House Debate on Stupak: Amendment Defeated on Voice Vote
james g. keegan jr.
Spartakus
> http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
The amendment failed on a voice vote. Rep. Stupak immediately asked
for a recorded vote, which followed the vote on the Republican plan.
It passed. American women, your uteruses now belong to Bart Stupak.
james g. keegan jr.
<a1aee948-eec0-4b8b...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
w o w.
what country are we in?
Spartakus
> In article
> <a1aee948-eec0-4b8b-9fc8-b3f03354c...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
>
> > The amendment failed on a voice vote. Rep. Stupak immediately asked
> > for a recorded vote, which followed the vote on the Republican plan.
>
> > It passed. American women, your uteruses now belong to Bart Stupak.
>
> w o w.
>
> what country are we in?
The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted. Maybe
we'll be able to drop that amendment in conference.
HR 3962 passed - with one Republican vote! Think kindly of Rep.
Joseph Cao from Louisiana.
james g. keegan jr.
<911ce62a-296b-4d87...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
the senate hasn't released a bill yet. this particular matter will be
one of several that are contested.
much as i hate to say this, i expect a bill to be passed that will add
billions to insurance company coffers and triple the cost of coverage to
those who can least afford it, and in many cases, those who need it most.
what a disappointment.
pnyikos
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
>
> The amendment failed on a voice vote.
It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
> Rep. Stupak immediately asked
> for a recorded vote, which followed the vote on the Republican plan.
What the amendment did was to codify what Obama, Pelosi, most of the
the major news media, etc. repeatedly claimed: that no federal money
would go to help pay for abortions for reasons other than life of the
mother, rape, and incest.
The pathological liar known as "Spartakus" knows this, but that did
not prevent him from posting sleazy propaganda:
> It passed. American women, your uteruses now belong to Bart Stupak.
Go crawl back under the rock from which you emerged about ten years
ago, "Spartakus".
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> showing what a sleazeball he is, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
> > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
> It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
Voice votes are part of the House of Representative's standard
procedures, whoever you are.
> > Rep. Stupak immediately asked for a recorded vote,
> > which followed the vote on the Republican plan.
> What the amendment did was to codify what Obama, Pelosi, most of the
> the major news media, etc. repeatedly claimed: that no federal money
> would go to help pay for abortions for reasons other than life of the
> mother, rape, and incest.
The amendment reportedly goes beyond that. Private insurance
companies that accept premiums subsidies would be forbidden to pay for
abortions.
> The pathological liar known as "Spartakus" knows this,
The only pathological liars in the abortion newsgroups are known as
Peter Nyikos and Robert Heishman.
> but that did not prevent him from posting sleazy propaganda:
Must have hit home, huh?
> > It passed. American women, your uteruses now belong to Bart Stupak.
> Go crawl back under the rock from which you emerged about ten years
> ago, "Spartakus".
Wow, you sure are a party-pooper. Isn't this a GREAT VICTORY for anti-
choicers?
You are not displaying sufficient anti-abortion zeal, Comrade Whoever-
you-are!
james g. keegan jr.
<54da0598-1750-48a5...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
showing what a sleazeball he/she is, the person posting as
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 10:54 pm, Spartakus
> <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
> >
> > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
>
> It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
hmmm. an alleged phd who doesn't understand when voice votes are called,
and why.
so who are you?
pnyikos
> In article
> <a1aee948-eec0-4b8b-9fc8-b3f03354c...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
>
> > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
So the rabidly left-wing propagandist claimed, after devoting almost
the whole article to a typically one-sided pro-abortion screed.
Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
in whole world. Only China, and a handful of communist and former
communist countries, are more pro-choice.
And when I say "pro-choice" I mean the Merriam-Webster definition,
which says only that one is in favor of legalizing abortion. The
Chinese can indulge in all the forced and coerced abortions they
please, and still be 100% pro-choice.
Similarly, Planned Parenthood can litigate against "Choose Life"
license plates all they want, and still be 100% pro-choice.
Don't even get me started on school choice... ;-)
>>Rep. Stupak immediately asked
> > for a recorded vote, which followed the vote on the Republican plan.
> > It passed.
Yes, and by a comfortable margin, 240-194 and one "present" whereas
the AMENDED bill only squeaked through, 220-215. I'm sure even
Keegan and "Spartakus", who outdid Carl T. Rowan 100000% with the
following screed, realize that without the amendment, the bill would
have gone down in flames.
> > American women, your uteruses now belong to Bart Stupak.
>
> w o w.
>
> what country are we in?
Why, did you think we are in the old USSR? or do you think the
majority of Americans are as mindlessly hard-left as you are?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted.
Did you seriously think the American public would buy the lie that
federal funding of abortion under Pelosi's pet bill would be
prohibited by the Hyde Amendment?
> Maybe
> we'll be able to drop that amendment in conference.
Dream on, turkey. Do you think that after they saw the narrow 220-215
victory WITH the amendment, after the lopsided 240-194 vote FOR the
amendment, that the Senate will not go along with the Stupak
amendment? Even Democrats have to do some thinking about 2012, or
whenever they come up for re-election.
> HR 3962 passed - with one Republican vote! Think kindly of Rep.
> Joseph Cao from Louisiana.
There are all kinds of objectionable things in the bill, even with the
Stupak amendment. Why is it that you are so all-fired happy about the
bill? Are you sufficiently wealthy to opt out of Medicare? Do you
know anything about the Medicare Advantage flap?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
>
>
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted. Maybe
> > we'll be able to drop that amendment in conference.
>
> > HR 3962 passed - with one Republican vote! Think kindly of Rep.
> > Joseph Cao from Louisiana.
>
> the senate hasn't released a bill yet. this particular matter will be
> one of several that are contested.
...will be...are...
What form do you think the contesting is/will be taking?
> much as i hate to say this,
Oh, I think you are absolutely delighted to have a public forum where
you can spout rabidly anti-capitalistic propaganda, such as:
> i expect a bill to be passed that will add
> billions to insurance company coffers
AP Fact Check:
THE CLAIMS:
--"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too,
about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how
those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to
insurers' "obscene profits."
--"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants.
Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their
profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of
the Democratic leadership.
--"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as
long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.
THE NUMBERS:
Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing
them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical,
other health sectors did much better -- drugs and medical products and
services were both in the top 10.
--------------------- end of excerpt from
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/26/fact-check-health-insurers-profits-fat/
>and triple the cost of coverage to
> those who can least afford it, and in many cases, those who need it most.
Not if the Republicans have their way about wanting to allow people to
buy private health insurance across state lines. But you hate
competition, don't you? You want a government monopoly on health
insurance and the whole healthcare system, don't you?
> what a disappointment.
To a man with the mentality of a 1930-1945 American Communist party
member, yes.
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
> > > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
> So the rabidly left-wing propagandist claimed, after devoting almost
> the whole article to a typically one-sided pro-abortion screed.
And that is in fact what happened.
> Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
> already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
> in whole world.
Oh no, the bill did not address abortion rights at all. It addressed
financial *coverage* of abortions. The amendment prohibits federal
funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits
individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan
that provides elective abortions.
Can you think of any other medical procedure where a patient must pay
the complete cost out of pocket. Can you see where this may work a
tremendous hardship on poor women?
> Only China, and a handful of communist and former
> communist countries, are more pro-choice.
Ha ha! Pretty clumsy attempt at a smear, whoever you are.
> And when I say "pro-choice" I mean the Merriam-Webster definition,
> which says only that one is in favor of legalizing abortion. The
> Chinese can indulge in all the forced and coerced abortions they
> please, and still be 100% pro-choice.
Liar.
> Similarly, Planned Parenthood can litigate against "Choose Life"
> license plates all they want, and still be 100% pro-choice.
The state should not be in the business of printing political messages
on license plates.
> Don't even get me started on school choice... ;-)
> >> Rep. Stupak immediately asked for a recorded vote, which
> >> followed the vote on the Republican plan. It passed.
> Yes, and by a comfortable margin, 240-194 and one "present" whereas
> the AMENDED bill only squeaked through, 220-215. I'm sure even
> Keegan and "Spartakus", who outdid Carl T. Rowan 100000% with the
> following screed, realize that without the amendment, the bill would
> have gone down in flames.
Well now, these 64 Democrats who voted for the amendment have some
'splaining to do. From what I hear, Bart Stupak's staff is a little
stressed out right now from all the calls they've received from
citizens making comments on the amendment, or even (heaven forfend!)
asking for clarification as to what the amendment does. If you have
any sympathy for these folks, DON'T call them at
to politely voice your concerns or ask questions. They're all on
their last nerve.
> > > American women, your uteruses now belong to Bart Stupak.
> > w o w.
> >
> > what country are we in?
> Why, did you think we are in the old USSR? or do you think the
> majority of Americans are as mindlessly hard-left as you are?
Well, they certainly aren't as mindlessly theocratic as Bart Stupak,
and have no desire that women in the U.S. have the same status as
women in Iran or Afghanistan have.
pnyikos
more knowledgeable propagandists, <sparta...@my-deja.com> obviously
on his own puerile initiative, drooled:
> Showing what a sour-grapes poopy-pants he is, the person posting as
I'd like to see you try to justify this allusion to that famous Aesop
fable.
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > showing what a sleazeball he is, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
> > > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
> > It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
>
> Voice votes are part of the House of Representative's standard
> procedures,
and, to continue educating the un-named clueless people to whom your
words were obviously addressed, the ayes are taken before the nays,
giving the nays a benchmark of loudness to exceed,
...whoever you are, "Spartakus".
>
> > > Rep. Stupak immediately asked for a recorded vote,
> > > which followed the vote on the Republican plan.
> > What the amendment did was to codify what Obama, Pelosi, most of the
> > the major news media, etc. repeatedly claimed: that no federal money
> > would go to help pay for abortions for reasons other than life of the
> > mother, rape, and incest.
>
> The amendment reportedly goes beyond that. Private insurance
> companies that accept premiums subsidies would be forbidden to pay for
> abortions.
Well, duh, "subsidies" means federal money. Ellsworth, a Democrat
touted to be pro-life, came forth with an amendment that was exposed
by Douglas Johnson with the words,
"He actually writes…he would write into the bill a provision where the
federal Secretary of Health would have to pay a private contractor to
make the payments to the abortionists. Now, that's a money laundering
scheme," he contends. "It's still the federal government, the federal
government taking federal government money and paying the abortionists
for abortion on demand, and somehow he thinks that they can claim it's
not the federal government if the federal official has to hire
somebody to deliver the payment."
