynecologist.."
Somebody ought to have asked Madame Ginzburg how often she thinks the
average abortion customer sees this doctor that is supposedly "hers"
and for how long.
But of course, the interview was for the New York Times, so she
naturally was tossed nothing more provocative than a few marshmallows.
But she wasn't even satisfied with that; the propaganda went on with:
"So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who
needs him."
If the interviewer had been like Katie Couric interviewing Sarah
Palin, the response to this might have been:
"Are you suggesting that it is irrelevant whether the abortion is
better for her health than carrying to term?"
If the answer is No, the follow-up question might be:
"Are you suggesting that a woman should make this decision on her
own, without even talking it over with the doctor giving her the
abortion?"
If the answer to the previous question is Yes, the follow-up question
might be:
"Well, in light of what you've just said, do you think all
restrictions on third trimester abortions should be ruled
unconstitutional?"
But this was the New York Times, and I think Madame Ginzburg is too
savvy to grant interviews to any but the most sympathetic reporters.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> It is an ancient Josef <Jvisi...@live.com>, and he posteth:
[...]
> >http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
>
> > Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
>
> > Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many
> > of'
>
> > In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
> > says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973
> > Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as
> > she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
>
> > Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday
> > but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon
> > titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html
>
> "JUSTICE GINSBURG: [...]Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was
> decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth
> in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
undesirables, in other words
> So that Roe was
> going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.
So that poor women would be able to get them without having to shell
out money for them. And most "undesirables" are poor, the "So" seems
to suggest.
>Which some
> people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they
> didn’t really want them.
"some people"--a perfect opportunity for a reporter wielding anything
except marshmallows to quiz Madame Ginzburg further on HER opinions--
did she think there was NO risk, or did she think coercion isn't a bad
thing where "populations that we don't want to have too many of" are
concerned?
>But when the court decided McRae, the case came
> out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been
> altogether wrong."
>
> Josef, I wouldn't expect you to be able to pick up on the nuances in a
> complex statement,
Oh, I think I did a pretty good job of it, even if "Josef" was over
the top. Did YOU pick up the nuances in her complex statement
involving the woman and "her doctor"? If not, have a look at the
followup I did to Syd a few minutes ago.
Peter Nyikos
Syd
> On Jul 10, 3:55 am, Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 11:37 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for a long
> > > time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has no
> > > undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones here
> > > illegally.
>
> I wonder...did "J" mean to suggest that Ginzburg has either handed
> down rulings or made statements to that effect?
>
> > >It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
> > > dignity.
>
> > At least she still has hers;
>
> Does she? She used blatant propaganda, unbefitting a Supreme Court
> Justice:
>
No.
PDW
pnyikos
> On Jul 10, 11:20 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 3:55 am, Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 11:37 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for a long
> > > > time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has no
> > > > undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones here
> > > > illegally.
> > I wonder...did "J" mean to suggest that Ginzburg has either handed
> > down rulings or made statements to that effect?
I saw nothing about deporting incarcerating criminals or illegal
aliens in the interview being referenced to this thread:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html
> > > >It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
> > > > dignity.
>
> > > At least she still has hers;
>
> > Does she? She used blatant propaganda, unbefitting a Supreme Court
> > Justice:
>
> No.
Denial isn't healthy, especially not the denial of those who fail to
address the arguments for the things they are denying.
Oh...wait...were you only saying No to the idea that blatant
propaganda is unbefitting a Supreme Court Justice?
:-)
Since I've added talk.abortion since I made my original comments, I am
reposting them below:
Sanity's Little Helper
> On Jul 10, 6:09 am, Sanity's Little Helper <elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>> It is an ancient Josef <Jvisi...@live.com>, and he posteth:
>
> [...]
>>>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
>>
>>> Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
>>
>>> Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many
>>> of'
>>
>>> In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
>>> says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973
>>> Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as
>>> she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
>>
>>> Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday
>>> but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon
>>> titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html
>>
>> "JUSTICE GINSBURG: [...]Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was
>> decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth
>> in populations that we donοΏ½t want to have too many of.
>
> undesirables, in other words
>
>> So that Roe was
>> going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.
>
> So that poor women would be able to get them without having to shell
> out money for them. And most "undesirables" are poor, the "So" seems
> to suggest.
>
>>Which some
>> people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they
>> didnοΏ½t really want them.
>
> "some people"--a perfect opportunity for a reporter wielding anything
> except marshmallows to quiz Madame Ginzburg further on HER opinions--
> did she think there was NO risk, or did she think coercion isn't a bad
> thing where "populations that we don't want to have too many of" are
> concerned?
>
>>But when the court decided McRae, the case came
>> out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been
>> altogether wrong."
>>
>> Josef, I wouldn't expect you to be able to pick up on the nuances in a
>> complex statement,
>
> Oh, I think I did a pretty good job of it,
No, you didn't, as you demonstrated above and in your reply to Syd. What
you did pick up was what you wanted to pick up, because typically of people
who like to pretend they are thinking for themselves, when in reality they
aren't, you willfully misconstrued things so that they could be understood
by your woefully inadequate intellect.
I'm not even going to bother helping you out here.
pnyikos
> It is an ancient pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>, and he posteth:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 6:09 am, Sanity's Little Helper <elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
> >> It is an ancient Josef <Jvisi...@live.com>, and he posteth:
>
> > [...]
> >>>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
>
> >>> Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
>
> >>> Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many
> >>> of'
>
> >>> In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
> >>> says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973
> >>> Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as
> >>> she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
>
> >>> Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday
> >>> but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon
> >>> titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html
>
> >> "JUSTICE GINSBURG: [...]Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was
> >> decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth
>
> > undesirables, in other words
>
> >> So that Roe was
> >> going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.
>
> > So that poor women would be able to get them without having to shell
> > out money for them. And most "undesirables" are poor, the "So" seems
> > to suggest.
>
> >>Which some
> >> people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they
>
> > "some people"--a perfect opportunity for a reporter wielding anything
> > except marshmallows to quiz Madame Ginzburg further on HER opinions--
> > did she think there was NO risk, or did she think coercion isn't a bad
> > thing where "populations that we don't want to have too many of" are
> > concerned?
>
> >>But when the court decided McRae, the case came
> >> out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been
> >> altogether wrong."