> > The pathological liar known as "Spartakus" knows this,
[...]
> > but that did not prevent him from posting sleazy propaganda:
> > It passed. American women, your uteruses now belong to Bart Stupak.
> Must have hit home, huh?
No more than the gnat lighting on one of the horns of the ox in
another Aesop's fable hit home to the ox. Probably even less: your
sleazeball propaganda only shows what a tool of the pro-abortion left
you are.
For more on that word "pro-abortion," see an earlier post of mine to
this thread.
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> > The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted.
> Did you seriously think the American public would buy the lie
> that federal funding of abortion under Pelosi's pet bill would be
> prohibited by the Hyde Amendment?
Who lied about that? Sounds like a strawman to me.
> > Maybe we'll be able to drop that amendment in conference.
> Dream on, turkey. Do you think that after they saw the narrow 220-215
> victory WITH the amendment, after the lopsided 240-194 vote FOR the
> amendment, that the Senate will not go along with the Stupak
> amendment? Even Democrats have to do some thinking about 2012,
> or whenever they come up for re-election.
And polls are already showing that Democrats who support successful
health care reform stand a better chance of being re-elected than
those who don't.
> > HR 3962 passed - with one Republican vote! Think kindly of Rep.
> > Joseph Cao from Louisiana.
> There are all kinds of objectionable things in the bill, even with the
> Stupak amendment. Why is it that you are so all-fired happy about
> the bill? Are you sufficiently wealthy to opt out of Medicare? Do
> you know anything about the Medicare Advantage flap?
Medicare Advantage is a collection of *private* health insurance
plans, you twit.
pnyikos
> In article
> <54da0598-1750-48a5-84ab-a893e78a8...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> showing what a sleazeball he/she is, the person posting as
>
> > On Nov 7, 10:54 pm, Spartakus
> > <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
>
> > > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
>
> > It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
>
> hmmm. an alleged phd
I not only have one, I've been dissertation advisor to several, and I
now have a Ph.D. student who has already done enough for a solid
dissertation.
>who doesn't understand when voice votes are called,
> and why.
Garbage. I know all I need to know about voice votes. Here in South
Carolina, the State Senate subcommittee chairs even have a curious
custom. When they know ahead of time that there is no opposition to a
bill, they call for the Ayes and when those are heard, they add:
"All opposed and the ayes have it."
Note, not even the equivalent of a comma between "opposed" and "and".
Pelosi obviously knew she did not have the votes to pass the bill
without the amendment, so she decided on a feel-good voice vote just
to keep up the morale of the easy-abortion promoters. She knew she
would have to allow the amendment to come to a vote, and it passed by
a comfortable margin.
> so who are you?
The real question is, how much of an education have YOU had? You've
been awfully coy about where you got your degree, if any.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
Ph.D. 1971, Carnegie-Mellon University
james g. keegan jr.
<ee1d3ed4-a48f-4afc...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:04 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <54da0598-1750-48a5-84ab-a893e78a8...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > showing what a sleazeball he/she is, the person posting as
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 10:54 pm, Spartakus
> > > <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
> >
> > > > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
> >
> > > It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
> >
> > hmmm. an alleged phd
>
> I
are you having trouble writing. perhaps the text of mine you cut is
stick in your throat.
obviously you endorse unmarked deletions so i did the same.
i see you have already been schooled on what a voice vote is. hopefully,
you learned something
james g. keegan jr.
<ee1d3ed4-a48f-4afc...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:04 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > so who are you?
>
> The real question is
contained above, as it has been in several posts, perhaps more than a
dozen.
so who are you?
james g. keegan jr.
<c39b4d4e-357e-420a...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:35 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <911ce62a-296b-4d87-9643-a91a71792...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted. Maybe
> > > we'll be able to drop that amendment in conference.
> >
> > > HR 3962 passed - with one Republican vote! Think kindly of Rep.
> > > Joseph Cao from Louisiana.
> >
> > the senate hasn't released a bill yet. this particular matter will be
> > one of several that are contested.
>
> ...will be...are...
> What form do you think the contesting is/will be taking?
why would anyone enter into a discussion with a blatant liar like you,
whoever you are?
take care of some of your more outstanding lies first.... no need for
you to address all of them, but a good number would be reasonable.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
> > > > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
> > So the rabidly left-wing propagandist claimed, after devoting almost
> > the whole article to a typically one-sided pro-abortion screed.
>
> And that is in fact what happened.
>
> > Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
> > already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
> > in whole world.
>
> Oh no, the bill did not address abortion rights at all. It addressed
> financial *coverage* of abortions.
Thanks for belatedly showing what a base lie your "uteruses now belong
to Bart Stupak" was.
>The amendment prohibits federal
> funds for abortion services in the public option.
EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
In other words, it just extends the Hyde Amendment to a place where
Pelosi, etc. claimed all along it would be extended.
I remember when the Hyde Amendment first came out. I was a Visiting
Assistant Professor at Auburn U. at the time. I read a column by
Carl T. Rowan, which for the times was dripping with unreasoning
hatred, but now I look back on it almost nostalgically after reading
really rabid hatred by you and the author, "Jeralyn" [surname?] of the
article Keegan linked in his first post to this thread.
A student did a column for the AU student newspaper, in which he
repeated much of Rowan's propaganda without even mentioning Rowan in
his column. I wrote a letter to the editor, which was published. I
can still recall it almost verbatim:
It is ironic that _________ would write on capital punishment and
abortion in successive weeks. It seems that once a person is safely
out of the womb, not even the most heinous mass murders are enough to
earn for him what was previously "a private matter between the woman,
her husband, and her doctor."
[Intermission: I was quoting verbatim from the column of this naive
student, who obviously didn't know that RvW wrote the husband--even
where there IS a husband!--out of the picture, and had "the attending
physician" instead of the dewy-eyed and misleading "her doctor." End
of intermission.]
About the best that can be said for ________ column on abortion is
that it is not so full of unreasoning hatred as the Carl Rowan
column (see _The Atlanta Constitution_) on which it is based. Still,
___________ repeats Rowan's claim that the new bill is the work of
"Congressman in a rush to hit the campaign trail" and "holier-than-
thou anti-abortionists who delight in shouting `murderer!' at those
who do not follow their idea of what God wants."
Repeated also is the fallacy of comparing the success of teenagers
who have children with those who do not have children. Logically,
they should have been compared with teens who got pregnant and had
abortions. Otherwise, we cannot know whether both the pregnancy and
the abortions and childbirths were due to unfavorable social factors.
Repeated also is the claim that poor women are discriminated against.
This would be valid if women were forced to keep their children.
However, it is a fact that there are more couples wanting to adopt
babies then there are babies up for adoption.
[End of close paraphrasal]
That Carl Rowan "holier than thou" bit was echoed a thousandfold by
"Spartakus" when he posted the probably libelous claim that
Congressman Bart Stupak is "mindlessly theocratic".
TO BE CONTINUED
Peter Nyikos
The Chief Instigator
Why don't you show some spine and pull a Wentzky, Phony?
--
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: Houston 5, San Antonio 2 (November 7)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 13 at Lake Erie, 6:35
Spartakus
<nyik...@bellsouth.net> scrawled with his own shit:
> Spartakus, probable conduit for a cadre of much more knowledgeable propagandists, <sparta...@my-deja.com> obviously
> on his own puerile initiative, drooled:
> > Showing what a sour-grapes poopy-pants he is, the person posting as
> I'd like to see you try to justify this allusion to that famous Aesop
> fable.
Stay focused, poopy-pants.
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > showing what a sleazeball he is, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
> > > It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
> > Voice votes are part of the House of Representative's standard
> > procedures,
> and, to continue educating the un-named clueless people to whom your
> words were obviously addressed, the ayes are taken before the nays,
> giving the nays a benchmark of loudness to exceed,
So what? Whatever point you are trying to make become moot even
before you attempted making it.
Are you expecting your point to travel back into the past to
obliterate that voice vote, like a future Higgs boson is supposedly
sabotaging the Large Hadron Collider?
> ...whoever you are, "Spartakus".
Cut it out, Joe Belk.
> > > > Rep. Stupak immediately asked for a recorded vote,
> > > > which followed the vote on the Republican plan.
> > > What the amendment did was to codify what Obama, Pelosi, most of the
> > > the major news media, etc. repeatedly claimed: that no federal money
> > > would go to help pay for abortions for reasons other than life of the
> > > mother, rape, and incest.
> > The amendment reportedly goes beyond that. Private insurance
> > companies that accept premiums subsidies would be forbidden
> > to pay for abortions.
> Well, duh, "subsidies" means federal money. Ellsworth, a Democrat
> touted to be pro-life, came forth with an amendment that was exposed
> by Douglas Johnson with the words,
>
> "He actually writes…he would write into the bill a provision where the
> federal Secretary of Health would have to pay a private contractor to
> make the payments to the abortionists. Now, that's a money laundering
> scheme," he contends. "It's still the federal government, the federal
> government taking federal government money and paying the abortionists
> for abortion on demand, and somehow he thinks that they can claim it's
> not the federal government if the federal official has to hire
> somebody to deliver the payment."
And why shouldn't *any* health insurance provider, whether private or
public, provide funding for a medical procedure, which last time I
looked, was LEGAL?
> > > The pathological liar known as "Spartakus" knows this,
> > > but that did not prevent him from posting sleazy propaganda:
> > > It passed.
> > > > American women, your uteruses now belong to Bart Stupak.
> > Must have hit home, huh?
> No more than the gnat lighting on one of the horns of the ox in
> another Aesop's fable hit home to the ox.
And yet you bellowed like an ox being branded. Methinks you
protesteth too much.
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
> > > already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
> > > in whole world.
> > Oh no, the bill did not address abortion rights at all. It addressed
> > financial *coverage* of abortions.
> Thanks for belatedly showing what a base lie your "uteruses now belong
> to Bart Stupak" was.
Earth to whoever-you-are. The financial component is a big part of
being able to access medical services. When you go out of your way to
arrange things to deny coverage for a medical procedure, it is as good
as denying that medical procedure.
> >The amendment prohibits federal
> > funds for abortion services in the public option.
> EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
>
> In other words, it just extends the Hyde Amendment to a place where
> Pelosi, etc. claimed all along it would be extended.
Now that more time has passed for analysis, the consensus is that no
one knows what this amendment really does.
> I remember when the Hyde Amendment first came out. I was a Visiting
> Assistant Professor at Auburn U. at the time. I read a column by
> Carl T. Rowan, which for the times was dripping with unreasoning
> hatred,
This Carl T. Rowan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan
Except for the episode involving the Neil Smith shooting, I am
flattered by the comparison.
[--FauxNy writes a letter; the universe yawns--]
So you're saying that you've always been this nuts?
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 7, 11:51 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted.
>
>Did you seriously think the American public would buy the lie that
>federal funding of abortion under Pelosi's pet bill would be
>prohibited by the Hyde Amendment?
We certainly won't believe a known liar like yourself.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
james g. keegan jr.
<7b2d3774-67fb-4901...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> pnyikos, who may well turn out to be a sockpuppet for Joe Belk,
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> scrawled with his own shit:
belk. i hadn't considered that one. but you could be right.
pnyikos
> Showing what a sour-grapes poopy-pants he is, the person posting as
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > What the amendment did was to codify what Obama, Pelosi, most of the
> > the major news media, etc. repeatedly claimed: that no federal money
> > would go to help pay for abortions for reasons other than life of the
> > mother, rape, and incest.
>
> The amendment reportedly goes beyond that. Private insurance
> companies that accept premiums subsidies would be forbidden to pay for
> abortions.
>
> > The pathological liar known as "Spartakus" knows this,
>
> The only pathological liars in the abortion newsgroups are
"Spartakus," James Keegan, Ray Fischer, Patrick Humphrey...and
probably others, but these four are the ones whose voluminous bizarre
lies I have repeatedly documented, establishing whole threads to
thoroughly display the documentation, not just OF the lies but of the
fact that they ARE lies. See, for example, the third post in the
thread
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/browse_thread/thread/d3c4856859414f78/c1ada9687fadaba1?q=group%3Atalk.abortion+insubject%3ADirty+insubject%3Adebating&lnk=ol&
lays bare a lie of Spartakus so bizarre, it took two thoroughly
deceitful posts by him and Patrick Humphrey to make it look to
careless readers that I was off base in my accusation; but the thread
above lays bare also how deceitful they were.
In the post to which I am following up, Spartakus played tit-for-tat,
blatantly accusing me of being a pathological liar [deleted here]
without even getting to the point of naming any lies, let alone
documenting any such.
Nor do I expect him to do any better now that I have called his
bluff. After all, he once accused me of repeatedly lying about
President Obama, yet adamantly and arrogantly refused to even NAME any
lies, despite repeated efforts by me to get him to do so.
In this he behaved like Joe McCarthy, who kept claiming to have lists
of card-carrying members of the Communist party in the State
Department, yet never named a single one.
And now, here is Spartakus's closing taunt:
> Isn't this a GREAT VICTORY for anti-
> choicers?
No, because as i said and even Spartakus agreed, the right to choose
was not affected by the amendment in the slightest.
> You are not displaying sufficient anti-abortion zeal,
My anti-abortion policies never were as zealous as those of most pro-
lifers. At least one of the cadre for whom "Spartakus" posts knows
this, since 'e even asked me through his conduit "Spartakus" how I
could favor keeping abortion legal up to about the 10th week LMP, and
'e even responded to my explanation for it.
>Comrade Whoever-you-are!
I am far less of a "Comrade" than Keegan, who repeatedly posts
articles that come from people who have subordinated their reasoning
powers to a leftist party discipline, and who also expects--and gets--
the equivalent of party discipline from the Cozy Clique.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
deja.com> wrote:
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted.
"Spartakus" posted a very interesting reply to the following:
> > Did you seriously think the American public would buy the lie
> > that federal funding of abortion under Pelosi's pet bill would be
> > prohibited by the Hyde Amendment?
Evidently the person whose words "Spartakus" posted on the following
line hadn't read the article by "Jeralyn" which Keegan linked in his
first post to this thread:
> Who lied about that? Sounds like a strawman to me.
Quoting directly from the article by "Jeralyn," who seems to be
quoting someone named "Nadler":
"It's interesting that the two sides cannot even agree on what the
Amendment means. One side says it's only the Hyde Amendment, the other
side it's much more than that."
Spartakus, perhaps even your polemic-saturated brain is not too bereft
of reasoning ability for you to figure out WHICH side says "it's only
the Hyde Amendment".
Wait--could it be that you *gasp* believe Nadler was LYING when 'e
said that?
One thing is certain: if Nadler, or Jeralyn, actually believed that
bit about the Hyde amendment, 'e had let his/her reasoning abilities
atropy to the point where 'e drew exactly the WRONG conclusion from
what 'e'd just said. To amplify the above quote:
"It's interesting that the two sides cannot even agree on what the
Amendment means. One side says it's only the Hyde Amendment, the other
side it's much more than that. For that reason alone, it should be
rejected."
If one takes the first part at face value, then rejecting the
amendment was at best a win-lose scenario, while accepting the
amendment was win-win. The reason is that those who opposed it were
claiming it was just the Hyde Amendment, hence superflous. And thus,
passing it was just humoring the ones who proposed it, from the POV of
those who opposed it.
Spartakus, if your reasoning abilities have atrophied to the point
where this last paragraph makes no sense to you, do consult one of the
more intelligent members of the cadre for whom you apparently serve as
a condiut, lest you put your foot in your mouth again.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Maybe we'll be able to drop that amendment in conference.
Meaning, a conference committee to iron out differences between House
and Senate versions, I presume.
> > Dream on, turkey. Do you think that after they saw the narrow 220-215
> > victory WITH the amendment, after the lopsided 240-194 vote FOR the
> > amendment, that the Senate will not go along with the Stupak
> > amendment? Even Democrats have to do some thinking about 2012,
> > or whenever they come up for re-election.
Now we come to what looks to me like a *non sequitur* by Spartakus:
> And polls are already showing that Democrats who support successful
> health care reform stand a better chance of being re-elected than
> those who don't.
"successful health care reform," eh? Just HOW were the questions
worded in those polls, and what in thunder is the average Joe Blow
supposed to make of the word "successful"?
> > > HR 3962 passed - with one Republican vote! Think kindly of Rep.
> > > Joseph Cao from Louisiana.
> > There are all kinds of objectionable things in the bill, even with the
> > Stupak amendment. Why is it that you are so all-fired happy about
> > the bill? Are you sufficiently wealthy to opt out of Medicare? Do
> > you know anything about the Medicare Advantage flap?
The flap was about a gag rule which the gov't tried to impose on
Humana, the company that administers Medicare Advantage:
===============excerpt from article
If you appreciate the raw, naked use of governmental power, then you
have a new hero on Capitol Hill—Senator Max Baucus.
Senator Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance committee, has crafted
a health care reform bill that would cut $123 billion from Medicare
Advantage, an extremely popular program that allows seniors to get
additional coverage for things like hearing aids and vision care—
things not covered in basic Medicare.
So it’s not surprising that the private insurance company Humana,
which offers Medicare Advantage, would send a letter to its customers
warning them of the cut.
What is surprising—actually shocking—was the reaction of Senator
Baucus. The Wall Street Journal reports that the infuriated Senator
“complained to the [Federal] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, which duly ordered Humana to cease and desist. CMS claimed
the mailer was ‘misleading and confusing’ and told the company it has
opened an official probe” into the letter’s legality.
The only problem is that the letter wasn’t misleading. As National
Public Radio reported, “There’s no denying that folks enrolled in
Medicare Advantage would see reductions under the proposals…Humana
does seem to have a point.”
And earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office told Senator
Baucus’s committee that the proposed cuts would result in “lower
benefits and some 2.7 million people losing this coverage.”
So it seems that a private insurer doesn’t have to mislead its clients
to get investigated by a federal agency. All it has to do torque off a
powerful senator.
================= end of excerpt from
http://catholicexchange.com/2009/09/28/122202/
I'm assuming "Spartakus" knows about all this, because he plunged
right ahead without batting an eye over the flap:
> Medicare Advantage is a collection of *private* health insurance
> plans, you twit.
What's your point? that Baucus is your hero because he wants to make
things really hot for *private* health insurance plans? But you seem
to just love government subsidies for them as long as abortion is at
stake.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Spartakus, you said the following in response to my asking you why you
aren't worried about the cutback in things like Medicare Advantage--
and that's all you had to say in response:
> Medicare Advantage is a collection of *private* health insurance
> plans, you twit.
I wanted to know whether Baucus is your hero because he wants to make
things really hot for *private* health insurance plans, despite
your fondness for government subsidies for them as long as abortion
is at stake.
Anyway, you are helping to convince me that you've always been a very
well-heeled person who has no need to worry about reductions in things
like Medicare Advantage. I first cottoned onto this when I saw how
completely clueless you were about Scott Roeder making all those trips
between Wichita and Kansas City without being heavily subsidized by
anti-abortion groups. I mentioned that unless you had records of
hotel stays by him, you had no case for that.
You retorted that he would have had a hard time sleeping in his car in
winter. Typical well-heeled liberal--can't picture lifestyles of
anyone except the affluent on the one hand and the homeless on the
other.
Here's a clue for you: H - O - S - P - I - T - A - L - I - T - Y.
Peter Nyikos
The Chief Instigator
Thanks for demonstrating that you're goddamned well into delusion, Phony.
james g. keegan jr.
<a2375677-a35d-4c6d...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 4:56 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Spartakus
oh forget spartacus for now.
tell readers why you ran away so fast from your lies about a 15-year old
talk.abortion flamewar.
you owe the readership of several newsgroups and apology.
then explain how you, posting as peter nyikos, was ignorant of what
peter nyikos said we he posted on that flamewar you so maliciously lied
about.
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Showing what a sour-grapes poopy-pants he is, the person posting as
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > What the amendment did was to codify what Obama, Pelosi, most of the
> > > the major news media, etc. repeatedly claimed: that no federal money
> > > would go to help pay for abortions for reasons other than life of the
> > > mother, rape, and incest.
> > The amendment reportedly goes beyond that. Private insurance
> > companies that accept premiums subsidies would be forbidden
> > to pay for abortions.
> > > The pathological liar known as "Spartakus" knows this,
> > The only pathological liars in the abortion newsgroups are
Robert Heishman, the person posting as Peter Nyikos and Bill Mosco.