>
> >> Josef, I wouldn't expect you to be able to pick up on the nuances in a
> >> complex statement,
>
> > Oh, I think I did a pretty good job of it,
>
> No, you didn't, as you demonstrated above and in your reply to Syd. What
> you did pick up was what you wanted to pick up,
I picked up abortion-related material. Note the two abortion
newsgroups.
> because typically of people
> who like to pretend they are thinking for themselves, when in reality they
> aren't, you willfully misconstrued things
Anybody can say such things about anybody's analysis, turkey. The
trick is to back it up by pointing out the alleged misconstruals and
explain just why they are supposed to be misconstruals.
> so that they could be understood
> by your woefully inadequate intellect.
I am a Professor of Mathematics at the University of South Carolina.
What exalted position do you hold that allows you to write such
garbage about me?
> I'm not even going to bother helping you out here.
"help"? Hah! you are a coward who pretends to know better but in
reality is powerless to do anything except issue empty taunts.
> --
> David Silverman
> aa #2208
> Defender of Civilisation
That pretentious title is well described by words that you used to
describe something else:
> A casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve
> impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal
> expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority,
> resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that
> should not be questioned.
Peter Nyikos
Alan Ford
Witty, interesting and non-idiotic posters destroy happiness, they must
be wiped from the face of the Usenet.
Intelligence, bad. Stupidity, like your "sarcasm", good.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Spartakus
> > > Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for
> > > a long time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has
> > > no undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones
> > > here illegally.
> I wonder...did "J" mean to suggest that Ginzburg has either handed
> down rulings or made statements to that effect?
And here's another reason why there is doubt that the person posting
as Peter Nyikos really is Peter Nyikos: he takes hold of a complete
misrepresentation of what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginzburg said and
RUNS WITH IT. And his raw material is from a poster that Nyikos 2.1
himself has described as a "loose cannon".
Politics makes strange bedfellows or birds of a feather flock
together?
> > > It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
> > > dignity.
> > At least she still has hers;
> Does she? She used blatant propaganda, unbefitting a Supreme Court
> Justice:
>
> "The poor little woman, to regret the choice that she made."
>
> Obvious sarcasm, and misogynist in the sense of suggesting that if a
> woman regrets her choice, she's "a poor little woman." But the
> propaganda didn't stop there:
Obvious sarcasm directed at some people's patronizing attitude toward
women. Sheesh. For a PhD, Nyikos 2.1 sure has problems with reading
comprehension.
Syd
> On Jul 10, 12:17 pm, Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 11:20 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 3:55 am, Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 9, 11:37 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for a long
> > > > > time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has no
> > > > > undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones here
> > > > > illegally.
> > > I wonder...did "J" mean to suggest that Ginzburg has either handed
> > > down rulings or made statements to that effect?
>
> I saw nothing about deporting incarcerating criminals or illegal
> aliens in the interview being referenced to this thread:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html
>
> > > > >It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
> > > > > dignity.
>
> > > > At least she still has hers;
>
> > > Does she? She used blatant propaganda, unbefitting a Supreme Court
> > > Justice:
>
> > No.
>
> Denial isn't healthy, especially not the denial of those who fail to
> address the arguments for the things they are denying.
>
Since I'm only denying your propaganda, it's entiraly healthy.
> Oh...wait...were you only saying No to the idea that blatant
> propaganda is unbefitting a Supreme Court Justice?
> :-)
>
Actually, I was saying no to your propaganda.
<Snip rest of PNyikos whine>
PDW
Syd
Well, aren't you just a arrogant little stuffed suit.
Remind me not to bother with you again.
PDW
Sanity's Little Helper
> I am a Professor of Mathematics
Assuming that this is true, then shame on you, not least of all for
bandying statistics about as if they were gospel, expecting people not to
know the difference between correlation and causality (see our earlier
conversation), and, as you're supposed to be highly intelligent, shame on
you for being an anti-abortion propagandist.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"God" (n). A casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve
impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal
expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority,
resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that
should not be questioned.
Not authentic without this signature.
Mr. B
> many of'
I agree, we don't want populations of unwanted babies raised by teen
mothers.
-- B
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for
> > > > a long time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has
> > > > no undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones
> > > > here illegally.
> > I wonder...did "J" mean to suggest that Ginzburg has either handed
> > down rulings or made statements to that effect?
>
> And here's another reason why there is doubt that the person posting
subject, he speaks with great pompusness and gives an aura of knowing
exactly what he is talking about, and often has lots of websites
backing him up, possibly fed to him in e-mail. OTOH when he is
counterattacking on a thread where there has already been a lot of
activity, his posts very quickly degenerate into juvenile games.
>he takes hold of a complete
> misrepresentation of what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginzburg said and
> RUNS WITH IT.
I did NOT run with, or even crawl with, "incarcerate criminals" nor
with "deport illegal aliens," nor with "senile", nor "racist," nor
"old battle-ax", and I gave my own interpretation of "undesirables,"
quite distinct from that of "J", and a different analysis of what she
wrote even on that theme.
What's more, as you can see below, it was a bedfellow of "Spartakus"
who ran with a statement "J" made, while I cast doubt on it.
But such distinctions are all lost on Mr. Spartakus Hyde, the
"Spartakus" to whose post I am following up.
> And his raw material is from a poster that Nyikos 2.1
> himself has described as a "loose cannon".
Anyone reading this thread with a halfway alert mind can see that my
raw material is taken directly from that New York Times interview; but
reality never got in the way of SpartakusDebatingPoints, of which Mr.
Spartakus Hyde has already racked up three [one of which I deleted up
there] and immediately racks up a fourth, a pure "garbage out" to go
with the previous three bits of "garbage in":
> Politics makes strange bedfellows or birds of a feather flock
> together?
You and David Silverman certainly make strange bedfellows, although
the strangeness is mostly in comparison to the behavior of responsible
adults, and not in comparison to each other AFAIK.
However, you are somewhat stranger than him when it comes to
undermining your own claims. You left in one issue on which I had
quite a different take than "J" did. He wrote the following two
lines:
> > > > It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
> > > > dignity.
And Syd seized that statement and RAN WITH IT:
> > > At least she still has hers;
Whereas I posted severe doubts:
> > Does she? She used blatant propaganda, unbefitting a Supreme Court
> > Justice:
> > "The poor little woman, to regret the choice that she made."
>
> > Obvious sarcasm, and misogynist in the sense of suggesting that if a
> > woman regrets her choice, she's "a poor little woman." But the
> > propaganda didn't stop there:
>
> Obvious sarcasm directed at some people's patronizing attitude toward
> women.
And what was that patronizing attitude? Why, it was something Madame
Ginsburg's fan Emily Brazelton characterized in this way:
"Justice Kennedy in his opinion for the majority [in Gonzales v.
Carhart] characterized women as regretting the choice to have an
abortion, and then talked about how they need to be shielded from
knowing the specifics of what they’d done."
I don't recall such a passage, but that second clause seems like
obvious sarcasm directed at those who oppose informed consent laws
[such as an overwhelming majority of abortion rights posters to
alt.abortion and talk.abortion, AFAIK] while the first may be a Black
and White Meltdown of a "gray" statement by Justice Kennedy.
And if my suspicions are correct, Ginsburg was being sarcastic
precisely because she thought it "patronizing" to claim that the
majority of women regret their abortions.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jul 10, 12:43 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 12:17 pm, Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 11:20 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 10, 3:55 am, Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 9, 11:37 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for a long
> > > > > > time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has no
> > > > > > undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones here
> > > > > > illegally.
> > > > I wonder...did "J" mean to suggest that Ginzburg has either handed
> > > > down rulings or made statements to that effect?
>
> > I saw nothing about deporting incarcerating criminals or illegal
> > aliens in the interview being referenced to this thread:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html
>
> > > > > >It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
> > > > > > dignity.
>
> > > > > At least she still has hers;
>
> > > > Does she? She used blatant propaganda, unbefitting a Supreme Court
> > > > Justice:
>
> > > No.
>
> > Denial isn't healthy, especially not the denial of those who fail to
> > address the arguments for the things they are denying.
>
> Since I'm only denying your propaganda, it's entiraly healthy.
Since you aren't even trying to show that it is propaganda, I stand by
what I said.
> > Oh...wait...were you only saying No to the idea that blatant
> > propaganda is unbefitting a Supreme Court Justice?
> > :-)
>
> Actually, I was saying no to your
...statement that she was engaged in propaganda, but burying your head
in the sand about my evidence.
> <Snip rest of PNyikos whine>
WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
were it made logically consistent and defined
broadly enough to encompass the most influential
uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
it would mean "anything that can be construed,
in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
and hence would encompass much or all
of each of the following:
the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
Manifesto, Mark Antony's funeral oration
in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
John the Baptist's denunciation of
Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
No, I'm not--David Silverman is, as you can see from his whole
behavior and especially his pretentious "title". But of course, he is
your ideological bedfellow, as is Spartakus, so you post according to
the words of the three witches in Macbeth:
Fair is foul, and foul is fair
Hover through the fog and filthy air.
--Act I, Scene 1
The second line is optional, of course.
> Remind me not to bother with you again.
Indeed, you'd best leave the arguing up to "Spartakus", who is quite
the pro at polemic. You are obviously an amateur.
Peter Nyikos
Day Brown
> Obvious sarcasm directed at some people's patronizing attitude toward
> women. Sheesh. For a PhD, Nyikos 2.1 sure has problems with reading
> comprehension.
available. I'm nearly done with my harvest of Queen Anne's Lace if you
want to go into the abortion business. I can send some seed, and prolly
already have enuf harvested for a few dozen abortions.
No appointment, no protester line, no adoption sermon, no parental
consent, no doctor bill, and no problem with pharmacists. Dont get a
whole lot simpler than that. Fed X can have a dose at your door in
couple days.
The PHD still seems to think that what Ginsberg and SCOTUS says matters.
But that's all right. The more draconian the law, the more young women
will seek out the advice of herbal alchemists and witches, which will
help them get rid of guilt tripping Christianity as well. Two abortions
for a trivial price at once.
What he thinks does not matter except it reminds me to post about the
herbal alternative so that more young women will likely come across it.
pnyikos
> It is an ancient pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>, and he posteth:
>
> > I am a Professor of Mathematics
>
> Assuming that this is true, then shame on you, not least of all for
> bandying statistics about as if they were gospel,
Which statistics would those be?
>expecting people not to
> know the difference between correlation and causality (see our earlier
> conversation),
I corrected my careless words. Being a pure rather than applied
mathematician, I have no day-to-day contact with such strictly
positivistic themes.
At least I don't post like a philosopher: David Hume denied the very
meaningfulness of the concept of "causality and said there is only
constant conjunction, and there are quite a few authors of philosophy
books who act as though he had never been refuted.
>and, as you're supposed to be highly intelligent, shame on
> you for being an anti-abortion propagandist.
With the "propagandist" part, you are committing the elementary
fallacy of Begging the Question.
With your opening clause, you are introducing a little understood
version of the *ad hominem* fallacy: the fallacy of saying
"If you are ____________[flattering description]_____________,
you obviously can't subscribe to
_____[POV to which the utterer is opposed]____________".
Classic example: Ayn Rand to Willilam F. Buckley, Jr.: "You are too
intelligent to believe in Gott!"
> --
> David Silverman
> aa #2208
> Defender of Civilisation
> "God" (n). A casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve
> impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal
> expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority,
> resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that
> should not be questioned.
Ayn Rand and you were obvious ideological bedfellows, at least where
the supernatural is concerned. How about otherwise?:
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> On Jul 10, 9:24 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > > Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for
> > > > > a long time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has
> > > > > no undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones
> > > > > here illegally.
> > > I wonder...did "J" mean to suggest that Ginzburg has either handed
> > > down rulings or made statements to that effect?
> > And here's another reason why there is doubt that the person posting
> as "Spartakus" is really one person: when he initiates posting on a
> subject, he speaks with great pompusness and gives an aura of knowing
> exactly what he is talking about, and often has lots of websites
> backing him up, possibly fed to him in e-mail.
Projection: ur doin it right.
> OTOH when he is counterattacking on a thread where there has already
> been a lot of activity, his posts very quickly degenerate into juvenile games.
Oh well... can't please everyone.
> > he takes hold of a complete misrepresentation of what Supreme
> > Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg said and RUNS WITH IT.
> I did NOT run with, or even crawl with, "incarcerate criminals" nor
> with "deport illegal aliens," nor with "senile", nor "racist," nor
> "old battle-ax", and I gave my own interpretation of "undesirables,"
> quite distinct from that of "J", and a different analysis of what she
> wrote even on that theme.