The person posting as Peter Nyikos appears to be completely focused on
burnishing his reputation as the Orly Taitz of the abortion
newsgroups. Or else the little squid is deploying a cloud of ink to
enable him to swim away from his lies regarding Kevin Kelly, et al.
Normally I delete FauxNy's more egregious nonsense. This time, I'll
leave it in place in case anyone would like to contemplate his HO
scale crazy-train layout. I mean really - how do you argue with
crazy?
> "Spartakus," James Keegan, Ray Fischer, Patrick Humphrey...and
> probably others, but these four are the ones whose voluminous bizarre
> lies I have repeatedly documented, establishing whole threads to
> thoroughly display the documentation, not just OF the lies but of the
> fact that they ARE lies. See, for example, the third post in the
> threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/browse_thread/thread/...
Spartakus
> Spartakus, you said the following in response to my asking you why you
> aren't worried about the cutback in things like Medicare Advantage--
You didn't ask me that, liar.
> and that's all you had to say in response:
> > Medicare Advantage is a collection of *private* health insurance
> > plans, you twit.
Yes, I responded to the question you actually asked by showing that it
was irrelevant.
> I wanted to know whether Baucus is your hero because he wants to make
> things really hot for *private* health insurance plans, despite
> your fondness for government subsidies for them as long as abortion
> is at stake.
If you wanted to hear my perspective on Baucus, why didn't you ask me
about that?
> Anyway, you are helping to convince me that you've always been a very
> well-heeled person who has no need to worry about reductions in things
> like Medicare Advantage.
My financial circumstances are irrelevant. For what it's worth, I
work for a living.
> I first cottoned onto this when I saw how completely clueless you were
> about Scott Roeder making all those trips between Wichita and Kansas
> City without being heavily subsidized by anti-abortion groups. I mentioned
> that unless you had records of hotel stays by him, you had no case for that.
>
> You retorted that he would have had a hard time sleeping in his car in
> winter. Typical well-heeled liberal--can't picture lifestyles of
> anyone except the affluent on the one hand and the homeless on the
> other.
Ha ha! The person posting as Peter Nyikos is accusing me of elitism!
A smarter man wouldn't have touched that petard!
> Here's a clue for you: H - O - S - P - I - T - A - L - I - T - Y.
Here's a phrase for you: M Y P O I N T E X A C T L Y.
And here's another phrase: A C C E S S O R Y T O M U R D E R.
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 9, 4:56 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>Spartakus, you said the following in response to my asking you why you
You really are an obsessive little fruitcake, aren't you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Spartakus, you said the following in response to my asking you why you
>aren't worried about the cutback in things like Medicare Advantage--
>and that's all you had to say in response:
This is what fauxNy _actually_ wrote:
There are all kinds of objectionable things in the bill, even with
the Stupak amendment. ?Why is it that you are so all-fired happy
about the bill? ?Are you sufficiently wealthy to opt out of Medicare?
Do you know anything about the Medicare Advantage flap?
Apparently he really is either senile or just a really stupid liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> > The pathological liar known as "Spartakus" knows this,
>>
>> The only pathological liars in the abortion newsgroups are
>
>"Spartakus," James Keegan, Ray Fischer, Patrick Humphrey...and
Stop acting as though your mere say-so were gospel truth. Otherwise
people might get the idea that you are projecting big-time
fauxNy in <26346edd-ad7b-4e28...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 2:04 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <54da0598-1750-48a5-84ab-a893e78a8...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > showing what a sleazeball he/she is, the person posting as
>
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 10:54 pm, Spartakus
> > > > <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
>
> > > > > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
>
> > > > It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
>
> > > hmmm. an alleged phd
>
> > I
That was all this juvenile prankster left in of everything I posted.
What is more , he cut out the remainder of what HE had posted, and I
had left in. He continued the juvenile (like, around 6 years old)
prank with:
> are you having trouble writing.
Are you having trouble recalling what you deleted? Here, I'll repost
everything I posted last time around.
================= begin repost
I not only have one, I've been dissertation advisor to several, and I
now have a Ph.D. student who has already done enough for a solid
dissertation.
>who doesn't understand when voice votes are called,
> and why.
Garbage. I know all I need to know about voice votes. Here in South
Carolina, the State Senate subcommittee chairs even have a curious
custom. When they know ahead of time that there is no opposition to a
bill, they call for the Ayes and when those are heard, they add:
"All opposed and the ayes have it."
Note, not even the equivalent of a comma between "opposed" and "and".
Pelosi obviously knew she did not have the votes to pass the bill
without the amendment, so she decided on a feel-good voice vote just
to keep up the morale of the easy-abortion promoters. She knew she
would have to allow the amendment to come to a vote, and it passed by
a comfortable margin.
> so who are you?
The real question is, how much of an education have YOU had? You've
been awfully coy about where you got your degree, if any.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
Ph.D. 1971, Carnegie-Mellon University
================= end of repost
>perhaps the text of mine you cut is
> stick in your throat.
Perhaps the fact that I did not cut ANY of the "garbage in, gargbage
out" that YOU had posted, but faced it squarely like a responsible
adult, is what got stuck in YOUR throat.
Perhaps YOU cut it out precisely because you were ashamed of it.
Naaah. You've never shown any capacity for being ashamed of yourself,
although occasionally you do apologize profusely for honest mistakes,
like when you followed up to someone who you thought was me, and
when you realized your mistake you said "sorry sorry sorry".
After all, you were crossposting to other groups and talking to a
stranger, and you wanted to make sure you'd make a good impression on
him.
No wonder "elizabeth" whines all the time about me adding newsgroups.
That kind of politeness sticks in her craw, from what I have seen.
> obviously you endorse unmarked deletions so i did the same.
You know damn well that I condemn deletions which allow people to
plausibly indulge in dishonest behavior such as you have displayed
just now.
But then, you are second only to Ray Fischer in your employment of
the dirty debating tactic that I call The One Shade of Gray Meltdown.
I had a nice little thread with that in the title, displaying one of
his most flagrant employments of the tactic, and when last i checked,
I had the last word on it.
> i see you have already been schooled on what a voice vote is. hopefully,
> you learned something
I learned everything mentioned about them on this thread decades ago,
you silly jerk.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 8:35 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <911ce62a-296b-4d87-9643-a91a71792...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted. Maybe
> > > > we'll be able to drop that amendment in conference.
>
> > > > HR 3962 passed - with one Republican vote! Think kindly of Rep.
> > > > Joseph Cao from Louisiana.
>
> > > the senate hasn't released a bill yet. this particular matter will be
> > > one of several that are contested.
>
> > ...will be...are...
> > What form do you think the contesting is/will be taking?
>
I'm entering into an extended discussion with a blatant liar,
Spartakus, because he, unlike you, actually discusses abortion. You
were entering in discussion with him because you are staunch allies
and birds of a feather.
What's your excuse for hanging around abortion newsgroups for ca. two
decades? Is it that you enjoy calling people liars without bothering
to ever prove that they actually lied [as, here, deleted], and ever
having to worry about this irresponsible behavior making a bad
impression on the regulars, most of whom are on your side?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:29:32 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 10:54 pm, showing what a sleazeball he is, Spartakus
> ><sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
>
> >> The amendment failed on a voice vote.
>
> > It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
>
> >> Rep. Stupak immediately asked
> >> for a recorded vote, which followed the vote on the Republican plan.
>
> > What the amendment did was to codify what Obama, Pelosi, most of the
> > the major news media, etc. repeatedly claimed: that no federal money
> > would go to help pay for abortions for reasons other than life of the
> > mother, rape, and incest.
>
> > The pathological liar known as "Spartakus" knows this, but that did
> > not prevent him from posting sleazy propaganda:
>
> >> It passed. American women, your uteruses now belong to Bart Stupak.
>
> > Go crawl back under the rock from which you emerged about ten years
> > ago, "Spartakus".
>
> Why don't you show some spine and pull a Wentzky, Phony?
What a twisted question! Is your concept of "spine" such that only
doing illegal or unethical acts (like stalking, which you yourself
admitted was a factor in your dismissal from Rice U.) counts as
showing it?
Why don't you show some REAL spine, and tell us where you have been
working since you got fired from Rice?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
Ph.D. Carnegie-Mellon University, 1971
pnyikos
> pnyikos, who may well turn out to be a sockpuppet for Joe Belk,
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> scrawled with his own shit:
>
> > Spartakus, probable conduit for a cadre of much more knowledgeable propagandists, <sparta...@my-deja.com> obviously
> > on his own puerile initiative, drooled:
> > > Showing what a sour-grapes poopy-pants he is, the person posting as
I called part of Spartakus's bluff:
> > I'd like to see you try to justify this allusion to that famous Aesop
> > fable.
And he folded on the part I called, repeating the near-infantile
insult and covering his retreat with a classic "do as I say, not as I
do:"
> Stay focused, poopy-pants.
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > showing what a sleazeball he is, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
> > > > It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
> > > Voice votes are part of the House of Representative's standard
> > > procedures,
> > and, to continue educating the un-named clueless people to whom your
> > words were obviously addressed, the ayes are taken before the nays,
> > giving the nays a benchmark of loudness to exceed,
>
> So what? Whatever point you are trying to make become moot even
> before you attempted making it.
I see you couldn't remain focused on the thread title (which also
became moot shortly after, if not before, Keegan posted it) and which
you left in:
"Re: House Debate on Stupak: Amendment Defeated on Voice Vote"
> Are you expecting your point to travel back into the past to
> obliterate that voice vote, like a future Higgs boson is supposedly
> sabotaging the Large Hadron Collider?
Apply that to the misleading thread title, hypocrite. The amendment
was not defeated; only the voice vote was called a "nays have it " by
the presider.
> > ...whoever you are, "Spartakus".
>
> Cut it out, Joe Belk.
Since you know damn well that I was imitating YOU, [in fact, all I did
was to add your name to text you posted, and to replace the
attribution caret with an ellipsis] you are doing a rotten job of
staying focused.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<30a95c20-d1c0-4b82...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:50 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[..]
> > So what? Whatever point you are trying to make become moot even
> > before you attempted making it.
>
> I see you couldn't remain focused on the thread title (which also
> became moot shortly after, if not before, Keegan posted it) and which
> you left in:
so you make this illiterate comment in response to spartacus' accurate
observation.
as spartacus and i schooled you, the voice vote was followed by a roll
call vote. do you understand the concept of process where one event
follows another?
james g. keegan jr.
<38942fc0-df20-47c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:08 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c39b4d4e-357e-420a-8fbf-2786f17a4...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 8:35 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <911ce62a-296b-4d87-9643-a91a71792...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted. Maybe
> > > > > we'll be able to drop that amendment in conference.
> >
> > > > > HR 3962 passed - with one Republican vote! Think kindly of Rep.
> > > > > Joseph Cao from Louisiana.
> >
> > > > the senate hasn't released a bill yet. this particular matter will be
> > > > one of several that are contested.
> >
> > > ...will be...are...
> > > What form do you think the contesting is/will be taking?
> >
> > why would anyone enter into a discussion with a blatant liar like
> > you, whoever you are?
>>
>> take care of some of your more outstanding lies first.... no need
>> for you to address all of them, but a good number would be
>> reasonable.
>
> I'm [....]
whining and making every effort to mislead and misrepresent ...
something you are very well known for doing.
* some text deletions restored
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos, who may well turn out to be a sockpuppet for Joe Belk,
> > <nyik...@bellsouth.net> scrawled with his own shit:
> > > Spartakus, probable conduit for a cadre of much more knowledgeable propagandists,
> > > <sparta...@my-deja.com> obviously on his own puerile initiative, drooled:
> > > > Showing what a sour-grapes poopy-pants he is, the person posting as
> I called part of Spartakus's bluff:
Wow! You must be the bravest of the bravest keyboard kommandos to go
out of your way to grapple with forgettable throw-away lines like
"sour-grapes poopy-pants". It's all a matter of priorities, I guess.
> > > I'd like to see you try to justify this allusion to that famous Aesop
> > > fable.
> And he folded on the part I called, repeating the near-infantile
> insult and covering his retreat with a classic "do as I say, not
> as I do:"
> > Stay focused, poopy-pants.
Well go ahead, stay in character and knock yourself out to make a
federal case of this, you fatuous twit. The intertubes really, really
needs more meaningless verbal diarrhea about such
inconsequentialities.
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > showing what a sleazeball he is, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
> > > > > It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
> > > > Voice votes are part of the House of Representative's standard
> > > > procedures,
> > > and, to continue educating the un-named clueless people to whom your
> > > words were obviously addressed, the ayes are taken before the nays,
> > > giving the nays a benchmark of loudness to exceed,
> > So what? Whatever point you are trying to make become moot even
> > before you attempted making it.
> I see you couldn't remain focused on the thread title (which also
> became moot shortly after, if not before, Keegan posted it) and which
> you left in:
In the future, read the instructions that come with those petards you
keep getting hoisted on.
[--utter pointlessness from the perfesser deleted--]
Spartakus
> That was all this juvenile prankster left in of everything I posted.
> What is more , he cut out the remainder of what HE had posted,
> and I had left in. He continued the juvenile (like, around 6 years
> old) prank with:
James has told you several times that his normal policy when
responding to low-lifes like you and Oopsrey is to respond to the
first lie from you all and then delete the rest. Have you ever tried
to persuade him to leave everything intact?
[--tedium deleted--]
> You know damn well that I condemn deletions which allow people to
> plausibly indulge in dishonest behavior such as you have displayed
> just now.
You condemn your own behavior?
Spartakus
> I'm entering into an extended discussion with a blatant liar,
Now you're talking to yourself? That would explain a lot of your
troubling behavior.
james g. keegan jr.
<9f692b9a-cab8-4c61...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:03 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > It wasn't a contest to see who could yell the loudest, "Spartakus".
> >
> > > > hmmm. an alleged phd
> >
> > > I
>
> That was [...]
a response to your similar behavior; something that seemingly irritates
you to no end.
just last week you tried to attack me with 15-year old lies, lies the
real peter nyiko knew were lies.
in response, i reminded you of many of peter nyikos' 15-year old lies.
and you whined.
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 9, 5:08 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <c39b4d4e-357e-420a-8fbf-2786f17a4...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Nov 8, 8:35 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > In article
>> > > <911ce62a-296b-4d87-9643-a91a71792...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted. Maybe
>> > > > we'll be able to drop that amendment in conference.
>>
>> > > > HR 3962 passed - with one Republican vote! Think kindly of Rep.
>> > > > Joseph Cao from Louisiana.
>>
>> > > the senate hasn't released a bill yet. this particular matter will be
>> > > one of several that are contested.
>>
>> > ...will be...are...
>> > What form do you think the contesting is/will be taking?
>>
>> why would anyone enter into a discussion with a blatant liar [...]
>
>I'm entering into an extended discussion with a blatant liar,
Stop acting as though your mere say-so were gospel truth.
The Chief Instigator
It was a factor, but not quite as important as you wanted it to be. The
University and I know, and you're not qualified to be an interested party.
> Why don't you show some REAL spine, and tell us where you have been
> working since you got fired from Rice?
None of your business, Phony. I'll bet what's left of your sanity on that.
J
"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhfopcq....@eris.io.com...
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:37:53 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> What a twisted question! Is your concept of "spine" such that only
>> doing illegal or unethical acts (like stalking, which you yourself
>> admitted was a factor in your dismissal from Rice U.) counts as
>> showing it?
>
> It was a factor, but not quite as important as you wanted it to be. The
> University and I know, and you're not qualified to be an interested party.
Being forced to resign is nothing to be proud of, Patches. There was
probably a lot of other crap on those hard drives that the University found
in their own best interest to just have you go away and avoid an avalanche
of bad publicity.
>
>> Why don't you show some REAL spine, and tell us where you have been
>> working since you got fired from Rice?
>
> None of your business, Phony. I'll bet what's left of your sanity on
> that.
>
I'll bet it hasn't been at another university.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
The Chief Instigator
>
> "The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhfopcq....@eris.io.com...
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:37:53 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What a twisted question! Is your concept of "spine" such that only
>>> doing illegal or unethical acts (like stalking, which you yourself
>>> admitted was a factor in your dismissal from Rice U.) counts as
>>> showing it?
>>
>> It was a factor, but not quite as important as you wanted it to be. The
>> University and I know, and you're not qualified to be an interested party.
>
> Being forced to resign is nothing to be proud of, Patches. There was
> probably a lot of other crap on those hard drives that the University
> found in their own best interest to just have you go away and avoid an
> avalanche of bad publicity.
In English, that means you're just an anonymous asshole who'd rather kill
yourself than be truthful, Junkie. It's just as well for you that you will
never accost me in person. (You'd need a replacement set of ears once I was
done with you. Unlike you, I value honesty a bit more than you ever will.)
>>> Why don't you show some REAL spine, and tell us where you have been
>>> working since you got fired from Rice?
>>
>> None of your business, Phony. I'll bet what's left of your sanity on
>> that.
>
> I'll bet it hasn't been at another university.
I'll bet very few would mourn if your obsession destroys you.
--
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: Lake Erie 3, Houston 1 (November 14)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, November 15 vs. Chicago, 4:05
james g. keegan jr.
> On Nov 7, 10:20 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <a1aee948-eec0-4b8b-9fc8-b3f03354c...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
>>
>>> The amendment failed on a voice vote.
>
> So the rabidly left-wing propagandist claimed,
do you wish to argue that it did not fail on a voice vote?
otherwise, your remark above where you write "claimed" is yet another
example of the dishonesty associated with the name peter nyikos.
--
"You know, I've seen some incredible pussies post to t.a over the
years, but after seeing his webboard shennannigans, I have to say that
Heishman is the pussiest of them all." Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.com>
Message-ID: m2oeso5...@seesig.com
pnyikos
> pnyikos, who may well turn out to be a sockpuppet for Joe Belk,
Shoot, I don't even know who Joe Belk is. Which newsgroups is he
active in?
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> scrawled in his own shit:
Ever the prepubescent, fascinated with feces, eh, Spartakus?
> >Spartakus, probable conduit for a cadre of much more knowledgeable propagandists, <sparta...@my-deja.com> obviously
> >on his own puerile initiative, drooled:
> > > Showing what a sour-grapes poopy-pants he is, the person posting as
> I'd like to see you try to justify this allusion to that famous Aesop
> fable.
I removed yet another bit of scatological drivel from:
>Stay focused,
I'm doing a better job than you. See here:
[deletia of things already discussed, for the most part, in earlier
follow-ups]
[About the Stupak amendment only ensuring that federal money would not
go towards paying for elective abortions, I said:]
> > > > The pathological liar known as "Spartakus" knows this,
> > > > but that did not prevent him from posting sleazy propaganda:
[Spartakus:]
> > > > > American women, your uteruses now belong to Bart Stupak.
> > > Must have hit home, huh?
Spartakus couldn't focus on what he had said very well. My focus was
where it belonged--on the "hit home" part.
> > No more than the gnat lighting on one of the horns of the ox in
> > another Aesop's fable hit home to the ox.
>
> And yet you bellowed like an ox being branded.
What you "heard" was more like a shout of triumph--but it wasn't
exactly that either. The home that your remarks hit was your own.
You have now been branded a pro-abort, joining the company of Michael
Loomis, Gordon Storga, and Catwoman.
The difference between them and you is that they wore the label "pro-
abortion" proudly, whereas I expect you to behave like an ox being
branded over it.
> Methinks you protesteth too much.
Who's protesting?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
deja.com> wrote:
This is the last of -- what is it, four? -- follow-ups to a post of
Spartakus pregnant with issues.
[Nyikos:]
> > > > What the amendment did was to codify what Obama, Pelosi, most of the
> > > > the major news media, etc. repeatedly claimed: that no federal money
> > > > would go to help pay for abortions for reasons other than life of the
> > > > mother, rape, and incest.
["Spartakus":]
> > > The amendment reportedly goes beyond that. Private insurance
> > > companies that accept premiums subsidies would be forbidden
> > > to pay for abortions.
[Nyikos:]
> > Well, duh, "subsidies" means federal money. Ellsworth, a Democrat
> > touted to be pro-life, came forth with an amendment that was exposed
> > by Douglas Johnson with the words,
>
> > "He actually writes…he would write into the bill a provision where the
> > federal Secretary of Health would have to pay a private contractor to
> > make the payments to the abortionists. Now, that's a money laundering
> > scheme," he contends. "It's still the federal government, the federal
> > government taking federal government money and paying the abortionists
> > for abortion on demand, and somehow he thinks that they can claim it's
> > not the federal government if the federal official has to hire
> > somebody to deliver the payment."