Even the best-conditioned runners have to stop and walk once in a
while. Anyway, the misrepresentation that had JYoung/IBen and PiNhead
so excited about is a statement taken out of context:
"Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae
- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which
forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had
thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was
concern about population growth and particularly growth
in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
funding for abortion."
But she went on to say:
"Which some people felt would risk coercing women
into having abortions when they didn’t really want them.
But when the court decided McRae, the case came out
the other way. And then I realized that my perception
of it had been altogether wrong."
I've read some history on the genesis of the pro-natalist (anti-birth-
control, anti-abortion) movement, and a big factor in that genesis was
suspicion about the motives of eugenics advocates. What Ginsburg
seems to be saying is that she was concerned that Medicare funds would
be used to coerce or force women to have abortions - especially poor
or minority women. Of course, you don't get that if you don't see the
second part of her statement. Which is probably why it doesn't appear
in wingnut summaries of Ginsburg's statements.
Oh, did you want an extended meta-discussion of this and that? Sorry.
Spartakus
> I am a Professor of Mathematics at the University of South Carolina.
Whoop-de-doo.
> What exalted position do you hold that allows you to write such
> garbage about me?
You're not pulling rank on us, are you?
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 11, 12:01 am, Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 12:43 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Jul 10, 12:17 pm, Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > On Jul 10, 11:20 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > > Does she? She used blatant propaganda, unbefitting a Supreme Court
>> > > > Justice:
>>
>> > > No.
>>
>> > Denial isn't healthy, especially not the denial of those who fail to
>> > address the arguments for the things they are denying.
>>
>> Since I'm only denying your propaganda, it's entiraly healthy.
>
>Since you aren't even trying to show that it is propaganda, I stand by
>what I said.
Ah, so it's propaganda when YOU say it is but not when anybody else
says it is.
Once again we see that fauxNy considers that whatever he says must be
treated as The Truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well, aren't you just a arrogant little stuffed suit.
>
>No, I'm not-
Like hell you're not. You keep insisting that everybody should just
accept your every statement.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4a56b96e$0$1642$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>Once again I've been proven right;
>>
>> Once agin you've been proven a nazi turd.
>Once again, you prove my sig. true
Thanks for again displaying your idiocy, Junkie. I know you've been five
cents short of a nickel for at least a couple of decades.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: The 2009-10 opener in October, TBA
pnyikos
> Spartakus wrote:
> > Obvious sarcasm directed at some people's patronizing attitude toward
> > women. Sheesh. For a PhD, Nyikos 2.1 sure has problems with reading
> > comprehension.
>
> Yeah, I noticed that.
Like hell you did.
> I already posted that herbal abortions are now
> available.
What do you mean "now," turkey? see below.
>I'm nearly done with my harvest of Queen Anne's Lace if you
> want to go into the abortion business. I can send some seed, and prolly
> already have enuf harvested for a few dozen abortions.
Good luck on succeeding at even ONE without landing the unfortunate
customer in the hospital.
Joseph Dellapena, after mentioning some "abortifacients"of bygone days
thay were completely ineffectual (including raw eggs and goat dung),
went on to write on pp. 373-374 of University of Pittsburgh Law
Review, v. 40, 1979, in "The History of Abortion: Technology,
Morality, and Law":
When these methods failed, a woman could ingest substances
which would cause abortions, but only if taken in dangerous
quantities. [85] Oil of savin for example, is a very ancient
abortifacient. Frederick Taussig reports one study which
found 21 instances of attempted abortions by means of this
drug, in ten of which attempts there was an abortion.
Unfortunately, nine of the "successful" women died, as well
as four of the "unsuccessful" ones. [86]
[86] F. Taussig, _Abortion Spontaneous and Induced_(1936) at 353.
Each of the following drugs has a reference listed for it in the
footnotes. I have omitted all but one of these citations, the one for
tansy, which I have seen mentioned back in the mid-90's by some
gullible pro-choicer.
Other such drugs included assarabacca, castor oil, cloves, ergot,
hellebore, nutmeg, quinine, rue, saffron, sassafras, tansy tea [97],
thyme, and yarrow. If none of these induced the abortion, one
might ingest a variety of substances which were highly toxic
even in small quantities. These included aloes, apiole, arsenic,
cantharides, cedar, snake venom, and a variety of metal salts.
[97] Taussig, at 353. Although quite popular, tansy is rather
ineffective, and quite deadly. See C. Millspaugh, American
medicinal plants, pl.86 (1887)
> No appointment, no protester line, no adoption sermon, no parental
> consent, no doctor bill,
Lotsa luck--you're gonna need it.
> and no problem with pharmacists. Dont get a
> whole lot simpler than that. Fed X can have a dose at your door in
> couple days.
What will you do about irate customers?
> The PHD still seems to think that what Ginsberg and SCOTUS says matters.
It does, because these abortifacients are especially dicey after 10
weeks LMP, and it is THEIR permission for elective abortions beyond
that point that I object to.
You haven't a clue as to where I'm coming from, do you?
> What he thinks does not matter except it reminds me to post about the
> herbal alternative so that more young women will likely come across it.
Spare naive women your "favors".
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
wrote:
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 9:24 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I've read some history on the genesis of the pro-natalist (anti-birth-
> control, anti-abortion) movement, and a big factor in that genesis was
> suspicion about the motives of eugenics advocates.
And well-founded suspicion it was too. Have you read anything about
the anti-natalist, pro-eugenics, pro-sterilization, pro-population
control movement?
> What Ginsburg
> seems to be saying is that she was concerned that Medicare funds would
> be used to coerce or force women to have abortions - especially poor
> or minority women.
Yes, I posted already about that to this thread in response to someone
more congenial than Mr. Spartakus Hyde. It's nice to be talking to
Dr. Spartakus Jekyll for a change.
> Of course, you don't get that if you don't see the
> second part of her statement.
I not only saw it, but posted on it as mentioned just now. But since
you mention things like coercion, etc. let me quote something to you
which also mentions populations "we don't want to have too much of":
Unfortunately, and amazingly, problems with the
Indian Health Service seem to persist: its clinics
gave up to 200 Native American women the hormonal
shot Depo-Provera in 1987, despite the fact that
the FDA had not yet approved its use. [102]
More recently, in South Dakota, IHS was again
accused of not following informed consent procedures,
this time for Norplant, and apparently promoted
the long-acting hormonal contraceptive to Native
American women whyo should not use it due to
contraindicating, pre-existing medical conditions.
[103] The Native American Women's Health Education
Resource Center reports that one woman was recently
told by her doctors that they would remove the
implant only if she would agree to a tubal
ligation. [104]
-- Angela Franks, _Margaret_Sanger's_Eugenic_Legacy_:
The_Control_of_Female_Fertility_, pp. 168-9.
Endnotes:
[102] Asoka Bandarage, _Women, Population, and Global
Crisis: A Political-Economic Analysis_ (London:
Zed Books, 1997), p. 83.
[104] Hartmann, Betsy, 1995. _Reproductive Rights and
Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control_.
Second ed. Boston: South End Press. p. 212
[105] Ibid.
[comments by Mr. Spartakus Hyde deleted]
Peter Nyikos
Day Brown
prevent herbivores from developing a taste for them. Bachelor Button,
Motherwort, Wild Yam, Queen Anne's Lace, Blessed Thistle, and most
powerful I know of, Claviceps Purpurea.
They have compounds, like phytoestrogen that cause sterility or
miscarriage. Midwives have always used the last to create much stronger
uterine contractions during birth, but it'll work any time. 1st, 2nd, or
3rd trimester.
Of course, a woman would want to be medically checked out after, but the
report will simply list it as a "Miscarriage". No coathangers or even
surgical tools and procedures are necessary. Abortion doctors will have
to find a new line of work. So, we wont be seeing any more "abortions".
End of problem. Isnt that nice?
Ray Fischer
> 10:17�pm, Dr. Spartakus Jekyll <sparta...@my-deja.com>
>> > On Jul 10, 9:24 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> I've read some history on the genesis of the pro-natalist (anti-birth-
>> control, anti-abortion) movement, and a big factor in that genesis was
>> suspicion about the motives of eugenics advocates.
>
>And well-founded suspicion it was too. Have you read anything about
>the anti-natalist, pro-eugenics, pro-sterilization, pro-population
>control movement?
I'm not aware of any movement that proposes to force sterilization and
force abortion upon people.
Are you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> Believe in evolution? Many plants and fungi evolved biochemicals to
> prevent herbivores from developing a taste for them. Bachelor Button,
> Motherwort, Wild Yam, Queen Anne's Lace, Blessed Thistle, and most
> powerful I know of, Claviceps Purpurea.
You might try looking up that Dellapenna article that I posted in
response to Day Brown, and also the Taussig book, to see which of
these are listed there.
>They have compounds, like phytoestrogen that cause sterility or
> miscarriage. Midwives have always used the last to create much stronger
> uterine contractions during birth, but it'll work any time. 1st, 2nd, or
> 3rd trimester.
Reference?
> Of course, a woman would want to be medically checked out after, but the
> report will simply list it as a "Miscarriage". No coathangers or even
> surgical tools and procedures are necessary. Abortion doctors will have
> to find a new line of work. So, we wont be seeing any more "abortions".
*IF* the substance is as safe and effective as you suggest [what do
you KNOW about that?], there is still the problem of live birth during
the third trimester. Will you be suggesting infanticide as a backup,
the way abortion is routinely used as a backup in case of
contraceptive failure?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> "Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae
> - in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which
> forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had
> thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was
> concern about population growth and particularly growth
> in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
> So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
> funding for abortion."
>
> But she went on to say:
>
> "Which some people felt would risk coercing women
> into having abortions when they didn’t really want them.
> But when the court decided McRae, the case came out
> the other way. And then I realized that my perception
> of it had been altogether wrong."
>
> I've read some history on the genesis of the pro-natalist (anti-birth-
> control, anti-abortion) movement, and a big factor in that genesis was
> suspicion about the motives of eugenics advocates. What Ginsburg
> seems to be saying is that she was concerned that Medicare funds would
> be used to coerce or force women to have abortions - especially poor
> or minority women.
Medicaid, not Medicare. Here is something that came just before the
passage I quoted for you last time that speaks directly to that:
Based on her own research, Native American
physician Constance Redbird Uri estimated
that up to one-quarter of Indian women of
childbearing age had been sterilized by
1977; in one hospital in Oklahoma,
one-fourth of the women admitted (for any
reason) left sterilized. [99] She reported
that a doctor told her that he had performed
a hysterectomy on one Native American woman,
instead of a much simpler and safer
operation that would have preserved the
woman's fertility, because, he claimed,
"the Indian woman's tissue is different."
She also gathered evidence that all the
pureblood women of the Kaw tribe in
Oklahoma were sterilized in the 1970s--
a truly genocidal process. [100]
This campaign of coerced sterilization
begun in the mid-1960s had predecessors:
for example, in the 1930s the Abenaki
Native American tribe in Vermont was
especially targeted for sterilization. [101]
p. 167
Endnotes:
[99] Thomas Shapiro, _Population Control
Politics: Women, Sterilization, and
Reproductive Choice_ (Philadelphia:
Temple University Press, 1985), 91-92
[100] Ellen Barry, "Eugenics Victims are
Heard at Last," *Boston Globe*,
August 15, 1999, B1, B6; Ellen Barry,
"Pages from Past Breed Uneasiness,"
*Boston Globe*, August 7, 1999, A1, B4.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<bc39ea15-9b7d-4f07...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 1:15�pm, Sanity's Little Helper <elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
[...]
> > so that they could be understood
> > by your woefully inadequate intellect.
>
> I am a Professor of Mathematics at the University of South Carolina.
> What exalted position do you hold that allows you to write such
> garbage about me?
peter nyikos *is*, not you.
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I've read some history on the genesis of the pro-natalist (anti-birth-
> > control, anti-abortion) movement, and a big factor in that genesis was
> > suspicion about the motives of eugenics advocates. What Ginsburg
> > seems to be saying is that she was concerned that Medicare funds
> > would be used to coerce or force women to have abortions - especially
> > poor or minority women.
>
> Medicaid, not Medicare.
Whaddever. I meant to say that other thing.
> Here is something that came just before the passage
> I quoted for you last time that speaks directly to that:
>
> Based on her own research, Native American
> physician Constance Redbird Uri estimated
> that up to one-quarter of Indian women of
> childbearing age had been sterilized by
> 1977; in one hospital in Oklahoma,
> one-fourth of the women admitted (for any
> reason) left sterilized.