>
> And why shouldn't *any* health insurance provider, whether private or
> public, provide funding for a medical procedure,
They do, and there is nothing in the Stupak Amendment to keep them
from continuing to do it -- or for paying for abortions for reason of
rape, incest, or life of the mother even if they do feed at the
federal trough.
And by the way, if elective abortion is a medical procedure, so is
liposuction, so are silicone breast implants, so is all kinds of
cosmetic surgery (as in Michael Jackson periodically re-inventing his
face). Do you reckon these, too, should be subsidized by federal
funds?
Also, what is it that makes a procedure medical? That an MD does it?
Sorry, California is moving towards having non-MD's perform abortions.
>which last time I looked, was LEGAL?
So are all the above, with the possible exception of silicone breast
implants, but I think the ban on those was lifted a while back.
That reminds me of an old political cartoon that was published when
these first became illegal. It showed women at a rally with signs
like "Keep government off our bodies" and "Women have the right to do
what they want with their bodies". A woman was talking to a reporter
and saying, "Abortion? No, silicone breast implants."
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<ea4122e3-9624-484c...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, the
person posting as peter nyikos,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> This is the last of -- what is it, four? -- follow-ups to a post of
> Spartakus pregnant with issues.
if it really is a post to spartacus, you could have simply emailed it.
if it was intended as a post to talk and alt abortion newsgroups, then
you condemn yourself to idiocy by announcing what it was instead of
allowing readers to decide.
to admit you followed up the same post four times suggests you are not
focusing on what you post.
james g. keegan jr.
<128e5bcd-33f7-4a11...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, the
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:50 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos, who may well turn out to be a sockpuppet for Joe Belk,
>
> Shoot, I don't even know who Joe Belk is.
and you want people to believe you are the same peter nyikos who posted
here fifteen years ago.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
> > > > already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
> > > > in whole world.
> > > Oh no, the bill did not address abortion rights at all. It addressed
> > > financial *coverage* of abortions.
> > Thanks for belatedly showing what a base lie your "uteruses now belong
> > to Bart Stupak" was.
>
> Earth to whoever-you-are. The financial component is a big part of
> being able to access medical services. When you go out of your way to
> arrange things to deny coverage for a medical procedure, it is as good
> as denying that medical procedure.
What a shameless piece of pro-abortion propaganda! Abortion, if done
in a timely manner, costs less than $600 a pop. Try getting emergency
treatment in a hospital for a staple in your finger that is a
millimeter into the bone, for less than 4 times that much.
If the abortion funding so near and dear to your heart becomes law, I
expect abortionists to inflate the cost of abortions to where that
$600 would just be copayment.
And that's what you are really after, isn't it--making abortions so
lucrative that no Planned Parenthood clinic director will ever feel
pressured to increase the number of abortions?
Abby Johnson's defection really stuck in your craw, didn't it?
>
> > >The amendment prohibits federal
> > > funds for abortion services in the public option.
> > EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
>
> > In other words, it just extends the Hyde Amendment to a place where
> > Pelosi, etc. claimed all along it would be extended.
>
> Now that more time has passed for analysis, the consensus
...of the propagandists who are quoted in the following tendentious
website...
> is that no
> one knows what this amendment really does.
>
> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/controversial-stupak-amend...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/controversial-stupak-amendment-sows-anger-confusion-on-capitol-hill.php?ref=fpblg
Notice how they keep yammering about "the exchange." There will be
lots of insurance policies that are not on the exchange, including ALL
the ones that illegal aliens will be able to purchase, if the White
House wasn't being insincere about what it wants in the wake of Joe
Wilson's famous "You lie!"
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/11/2065287.aspx
By the way, I am a constituent of Joe's but I think (to use words
George Marshall used in reference to MacArthur wanting to expand the
Korean war by bombing Manchuria) his outburst was the wrong war with
the wrong enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> > I remember when the Hyde Amendment first came out. I was a Visiting
> > Assistant Professor at Auburn U. at the time. I read a column by
> > Carl T. Rowan, which for the times was dripping with unreasoning
> > hatred,
>
> This Carl T. Rowan?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan
>
> Except for the episode involving the Neil Smith shooting, I am
> flattered by the comparison.
Why would a megalomaniac who thinks he can speak in the name of the
universe be flattered by such a lowly comparison?
> [--FauxNy writes a letter; the universe yawns--]
>
Couldn't cope with the solidly on-topic content, I see.
>
> So you're saying that you've always been this nuts?
.001% on Fischer's irony meter, which subtracts the true reading from
100%.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 9, 10:07 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > > Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
>> > > > already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
>> > > > in whole world.
>> > > Oh no, the bill did not address abortion rights at all. It addressed
>> > > financial *coverage* of abortions.
>> > Thanks for belatedly showing what a base lie your "uteruses now belong
>> > to Bart Stupak" was.
>>
>> Earth to whoever-you-are. The financial component is a big part of
>> being able to access medical services. When you go out of your way to
>> arrange things to deny coverage for a medical procedure, it is as good
>> as denying that medical procedure.
>
>What a shameless piece of pro-abortion propaganda! Abortion, if done
>in a timely manner, costs less than $600 a pop.
Which, for a lot of people, is an impossible amount of money.
But for elitist misogynists like fauxNy the needs of people really
don't count. All he cares about is punishing "sluts".
>And that's what you are really after, isn't it--making abortions so
>lucrative that no Planned Parenthood clinic director will ever feel
>pressured to increase the number of abortions?
You really are an evil sleazebag. Don't assume that other people are
like you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
> > > > > already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
> > > > > in whole world.
> > > > Oh no, the bill did not address abortion rights at all. It addressed
> > > > financial *coverage* of abortions.
> > > Thanks for belatedly showing what a base lie your "uteruses now belong
> > > to Bart Stupak" was.
> > Earth to whoever-you-are. The financial component is a big part of
> > being able to access medical services. When you go out of your way to
> > arrange things to deny coverage for a medical procedure, it is as good
> > as denying that medical procedure.
> What a shameless piece of pro-abortion propaganda! Abortion, if done
> in a timely manner, costs less than $600 a pop. Try getting emergency
> treatment in a hospital for a staple in your finger that is a
> millimeter into the bone, for less than 4 times that much.
"Anyway, you are helping to convince me that you've
always been a very well-heeled person who has no
need to worry about reductions in things like Medicare
Advantage. ... Typical well-heeled liberal--can't picture
lifestyles of anyone except the affluent on the one
hand and the homeless on the other."
-- the person posting as Peter Nyikos, on 10 Nov.
Sheesh, you're like the wingnut columnist who claimed that there
couldn't possibly be a problem with hunger in the U.S. because there's
so much obesity.
pnyikos
>
> >> The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted.
>
> >federal funding of abortion under Pelosi's pet bill would be
> >prohibited by the Hyde Amendment?
The Hyde Amendment only covers Medicaid and a few other
appropriations, while the Pelosi bill (and the new Senate bill)
enormously expands federal subsidy to insurance companies and people
ineligible for the appropriations the Hyde Amendment calls for.
> We certainly won't believe a known liar like yourself.
Since I am not a known liar, your taunt is pure GIGO. Do you dispute
what I wrote in amplification this time around?
pnyikos
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:34:38 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 12:50 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> Showing what a sour-grapes poopy-pants he is, the person posting as
>
>
> >> > What the amendment did was to codify what Obama, Pelosi, most of the
> >> > the major news media, etc. repeatedly claimed: that no federal money
> >> > would go to help pay for abortions for reasons other than life of the
> >> > mother, rape, and incest.
>
> >> companies that accept premiums subsidies would be forbidden to pay for
> >> abortions.
>
>
>
> > "Spartakus," James Keegan, Ray Fischer, Patrick Humphrey...and
> > lies I have repeatedly documented, establishing whole threads to
> > thoroughly display the documentation, not just OF the lies but of the
> > fact that they ARE lies. See, for example, the third post in the
> > thread
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/browse_thread/thread/...
> > lays bare a lie of Spartakus so bizarre, it took two thoroughly
> > deceitful posts by him and Patrick Humphrey to make it look to
> > careless readers that I was off base in my accusation; but the thread
> > above lays bare also how deceitful they were.
>
> > In the post to which I am following up, Spartakus played tit-for-tat,
> > blatantly accusing me of being a pathological liar [deleted here]
> > without even getting to the point of naming any lies, let alone
> > documenting any such.
>
> > Nor do I expect him to do any better now that I have called his
> > bluff. After all, he once accused me of repeatedly lying about
> > President Obama, yet adamantly and arrogantly refused to even NAME any
> > lies, despite repeated efforts by me to get him to do so.
>
> > In this he behaved like Joe McCarthy, who kept claiming to have lists
> > of card-carrying members of the Communist party in the State
> > Department, yet never named a single one.
>
> > And now, here is Spartakus's closing taunt:
>
> >> Isn't this a GREAT VICTORY for anti-
> >> choicers?
>
> > No, because as i said and even Spartakus agreed, the right to choose
> > was not affected by the amendment in the slightest.
>
> >> You are not displaying sufficient anti-abortion zeal,
>
> > My anti-abortion policies never were as zealous as those of most pro-
> > lifers. At least one of the cadre for whom "Spartakus" posts knows
> > this, since 'e even asked me through his conduit "Spartakus" how I
> > could favor keeping abortion legal up to about the 10th week LMP, and
> > 'e even responded to my explanation for it.
>
> > >Comrade Whoever-you-are!
>
> > I am far less of a "Comrade" than Keegan, who repeatedly posts
> > articles that come from people who have subordinated their reasoning
> > powers to a leftist party discipline, and who also expects--and gets--
> > the equivalent of party discipline from the Cozy Clique.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Thanks for demonstrating that you're goddamned well into delusion, Phony.
You aren't Spartakus.
[And it looks like you'll never acquire the smarts to figure out what
these "You aren't ..." responses are about. Maybe IAAH will, though.]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 4:56 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Spartakus
>
> oh forget spartacus for now.
>
> tell readers why you ran away so fast from your lies about a 15-year old
> talk.abortion flamewar.
Temporarily occupying myself with other threads does NOT constitute
running away.
Until you tell me what you allege to be lies on this thread, I will
not answer on this thread.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 9, 10:51 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Nov 7, 11:51 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The lesson here is that we can't take anything for granted.
>>
>> >Did you seriously think the American public would buy the lie that
>> >federal funding of abortion under Pelosi's pet bill would be
>> >prohibited by the Hyde Amendment?
>
>The Hyde Amendment only covers Medicaid and a few other
I guess you couldn't be bothered to read this next sentence.
>> We certainly won't believe a known liar like yourself.
>
>Since I am not a known liar,
You most certainly are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
james g. keegan jr.
<a9f8e1cb-47a1-42ba...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 7:54 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a2375677-a35d-4c6d-a4ec-8c848acc7...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 4:56 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Spartakus
> >
> > oh forget spartacus for now.
> >
> > tell readers why you ran away so fast from your lies about a 15-year old
> > talk.abortion flamewar.
>
> Temporarily occupying myself with other threads does NOT constitute
> running away.
of course it does.
>
> Until you tell me what you allege to be lies on this thread, I will
> not answer on this thread.
you can see for yourself by reading the replies to your posts
challenging your lies. there is no need for anyone to challenge each lie
more than once. when ou fail to respond to those challenges, it is clear
to all that you lied. it is equally clear that you read replies to your
post and run away from all challenges to your lies and misstatements.
james g. keegan jr.
<c69e988c-165b-43d9...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 10:51 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > We certainly won't believe a known liar like yourself.
>
> Since I am not a known liar
as is my stated policy, i have cut your post at your first lie.
Ray Fischer
>> > Spartakus
>>
>> oh forget spartacus for now.
>>
>> tell readers why you ran away so fast from your lies about a 15-year old
>> talk.abortion flamewar.
>
>Temporarily occupying myself with other threads does NOT constitute
>running away.
It does when it ends being a permanent avoidance, as is usually the
case.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> >aren't worried about the cutback in things like Medicare Advantage--
> >and that's all you had to say in response:
>
> This is what fauxNy _actually_ wrote:
>
> There are all kinds of objectionable things in the bill, even with
> the Stupak amendment. ?Why is it that you are so all-fired happy
> about the bill? ?Are you sufficiently wealthy to opt out of Medicare?
> Do you know anything about the Medicare Advantage flap?
>
> Apparently he really is either senile or just a really stupid liar.
Apparently you don't believe your own crap about "quibble:" which you
first hit me with when you said, even before the election,
"*President* Obama to you, bigot." and I responded shortly after the
election with "President-elect Obama to everyone, twit." and backed it
up with a longish quote from Obama saying he wanted to be very careful
not to send the wrong message--the USA has only one President at a
time.
Of course, coward that you are, you deleted the whole Obama quote and
then hit me with your favorite definition of "quibble".
[not a bad feat of memory for someone you hypocritically dismiss as
being either "senile" or "a really stupid liar," eh?]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > That was all this juvenile prankster left in of everything I posted.
Spartakus sort of dealt with this first sentence, but the following
went down his memory hole:
> > What is more , he cut out the remainder of what HE had posted,
> > and I had left in. He continued the juvenile (like, around 6 years
> > old) prank with:
>
> James has told you several times that his normal policy
for which there are MANY exceptions, when he feels like making them.
I just now got done taking him to task for a particularly conspicuous
exception on the thread, "Evidemce that Keegan is a fruitcake, a
sociopath, and a sicko" but obligingly left in the flagrantly
inappropriate Subject: line that he had replaced the original one by.
You of course would never DREAM of saying that his 100% Truth by
Blatant Assertion that is his only support for HIS subject line,
"Evidence that the liar posting as peter nyikos is a fruitcake, a
sociopath, and a sicko" bears the same relationship to the "Evidence"
his subject line touts as feces bear to weenies, like you did with
my totally unchallenged testimony of powerfully sociopathic behavior
by Keegan.
>when
> responding to low-lifes like you and Oopsrey
If we are low-lifes then: nyikos : African rift valley : :
Spartakus : the boundary between the earth's mantle and the earth's
core.
For "Spartakus" substitute any of the other Seven Musketeers (Keegan,
etc. ) at will.
>is to respond to the
> first lie from you all
Correction: the first thing he CALLS a lie, almost always without a
smidgin of justification.
> and then delete the rest.
Which, in my case, very often includes scads of justification for why
my statement that he left in is NOT a lie.
Case in point: the third thing he called a lie among the five that he
repeated three times on the thread I mentioned above. I'm curious to
see just how dadaistic, and how soon, you will get in response to my
documentation of just how Spartakus-serving that particular massive
deletion was.
>Have you ever tried
> to persuade him to leave everything intact?
I've frequently restored my justifications, and if that doesn't get
the message across, the direct approach certainly will not--not to a
prankster who does the sorts of things you buried your head in the
sand about (see my first comment).
[...]
> > You know damn well that I condemn deletions which allow people to
> > plausibly indulge in dishonest behavior such as you have displayed
> > just now.
>
> You condemn your own behavior?
I never said anything that even hinted at that, Pee Wee.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<1ba7b6ce-f0e9-441b...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 11:56 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > That was all this juvenile prankster left in of everything I posted.
>
> > > What is more , he cut out the remainder of what HE had posted,
> > > and I had left in. He continued the juvenile (like, around 6 years
> > > old) prank with:
> >
> > James has told you several times that his normal policy
>
> for
are you upset that spartacus told you that i often cut your posts at
your first lie, false allegation or misstatement?
[...]
Spartakus
But you described your own behavior, making unmarked deletions in
order to "indulge in dishonest behavior. You've done that several
times, and I've called you out on it. Therefore, by the transitive
property of logic and rhetoric, you are condemning your own behavior.
And you claim to be a PhD? Sheesh!
james g. keegan jr.
<80efa8b6-2047-43b9...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
exactly like osprey.
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 11, 3:51 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Spartakus, you said the following in response to my asking you why you
>> >aren't worried about the cutback in things like Medicare Advantage--
>> >and that's all you had to say in response:
>>
>> This is what fauxNy _actually_ wrote:
>>
>> There are all kinds of objectionable things in the bill, even with
>> the Stupak amendment. ?Why is it that you are so all-fired happy
>> about the bill? ?Are you sufficiently wealthy to opt out of Medicare?
>> Do you know anything about the Medicare Advantage flap?
>>
>> Apparently he really is either senile or just a really stupid liar.
>
>Apparently you don't believe your own crap about "quibble:"
Is that how yhou justify your egregious lying? You simplyu define it
to be something other than lying?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus, you said the following in response to my asking you why you
> > aren't worried about the cutback in things like Medicare Advantage--
>
Highly selective use of your intelligence noted.
> > and that's all you had to say in response:
> > > Medicare Advantage is a collection of *private* health insurance
> > > plans, you twit.
>
> Yes, I responded to the question you actually asked by showing that it
> was irrelevant.
And I see you are still not responding to the intended question,
because you can't break yourself of the habit of evasive maneuvers.
> > I wanted to know whether Baucus is your hero because he wants to make
> > things really hot for *private* health insurance plans, despite
> > your fondness for government subsidies for them as long as abortion
> > is at stake.
>
> If you wanted to hear my perspective on Baucus, why didn't you ask me
> about that?
Because the indirect approach usually works better. In this case,
though, I see NEITHER approach has worked.
> > Anyway, you are helping to convince me that you've always been a very
> > well-heeled person who has no need to worry about reductions in things
> > like Medicare Advantage.
>
> My financial circumstances are irrelevant. For what it's worth, I
> work for a living.
Is THIS the famous post where you talked working for a living, which I
missed because I allegedly don't read talk.abortion?
> > I first cottoned onto this when I saw how completely clueless you were
> > about Scott Roeder making all those trips between Wichita and Kansas
> > City without being heavily subsidized by anti-abortion groups. I mentioned
> > that unless you had records of hotel stays by him, you had no case for that.
>
> > You retorted that he would have had a hard time sleeping in his car in
> > winter. Typical well-heeled liberal--can't picture lifestyles of
> > anyone except the affluent on the one hand and the homeless on the
> > other.
>
> Ha ha! The person posting as Peter Nyikos is accusing me of elitism!
So you are insinuating that it is elitism to tell the newsgroup who I
am when your trusty allies lie through their teeth and indulge in
massive GIGO to convince people that I am NOT the mathematics
professor that I am, are you?
If so, you've just invented a new twist on the old blame-the-victim
game.
> A smarter man wouldn't have touched that petard!
This has to do with elitism along the "lifestyles of the rich and
famous," axis. I'm way below you on that, judging from the way you
hew to your cluelessness while pretending to respond:
>
> > Here's a clue for you: H - O - S - P - I - T - A - L - I - T - Y.
>
> Here's a phrase for you: M Y P O I N T E X A C T L Y.
Ah, so your point all along was that Roeder didn't get one thin dime
from pro-life organizations, only hospitality from some sympathetic
pro-life individuals in the form of a place to crash overnight while
he closely followed events in the unfolding case against Tiller?
If so, why do you spear people who may have had no inkling of the dark
forces stirring in the breast of an externally inoffensive man? Just
look at how you completely seem to miss my point again:
> And here's another phrase: A C C E S S O R Y T O M U R D E R.
My theory is that Roeder snapped the way a character in "The Great
Escape" snapped when the German POW camp guards discovered the main
tunnel that the POWs were using to try and escape: despairing of
escape by tunneling, he tried to climb the barbed wire and was shot
down like a dog.
The parallels are awfully tricky for a person of your highly selective
intelligence, so I'll walk you through them.
The escape tunnel was like the court case against Tiller, only in a
kind of reverse way: Roeder was hoping Tiller would be captured, so to
speak. When the court, faced with the marshmallow case the Tiller-
sympathetic prosecutor brought, did the natural thing and found Tiller
not guilty, Roeder despaired of Tiller ever being captured by the
usual legal methods, snapped, and shot Tiller down like a dog.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<4af42da0-275c-4821...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 10:33 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Spartakus, you said the following in response to my asking you why you
> > > aren't worried about the cutback in things like Medicare Advantage--
> >
> > You didn't ask me that, liar.
>
> Highly selective use of your intelligence noted.
noting your lies is neither selective or particularly intellectually
demanding. anyone who reads your posts can do it.
elizabeth
You sure have some great :"friends"
> The escape tunnel was like the court case against Tiller, only in a
> kind of reverse way: Roeder was hoping Tiller would be captured, so to
> speak. When the court,
So now you say that the citizens in the jury were wrong?
Really? So you're opposed to our judicial system?
> faced with the marshmallow case the Tiller-
> sympathetic prosecutor brought,
Prove it, if he was so sympathetic he never would have brought any
charges.