[...]
That was part of the federal government's implementation of the 1970
Family Planning Act, signed into law by notorious eugenicist Richard
M. Nixon. The program remained active until Jimmy Carter took office
in 1977.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/sterilize.html
Forced/coerced sterilization is about as anti-choice as one can get.
Osprey
>
> >http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
> >Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
>
> said at all, and the WhorledNutDaily is lying, as is naz turd.
First when I saw this and saw J was posting something from WND, I was
almost prepared to totally dismiss it. Then I came across the actual
interview, and I have some questions about what she said.
Here is the interview.
From the New York Times Magazine interview:
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a
future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out.
There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just
seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion
laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back.
So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be
otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in
parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because
there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also,
the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v.
McRae -- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids
the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the
time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and
particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many
of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for
abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having
abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court
decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized
that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
--------------------------------------------
Now, explain what she meant by
"concern about population growth"
and...
"particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too
many of".
What populations is she refering too that she didn't want to have too
many of?
They might have distorted what she said, but in fact..what she did say
would leave many questioning her.
Osprey
> > Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for
> > > > a long time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has
> > > > no undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones
> > > > here illegally.
> > I wonder...did "J" mean to suggest that Ginzburg has either handed
> > down rulings or made statements to that effect?
>
> And here's another reason why there is doubt that the person posting
> as Peter Nyikos really is Peter Nyikos: he takes hold of a complete
> misrepresentation of what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginzburg said and
> RUNS WITH IT. And his raw material is from a poster that Nyikos 2.1
> himself has described as a "loose cannon".
I read what she said and I have questions.
What did she mean when she said..
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was
concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations
that we don't want to have too many of."
Population growth?
Populations that we don't want to have too many of?
You explain what she meant.
Osprey
The common liberal cop out.
Sparky is saying what she "seems" to be saying.
Take note that a liberal will go to GREAT lengths to defend another
liberal.
What did she mean Sparky with populations we don't want too many of?
What populations is she referring to?
IAAH
What she meant is quite obvious *if* you include the rest of
her thought in the quote.
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided,
there was concern about population growth and particularly
growth in populations that we don�t want to have too many
of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk
coercing women into having abortions when they didn�t really
want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came
out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of
it had been altogether wrong."
You apparently can't include her entire thought.
--
"...it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep
your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand:
'Sit down and shut up,' but that's the worthless, easy path;
that's a quitter's way out."
- Sarah Palin, as she quits her job half-way through her term.
Osprey
No, it's not.
>*if*
Here is where you liberals make up parameters. Take note : "If"
you include the rest of
> her thought in the quote.
>
> "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided,
> there was concern about population growth and particularly
> growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many
> of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
> funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk
> coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really
> want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came
> out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of
> it had been altogether wrong."
>
> You apparently can't include her entire thought.
You apparentely are scrambling to help save yet another liberal who
made a stupid statement.
Nothing new, it's expected.
O.k., you couldn't actually answer my questions. Who did she mean by
"populations" that we don't want to have too many of.
Anyone else want to try to answer that? IAAH failed
IAAH
Yes, it is. At least, when you put in the whole quote, not
just the bit you want to use to make her look bad.
>
>> *if*
>
> Here is where you liberals make up parameters. Take note : "If"
Imagine actually including the entirety of the quote,
instead of cherry-picking and changing how the quote can be
interpreted.
Just imagine, for once in your life, being honest. You'll
have to work hard, it'd be pretty unfamiliar territory for you.
>
> you include the rest of
>> her thought in the quote.
>>
>> "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided,
>> there was concern about population growth and particularly
>> growth in populations that we don�t want to have too many
>> of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
>> funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk
>> coercing women into having abortions when they didn�t really
>> want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came
>> out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of
>> it had been altogether wrong."
>>
>> You apparently can't include her entire thought.
>
> You apparentely are scrambling to help save yet another liberal who
> made a stupid statement.
> Nothing new, it's expected.
What's stupid about that quote when its taken in its
entirety? Go ahead and explain.
It's clear that she was speaking of her perception of why
Roe was decided the way it was, and how she realized that
her original perception of the motivation behind the
decision was wrong.
>
> O.k., you couldn't actually answer my questions. Who did she mean by
> "populations" that we don't want to have too many of.
Oh my god, I didn't think it was possible for you to be this
stupid or dishonest. I guess it's good to learn one thing
every day, isn't it? You should try it.
It's clear that she was speaking of her *perception* of why
Roe was decided the way it was, not of any desires she might
have had about population control or whatever other shit
you're trying to pin on her; and it's also clear that she
says her early perceptions of the motivation behind the
decision were wrong.
Your attempts to distort her statement by not including the
entire thing are pathetic, but not surprising.
>
> Anyone else want to try to answer that? IAAH failed
Actually, since her entire quote is plain to understand,
we're going to have to go with it being your failure. I
realize that you will be unable to understand what I've
written up there.
Spartakus
You're repeating PiNhead's tactic^H^H^H^H^H^Hmistake, Bobby. Read the
*entire* quote:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was
decided, there was concern about population
growth and particularly growth in populations
that we don’t want to have too many of. So
that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
funding for abortion. Which some people felt would
risk coercing women into having abortions when
they didn’t really want them. But when the court
decided McRae, the case came out the other
way. And then I realized that my perception of
it had been altogether wrong."
See, she had this perception that Roe was part of a population control
effort. But then she realized that her perception was wrong.
By the same token, you and PiNhead and many other wingnuts had this
perception that Ginsburg was saying the sort of things that Margaret
Sanger was accused of saying. This *mis*perception was created when
you only saw part of what she said in that interview. Now that you've
seen the whole statement in a larger context, you can see that your
perception was wrong. Right?
Spartakus
> The common liberal cop out.
Yeah, putting the *entire* statement in context is such a cop out.
Like the time you wrote:
"I am a child molester"
Message ID: <I0qdnYyFwbY3veeiXTW...@comcast.com>
When that statement was brought to everyone's attention, you claimed
you were quoted out of context. That was such a cop out!
IAAH
> that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
> funding for abortion. Which some people felt would
> risk coercing women into having abortions when
> decided McRae, the case came out the other
> way. And then I realized that my perception of
> it had been altogether wrong."
>
> See, she had this perception that Roe was part of a population control
> effort. But then she realized that her perception was wrong.
>
> By the same token, you and PiNhead and many other wingnuts had this
> perception that Ginsburg was saying the sort of things that Margaret
> Sanger was accused of saying. This *mis*perception was created when
> you only saw part of what she said in that interview. Now that you've
> seen the whole statement in a larger context, you can see that your
> perception was wrong. Right?
No, he can't (won't). What he really wants is for a
'liberal' to tell him that Sotomayor really wanted to
exterminate all the Jews (blacks, Mexicans, Asians, take
your pick) in vitro, because that's pretty much where he's
going on this one, regardless of what she actually said.
IAAH
> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 10, 9:24 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>> Even the best-conditioned runners have to stop and walk once in a
>>> while. Anyway, the misrepresentation that had JYoung/IBen and PiNhead
>>> so excited about is a statement taken out of context:
>>> "Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae
>>> - in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which
>>> forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had
>>> thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was
>>> concern about population growth and particularly growth
>>> So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
>>> funding for abortion."
>>> But she went on to say:
>>> "Which some people felt would risk coercing women
>>> But when the court decided McRae, the case came out
>>> the other way. And then I realized that my perception
>>> of it had been altogether wrong."
>>> I've read some history on the genesis of the pro-natalist (anti-birth-
>>> control, anti-abortion) movement, and a big factor in that genesis was
>>> suspicion about the motives of eugenics advocates. What Ginsburg
>>> seems to be saying is that she was concerned that Medicare funds would
>>> be used to coerce or force women to have abortions - especially poor
>>> or minority women. Of course, you don't get that if you don't see the
>>> second part of her statement. Which is probably why it doesn't appear
>>> in wingnut summaries of Ginsburg's statements.
>
>> The common liberal cop out.
>
> Yeah, putting the *entire* statement in context is such a cop out.
> Like the time you wrote:
>
> "I am a child molester"
> Message ID: <I0qdnYyFwbY3veeiXTW...@comcast.com>
>
> When that statement was brought to everyone's attention, you claimed
> you were quoted out of context. That was such a cop out!
Damn, I was waiting for him to go off on one of his "context
doesn't matter" tangents about what Sotomayor said and then
pull that out. That'll teach me to hang fire.
james g. keegan jr.
<b2c81f2f-2f7e-42d8...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
coward bobby heishman resents having the standards he applies to others
applied to him
james g. keegan jr.
IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> Spartakus wrote, On 7/17/09 6:40 PM:
> > Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 10, 9:24 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Even the best-conditioned runners have to stop and walk once in a
> >>> while. Anyway, the misrepresentation that had JYoung/IBen and PiNhead
> >>> so excited about is a statement taken out of context:
> >>> "Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae
> >>> - in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which
> >>> forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had
> >>> thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was
> >>> concern about population growth and particularly growth
> >>> in populations that we don�t want to have too many of.
> >>> So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
> >>> funding for abortion."
> >>> But she went on to say:
> >>> "Which some people felt would risk coercing women
> >>> into having abortions when they didn�t really want them.
> >>> But when the court decided McRae, the case came out
> >>> the other way. And then I realized that my perception
> >>> of it had been altogether wrong."
> >>> I've read some history on the genesis of the pro-natalist (anti-birth-
> >>> control, anti-abortion) movement, and a big factor in that genesis was
> >>> suspicion about the motives of eugenics advocates. What Ginsburg
> >>> seems to be saying is that she was concerned that Medicare funds would
> >>> be used to coerce or force women to have abortions - especially poor
> >>> or minority women. Of course, you don't get that if you don't see the
> >>> second part of her statement. Which is probably why it doesn't appear
> >>> in wingnut summaries of Ginsburg's statements.
> >
> >> The common liberal cop out.
> >
> > Yeah, putting the *entire* statement in context is such a cop out.
> > Like the time you wrote:
> >
> > "I am a child molester"
> > Message ID: <I0qdnYyFwbY3veeiXTW...@comcast.com>
> >
> > When that statement was brought to everyone's attention, you claimed
> > you were quoted out of context. That was such a cop out!
>
> Damn, I was waiting for him to go off on one of his "context
> doesn't matter" tangents about what Sotomayor said and then
> pull that out. That'll teach me to hang fire.
in coward bobby's defense, i doubt he understands what spartacus wrote
or what you just said.
Osprey
So much for liberals thinking abortion isn't "birth control". Now
you've just added another nail to the lies liberals tell. You admit
she thought it was for "population control".
>But then she realized that her perception was wrong.
She was much more wrong than just that, she made a very irresponsible
and stupid statement.
Who is she referring to in "populations" in her quote?
<snip> your dribble is nothing.
Osprey
No one believed it except for a few fools like you. What can I say,
fools are easily mislead.
You choose to be a fool, not my fault.
IAAH
>> that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
>> funding for abortion. Which some people felt would
>> risk coercing women into having abortions when
>> decided McRae, the case came out the other
>> way. And then I realized that my perception of
>> it had been altogether wrong."
>>
>> See, she had this perception that Roe was part of a population control
>> effort.
>
> So much for liberals thinking abortion isn't "birth control". Now
> you've just added another nail to the lies liberals tell. You admit
> she thought it was for "population control".
Are you being deliberately obtuse? She wasn't saying she was
in favour of population control, she was worried at first
that such a thing was behind the decision!
Prove us wrong, Dingus. If you can.
Osprey
> >> that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
> >> funding for abortion. Which some people felt would
> >> risk coercing women into having abortions when
> >> decided McRae, the case came out the other
> >> way. And then I realized that my perception of
> >> it had been altogether wrong."
>
> >> See, she had this perception that Roe was part of a population control
> >> effort.
>
> > So much for liberals thinking abortion isn't "birth control". Now
> > you've just added another nail to the lies liberals tell. You admit
> > she thought it was for "population control".
>
> Are you being deliberately obtuse? She wasn't saying she was
> in favour of population control, she was worried at first
> that such a thing was behind the decision!
Who was she referring to when she said "populations"?
That's the question you couldn't answer from the very start, you have
to throw parameters into it.
Liberals, lie..all the time.
IAAH
She was referring to whatever groups she was afraid would be
coerced into abortion, you idiot.
Can you read? I am honestly starting to doubt that.
>
> That's the question you couldn't answer from the very start, you have
> to throw parameters into it.
"Parameters". You mean, like the correct quote? Like that
parameter? Proper context instead of a lying clip-job?
I guess you didn't learn from your written statement that
you're a paedophile, then; because if context doesn't matter
for Ginsburg, it certainly doesn't matter for you.
> Liberals, lie..all the time.
Show where the full quote is a lie, then, or where anything
I've written in this thread can be called a lie in any way.
Oh, before you notice and get all WATB about it, I said
"Sotomayor" earlier instead of Ginsburg. That's corrected now.
Day Brown
> Now, explain what she meant by
>
> "concern about population growth"
> and...
> "particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too
> many of".
>
> What populations is she refering too that she didn't want to have too
> many of?
>
> They might have distorted what she said, but in fact..what she did say
> would leave many questioning her.
or did it rather result in more thugs to make more victims to send his
way a little sooner?
Did we really want, which we have got since abortion law became more
draconian, an increase in prison populations?
Day Brown
> What did she mean Sparky with populations we don't want too many of?
>
> What populations is she referring to?
would have reduced prison populations.
Ray Fischer
Again you show yourself to be an illiterate dumbshit. She did NOT say
that she wanted limited population growth, Asshole. She said that
there was some concern - not that she had some concern.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Again, you like to stereotype and seperate American's based on their
political preference.
Asshole heishman in <5-GdnSNYcqF...@comcast.com>
It seems rather strange how so many like to stereotype
Asshole heishman in <PNidnQZLDce...@comcast.com>
You see, certain people are not worth trying to discuss anything with.
Because they have nothing worthy to offer, and all they do is look
for things to insult people with. That is you. Which is why I don't
discuss anything with you. You are immature, not capable of
discussing a issue, and basically a bigot. So I decided to drop any
conversation with you.
Asshole heishman in <8912d58d.03081...@posting.google.com>
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Osprey wrote, On 7/17/09 5:22 PM:
>> You explain what she meant.
>
>What she meant is quite obvious *if* you include the rest of
>her thought in the quote.
>
>"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided,
>there was concern about population growth and particularly
>growth in populations that we don�t want to have too many
>of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
>funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk
>coercing women into having abortions when they didn�t really
>want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came
>out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of
>it had been altogether wrong."
>
>You apparently can't include her entire thought.
Comparing heishman's intellect with Ginsburg's is like comparing
a Big Wheel trike with a Lamborghini Murciélao. He is simply
incapable of understanding language beyond the 10th-grade level.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
elizabeth
> IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >Osprey wrote, On 7/17/09 5:22 PM:
> >> You explain what she meant.
>
> >What she meant is quite obvious *if* you include the rest of
> >her thought in the quote.
>
> >"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided,
> >there was concern about population growth and particularly
> >growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many
> >of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
> >funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk
> >coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really
> >want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came
> >out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of
> >it had been altogether wrong."
>
> >You apparently can't include her entire thought.
>
> Comparing heishman's intellect with Ginsburg's is like comparing
> incapable of understanding language beyond the 10th-grade level.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
Huh. He wasn't up the the 10th grade level in *my* high school. They
didn't have Special Ed back then.
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > You're repeating PiNhead's tactic^H^H^H^H^H^Hmistake, Bobby. Read
> > the *entire* quote:
>
> > "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was
> > decided, there was concern about population
> > growth and particularly growth in populations
> > that we don’t want to have too many of. So
> > that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
> > funding for abortion. Which some people felt would
> > risk coercing women into having abortions when
> > they didn’t really want them. But when the court
> > decided McRae, the case came out the other
> > way. And then I realized that my perception of
> > it had been altogether wrong."
> >
> > See, she had this perception that Roe was part of a population control
> > effort.
> So much for liberals thinking abortion isn't "birth control". Now
> you've just added another nail to the lies liberals tell. You admit
> she thought it was for "population control".
Birth control. Population control.
One of these things is not like the other. You are an idiot.
> >But then she realized that her perception was wrong.
> She was much more wrong than just that, she made a very
> irresponsible and stupid statement.
And when it comes to personal experience at making irresponsible and
stupid statements, you take the cake.
Spartakus
> > Yeah, putting the *entire* statement in context is such a cop out.
> > Like the time you wrote:
> >
> > "I am a child molester"
> > Message ID: <I0qdnYyFwbY3veeiXTW...@comcast.com>
> >
> > When that statement was brought to everyone's attention, you claimed
> > you were quoted out of context.
> No one believed it except for a few fools like you. What can I say,
> fools are easily mislead.
> You choose to be a fool, not my fault.
I'm using *your* tactics against you, Bobby. If you find such a
tactic to be foolish, perhaps you should abandon it.
bam
"Adam A. Wanderer" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:n5ednc1lFai7gMrX...@earthlink.com...
> "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
> news:2v32j5....@news.alt.net...
>> Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for a
>> long time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has no
>> undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones here
>> dignity.
>> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
Interesting. Here you have a Jewish woman who views innocent babies with
about as much sympathy as Hitler viewed the Jews.
BAM
mbodi...@gmail.com
> It is an ancient Josef <Jvis...@live.com>, and he posteth:
> > Once again I've been proven right; Ruth Ginsberg has been senile for a long
> > time now or she's become a racist, old battle-axe. America has no
> > undesirables, we incarcerate our criminals and deport the ones here
> > illegally. It's time for Ruth to step down now, while she still has her
> > dignity.
> >
> >
> >
> >Just consider a windbag to be a wind__bag; If I see another split froom the NCIS crew: WE certainly won't be ordering from Chick_fileDOWNand_across any time soon: check her posts not the maple she sits on;
> >boyscouts:=boys;
> >girlscouts:=girls;
> >if your inbetwixt? {slang}
> >you:=WE___BE___low; simplifying algebra and calculus is easier;
> > http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many
> > of'
> > "keynsian"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
> > says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973
> > Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as
> > she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
> >
> > Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday
> > but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon
> > titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html
> "JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v.
> of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was
> people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they
> altogether wrong."
>
>
> complex statement, but since it was one, and you can't, the best policy on
> your part is to not try to form an opinion about it. This might cause you
> to cease to look like a complete moron.
>
> --
> David Silverman
> aa #2208
> Defender of Civilisation
> "God" (n). A casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve
> impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal
> expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority,
> resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that
> should not be questioned.
>
> Not authentic without this signature.