> did the natural thing and found Tiller
> not guilty, Roeder despaired of Tiller ever being captured by the
> usual legal methods, snapped, and shot Tiller down like a dog.
No, your pal was the dog here, a rabid dog at that.
> Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Spartakus, you said the following in response to my asking you why you
> > > aren't worried about the cutback in things like Medicare Advantage--
> > You didn't ask me that, liar.
> Highly selective use of your intelligence noted.
Passive-aggressiveness on your part noted.
> > > and that's all you had to say in response:
> > > > Medicare Advantage is a collection of *private* health insurance
> > > > plans, you twit.
> > Yes, I responded to the question you actually asked by showing that
> > it was irrelevant.
> And I see you are still not responding to the intended question,
> because you can't break yourself of the habit of evasive maneuvers.
You didn't type out the question you now claim to have intended, you
typed out something else. Passive-aggressiveness in excelsius! I can
only respond to what appears in my little viewing box, dummy.
> > > I wanted to know whether Baucus is your hero because he wants to
> > > make things really hot for *private* health insurance plans, despite
> > > your fondness for government subsidies for them as long as abortion
> > > is at stake.
> > If you wanted to hear my perspective on Baucus, why didn't you ask me
> > about that?
> Because the indirect approach usually works better.
If you define "works" as "giving the person posting as Peter Nyikos a
pretext for throwing a snit", well, it succeeded brilliantly. Btw,
that is more classic passive-aggressiveness.
> In this case, though, I see NEITHER approach has worked.
Hurray! Maybe some sort of insight will penetrate your flinty pate.
> > > Anyway, you are helping to convince me that you've always been a very
> > > well-heeled person who has no need to worry about reductions in things
> > > like Medicare Advantage.
> > My financial circumstances are irrelevant. For what it's worth, I
> > work for a living.
> Is THIS the famous post where you talked working for a living, which
> I missed because I allegedly don't read talk.abortion?
Obviously not, since your inquiries predate my previous post by
several months.
Gawdz, you're stupid.
> > > I first cottoned onto this when I saw how completely clueless you were
> > > about Scott Roeder making all those trips between Wichita and Kansas
> > > City without being heavily subsidized by anti-abortion groups. I mentioned
> > > that unless you had records of hotel stays by him, you had no case for that.
> > >
> > > You retorted that he would have had a hard time sleeping in his car
> > > in winter. Typical well-heeled liberal--can't picture lifestyles of
> > > anyone except the affluent on the one hand and the homeless
> > > on the other.
> > Ha ha! The person posting as Peter Nyikos is accusing me of elitism!
> So you are insinuating that it is elitism to tell the newsgroup who
> I am when your trusty allies lie through their teeth and indulge in
> massive GIGO to convince people that I am NOT the mathematics
> professor that I am, are you?
The joke here is that Peter Pot is calling Sparky Kettle black, you
misdirection specialist.
> If so, you've just invented a new twist on the old blame-the-victim
> game.
Now THIS, perfesser, is GIGO.
> > A smarter man wouldn't have touched that petard!
> This has to do with elitism along the "lifestyles of the rich and
> famous," axis. I'm way below you on that,
You wouldn't say that if you saw the car I drive.
> judging from the way you hew to your cluelessness
> while pretending to respond:
Tee hee!
> > > Here's a clue for you: H - O - S - P - I - T - A - L - I - T - Y.
>
> > Here's a phrase for you: M Y P O I N T E X A C T L Y.
>
> Ah, so your point all along was that Roeder didn't get one thin dime
> from pro-life organizations, only hospitality from some sympathetic
> pro-life individuals in the form of a place to crash overnight while
> he closely followed events in the unfolding case against Tiller?
No, my point was that Roeder and his compatriots in Kansas and western
Missouri were as thick as thieves, or in this case, as murderers.
> If so, why do you spear people who may have had no inkling of the
> dark forces stirring in the breast of an externally inoffensive man?
Ha Ha! One Roeder's closest associates at Operation Rescue was Cheryl
Sullenger, a convicted felon who attempted to bomb at least one clinic
in California. He's also friends with Regina Dinwiddie, a signer of
Paul Hill's "Defensive Action Statement".
"An extremely inoffensive man"? WTF? There are testimonies from
clinic escorts about what a creepy guy this Scott Roeder was and is.
> Just look at how you completely seem to miss my point again:
> > And here's another phrase: A C C E S S O R Y T O M U R D E R.
> My theory is that Roeder snapped the way a character in "The Great
> Escape" snapped when the German POW camp guards discovered
> the main tunnel that the POWs were using to try and escape:
> despairing of escape by tunneling, he tried to climb the barbed
> wire and was shot down like a dog.
>
> The parallels are awfully tricky for a person of your highly selective
> intelligence, so I'll walk you through them.
>
> The escape tunnel was like the court case against Tiller, only in a
> kind of reverse way: Roeder was hoping Tiller would be captured, so to
> speak. When the court, faced with the marshmallow case the Tiller-
> sympathetic prosecutor brought, did the natural thing and found Tiller
> not guilty, Roeder despaired of Tiller ever being captured by the
> usual legal methods, snapped, and shot Tiller down like a dog.
I like movie analogies, but this one makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Ray Fischer
>And I see you are still not responding to the intended question,
That's pretty funny. fauxNy is such an arrogant asshole that he
insists that people must answer his INTENDED questions, and not just
the ones he actually asks, and certainly not just the relevant ones.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Spartakus, you said the following in response to my asking you why you
> > > aren't worried about the cutback in things like Medicare Advantage--
> > You didn't ask me that, liar.
> Highly selective use of your intelligence noted.
Passive-aggressiveness on your part noted.
> > > and that's all you had to say in response:
> > > > Medicare Advantage is a collection of *private* health insurance
> > > > plans, you twit.
> > Yes, I responded to the question you actually asked by showing that
> > it was irrelevant.
> And I see you are still not responding to the intended question,
> because you can't break yourself of the habit of evasive maneuvers.
You didn't type out the question you now claim to have intended, you
typed out something else. Passive-aggressiveness in excelsius! I can
only respond to what appears in my little viewing box, dummy.
> > > I wanted to know whether Baucus is your hero because he wants to
> > > make things really hot for *private* health insurance plans, despite
> > > your fondness for government subsidies for them as long as abortion
> > > is at stake.
> > If you wanted to hear my perspective on Baucus, why didn't you ask me
> > about that?
> Because the indirect approach usually works better.
If you define "works" as "giving the person posting as Peter Nyikos a
pretext for throwing a snit", well, it succeeded brilliantly. Btw,
that is more classic passive-aggressiveness.
> In this case, though, I see NEITHER approach has worked.
Hurray! Maybe some sort of insight will penetrate your flinty pate.
> > > Anyway, you are helping to convince me that you've always been a very
> > > well-heeled person who has no need to worry about reductions in things
> > > like Medicare Advantage.
> > My financial circumstances are irrelevant. For what it's worth, I
> > work for a living.
> Is THIS the famous post where you talked working for a living, which
> I missed because I allegedly don't read talk.abortion?
Obviously not, since your inquiries about my profession predate my
previous post by several months.
Gawdz, yer stoopid.
> > > I first cottoned onto this when I saw how completely clueless you were
> > > about Scott Roeder making all those trips between Wichita and Kansas
> > > City without being heavily subsidized by anti-abortion groups. I mentioned
> > > that unless you had records of hotel stays by him, you had no case for that.
> > > You retorted that he would have had a hard time sleeping in his car
> > > in winter. Typical well-heeled liberal--can't picture lifestyles of
> > > anyone except the affluent on the one hand and the homeless
> > > on the other.
> > Ha ha! The person posting as Peter Nyikos is accusing me of elitism!
> So you are insinuating that it is elitism to tell the newsgroup who
> I am when your trusty allies lie through their teeth and indulge in
> massive GIGO to convince people that I am NOT the mathematics
> professor that I am, are you?
The joke here is that Peter Pot is calling Sparky Kettle black, you
misdirection specialist.
> If so, you've just invented a new twist on the old blame-the-victim
> game.
Now THIS, perfesser, is GIGO.
> > A smarter man wouldn't have touched that petard!
> This has to do with elitism along the "lifestyles of the rich and
> famous," axis. I'm way below you on that,
You wouldn't say that if you saw the car I drive.
> judging from the way you hew to your cluelessness
> while pretending to respond:
> > > Here's a clue for you: H - O - S - P - I - T - A - L - I - T - Y.
> > Here's a phrase for you: M Y P O I N T E X A C T L Y.
> Ah, so your point all along was that Roeder didn't get one thin dime
> from pro-life organizations, only hospitality from some sympathetic
> pro-life individuals in the form of a place to crash overnight while
> he closely followed events in the unfolding case against Tiller?
No, my point was that Roeder and his compatriots in Kansas and western
Missouri were as thick as thieves, or in this case, as murderers.
> If so, why do you spear people who may have had no inkling of the
> dark forces stirring in the breast of an externally inoffensive man?
Ha Ha! One Roeder's closest associates at Operation Rescue was Cheryl
Sullenger, a convicted felon who attempted to bomb at least one clinic
in California. He's also friends with Regina Dinwiddie, a signer of
Paul Hill's "Defensive Action Statement". These are folks who
ruminate all the time over BloodThirstyBabyKillers and what they got
coming to them.
"An extremely inoffensive man"? WTF? There are testimonies from
clinic escorts about what a creepy guy this Scott Roeder was and is.
> Just look at how you completely seem to miss my point again:
> > And here's another phrase: A C C E S S O R Y T O M U R D E R.
> My theory is that Roeder snapped the way a character in "The Great
> Escape" snapped when the German POW camp guards discovered
> the main tunnel that the POWs were using to try and escape:
> despairing of escape by tunneling, he tried to climb the barbed
> wire and was shot down like a dog.
>
> The parallels are awfully tricky for a person of your highly selective
> intelligence, so I'll walk you through them.
> The escape tunnel was like the court case against Tiller, only in a
> kind of reverse way: Roeder was hoping Tiller would be captured, so to
> speak. When the court, faced with the marshmallow case the Tiller-
> sympathetic prosecutor brought, did the natural thing and found Tiller
> not guilty, Roeder despaired of Tiller ever being captured by the
> usual legal methods, snapped, and shot Tiller down like a dog.
I like movie analogies, but this one makes no fucking sense
whatsoever.
"Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise."