Re: Police State ... less than five years..
The Chief Instigator
>The courts are decreeing radical changes to our rights and culture, and redefining
>personal and societal behavior
>
>In the very recent past (a partial list):
Could you at least provide a source for this list?
> "Campaign Finance Reform": You, citizen, may not run ads for or against a
>political candidate or issue unless those already in power say it is o.k. for
>you to do so. You may not contribute to a political party unless it is in a
>manner and amount approved by those already in power.
That's happening in Texas right now. Looks like whoever came up with that one
must have been somewhere other than this country.
> Personal Beliefs (if you are a Boy Scout): Every group of citizens has an
>equal right to use public land and to enter into contracts, unless members of
>your group have personal religious beliefs not approved of by a judge. There
>is no need to demonstrate that anyone is harmed by your group using a
>campground; it is enough to suggest that some members possess politically
>incorrect religious beliefs.
Cites?
> Marriage: The institution of marriage no longer
>has any particular meaning.
Funny - it still means something in Texas, where we live, and in Kentucky,
where my parents live. Where, precisely, did you get this from?
> Words: In one jurisdiction, you could not say
>the entire Pledge of Allegiance in any public place. We note that the
>Supreme Court has since given the words under God a reprieve, but did not
>settle the issue. We can expect another court to ban the Pledge before long.
I can cite the original Pledge quite easily: I pledge allegiance to the
United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands - one
nation, with liberty and justice for all. (Some of your "Christian" comrades
stiff-armed a few politicians to putting that "under God" clause in there in
1954. It wasn't in the original.)
> Higher education: If you work hard and follow
>all the rules and meet all the requirements to obtain a publicly-funded
>scholarship, but wish to study spiritual things in college, you are forbidden
>to take advantage of the scholarship you have earned.
Cites?
> Rights of the disabled: If you cannot speak for
>yourself and are injured, government is not permitted to make a distinction
>between your right to die and a supposed right of your husband to starve you
>to death.
I hope you can come up with a remotely credible source for any of these
assertions.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
Appieman
Appieman
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Not Me
| >> Rights of the disabled: If you cannot speak
for
| >>yourself and are injured, government is not permitted to make a
distinction
| >>between your right to die and a supposed right of your husband to starve
you
| >>to death.
| >
| >
| > I hope you can come up with a remotely credible source for any of these
| > assertions.
| >
| Your condition is called denial.
|
I find it interesting that those who value the family and family
responsibility (including the biblical tenet that the husband is the head of
the family) were quick to do all they could to disassemble years of family
law in order to 'save' TerryS. Which BTW included edited 'proof' of her
medical condition.
If you want a bit more insight into the process of Guardian Ad Litum (spl?)
might take the course offered by most states for volunteers (thirty hours
plus a hard test). Based on my knowledge of the process and the safe guards
TerryS was afforded extraordinary oversight of her situation.
From personal observations the government has more interest in the patient
dying than living. The process is driven by the bean counters and is
clearly working for those who would avoid their legal responsibility (do a
google search on ERISA/disability/insurance).
Not Me
"The Chief Instigator"
| > Rights of the disabled: If you cannot speak
for
| >yourself and are injured, government is not permitted to make a
distinction
| >between your right to die and a supposed right of your husband to starve
you
| >to death.
|
| I hope you can come up with a remotely credible source for any of these
| assertions.
Actually there is a law in Texas no less and signed by then Gov Bush that
allows bean counters to pull the plug. Interesting fact while the right was
so hot on the TerryS case no one gave a rat's about an infant that was
allowed to die basically because the mother could not find either the money
or a place to move the child.
(I should note that in this instance intervention (save divine intervention)
would have only prolonged the inevitable but much the same could be said of
the TerryS case.)
Might also mention that up until a few years ago ~69% of the SSA disability
cases were wrongfully denied in Texas (these data from the GAO) SSA promised
it would change. It did ... the situation grew worse. The one program that
had some demonstrated hope of helping was dumped, by SSA as the
'stakeholders' did not want the program. BTW the 'stakeholders' were the
people inside the SSA. The opinions of the folk on the outside, the
disabled,were dismissed.
Carl Baron
The Chief Instigator wrote:
> "Helen" <@abuse.roman.gov> writes:
>> Words: In one jurisdiction, you could not say
>>the entire Pledge of Allegiance in any public place. We note that the
>>Supreme Court has since given the words under God a reprieve, but did not
>>settle the issue. We can expect another court to ban the Pledge before long.
>
>
> I can cite the original Pledge quite easily: I pledge allegiance to the
> United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands - one
> nation, with liberty and justice for all. (Some of your "Christian" comrades
> stiff-armed a few politicians to putting that "under God" clause in there in
> 1954. It wasn't in the original.)
As one who orginally learned the pledge before "under God" was added, I
have never know the reasoning behind the addition. For quite a few
years, after the addition, I would just omit those words when I said the
pledge. It did seem that some pressure group forced the expression onto
all of us (a 1954 version of Police State tatics).
Carl
Appieman
>
> I find it interesting that those who value the family and family
> responsibility (including the biblical tenet that the husband is the head of
> the family) were quick to do all they could to disassemble years of family
> law in order to 'save' TerryS. Which BTW included edited 'proof' of her
> medical condition.
Years of family law? Surely you jest. If there is one single notion
in "family law" in this country it is the male in the union doesn't
count for much. This guy was king of the hill in two families wasn't
he? Mr. Shiavo accomplished with the applause of the media the exact
same thing that Scott Peterson was punished for doing.
> TerryS was afforded extraordinary oversight of her situation.
Terry had very faulted oversight. Sadly, this is repeated over and over
in our society. I speak from experience having had a parent that was
stroke impaired and also had a feeding tube for nearly two years prior
to her death. During those two years several doctors were fired for
attempting to "encourage" termination of the feeding tube. It doesn't
matter that she was decades above either PVS or Minimally Aware status.
We are steps away from a formal program of extermination of the
inconvenient and elderly.
ma...@hal-pc.org
<appi...@zoominternet.net> wrote:
> We are steps away from a formal program of extermination of the
>inconvenient and elderly.
I have put your name on the top of the list.
>M<
Appieman
suck in to your crap. You haven't had a worthwhile thought in at least
a decade.
Cyberbilly
"Not Me" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pRHfe.47002$QR1....@fe04.lga...
>
> I find it interesting that those who value the family and family
> responsibility (including the biblical tenet that the husband is the head
> of
> the family) were quick to do all they could to disassemble years of family
> law in order to 'save' TerryS.
The answer is quite simple: Protecting a life.
-CB
Not Me
"Appieman" <appi...@zoominternet.net> wrote in message
news:427f9769$1...@127.0.0.1...
| Not Me wrote:
|
| >
| > I find it interesting that those who value the family and family
| > responsibility (including the biblical tenet that the husband is the
head of
| > the family) were quick to do all they could to disassemble years of
family
| > law in order to 'save' TerryS. Which BTW included edited 'proof' of her
| > medical condition.
|
| Years of family law? Surely you jest. If there is one single notion
| in "family law" in this country it is the male in the union doesn't
| count for much. This guy was king of the hill in two families wasn't
| he? Mr. Shiavo accomplished with the applause of the media the exact
| same thing that Scott Peterson was punished for doing.
The issue was that the closest family member has the responsibility to make
the decision when the partner is unable to do so.
|
| > TerryS was afforded extraordinary oversight of her situation.
|
|
| Terry had very faulted oversight. Sadly, this is repeated over and over
| in our society. I speak from experience having had a parent that was
| stroke impaired and also had a feeding tube for nearly two years prior
| to her death. During those two years several doctors were fired for
| attempting to "encourage" termination of the feeding tube. It doesn't
| matter that she was decades above either PVS or Minimally Aware status.
| We are steps away from a formal program of extermination of the
| inconvenient and elderly.
I can only judge by what I've read plus what I know of the process from the
inside. (having worked in neurological research as an under grad engineer I
do have a bit of insight into the process) As to your personal observations
it might interest you to investigate the relationship of the two physicians
with the medical insurance providers. It would not at all surprise me to
have you report that there were economic incentives to these physicians and
other providers to act in such a way that the economic cost of caring for
your mother was limited. Read up on the use of morphine push as it applies
to most any end stage DX as just a little bit more and the patient just
stops breathing and dies what appears to be a natural death. The death
certificate will reflect that as will most autopsy reports.
We agree on more than we disagree. I for one know of what you speak as it
is quite clear that politicians and others have a vested stake in the
publicity and little interest in addressing the real world problems of folk
like your mother. As for myself I managed to keep my mother in law alive
and active for four years after the medical providers and the insurance
company gave up on her. It nearly bankrupted me but was worth the entire
cost, especially to my kids who came to know her in ways that they were
denied when she was well as she lived many states away.
Not Me
"Cyberbilly"
| > I find it interesting that those who value the family and family
| > responsibility (including the biblical tenet that the husband is the
head
| > of
| > the family) were quick to do all they could to disassemble years of
family
| > law in order to 'save' TerryS.
|
| The answer is quite simple: Protecting a life.
As Appieman pointed out we are steps away from a formal program of
extermination of the inconvenient and elderly.
TarryS was political optimism at the very best. I have no doubt that Rowe
and company rode the horse for all it was worth yet give little concern to
the effects of what they do. As example Texas cut meds under the indigent
mental health program under GWB and his successor. Save the state big bucks
but only succeeded in turning a program that kept folk functional into a
cost center for the local police but hey the state budget looked better.
At the very same time there was such media attention to TerryS including big
buck offers to keep her alive there was a small child allowed to die in
Texas due to the lack of money to keep it alive. The story barely made the
Houston papers and there were no offers of money to help the child.
Appieman
As to your personal observations
> it might interest you to investigate the relationship of the two physicians
> with the medical insurance providers. It would not at all surprise me to
> have you report that there were economic incentives to these physicians and
> other providers to act in such a way that the economic cost of caring for
> your mother was limited. Read up on the use of morphine push as it applies
> to most any end stage DX as just a little bit more and the patient just
> stops breathing and dies what appears to be a natural death. The death
> certificate will reflect that as will most autopsy reports.
>
> We agree on more than we disagree. I for one know of what you speak as it
> is quite clear that politicians and others have a vested stake in the
> publicity and little interest in addressing the real world problems of folk
> like your mother. As for myself I managed to keep my mother in law alive
> and active for four years after the medical providers and the insurance
> company gave up on her. It nearly bankrupted me but was worth the entire
> cost, especially to my kids who came to know her in ways that they were
> denied when she was well as she lived many states away.
>
>
>
I agree that these times can be enriching moments/hours/days for the
immediate family. I have no regrets and I am sure my children don't as
well.
I am less sure that it is the "politician" as such, rather the
bureaucrat. Every time I hear the term bioethicist, I shudder.
jls
"Cyberbilly" <Cyber...@bugtussle.kom> wrote in message
news:8ORfe.11163$iU.5152@lakeread05...
Not a life. A zombie. She had utterly NO thought processes. Her
cerebrum was wiped out, and only her autonomic nervous system functioned,
despite teevy footage diagnoses by pandering idiots like Tom DeLay and Sen.
Frist. So a little aside for you, my good cathalick interleckchul:
Three asparaguses were walking along the highway when a car came careening
toward them and hit one of them, knocking him violently to the pavement.
The other two cradled their unconscious friend in their arms until the
ambulance came and took their friend to hospital. The two friends waited
with great solicitude outside the emergency room. The doctor came. "Oh,
doctor, how is our friend?" they both asked, wringing their hands.
"Your friend will live," the doctor said (as they sighed with great relief),
"but he'll be a vegetable for the rest of his life."
Ray Kinsella
> |
> |
> | We are steps away from a formal program of extermination of the
> | inconvenient and elderly.
> > I can only judge by what I've read plus what I know of the process
from the
> inside. (having worked in neurological research as an under grad
engineer I
> do have a bit of insight into the process) As to your personal
observations
> it might interest you to investigate the relationship of the two
physicians
> with the medical insurance providers. It would not at all surprise
me to
> have you report that there were economic incentives to these
physicians and
> other providers to act in such a way that the economic cost of caring
for
> your mother was limited. Read up on the use of morphine push as it
applies
> to most any end stage DX as just a little bit more and the patient
just
> stops breathing and dies what appears to be a natural death. The
death
> certificate will reflect that as will most autopsy reports.
>
On hind sight what you say about "morphine push" shines a new light on
things for me now. I will always wonder now if this was the case with
my father's death. All tubes and medication removed, nothing left but
morphine and damp cotton swabs for his dry mouth. Doctor said he would
last around two weeks. It was less than two days. Still, as much as you
hate to lose someone if it made for less, useless suffering I would
have agreed to the "push" if asked. Believe me tho'in cases as this,
whatever the out come it always brings the thought of personal guilt
for a long, long time.
ma...@hal-pc.org
>
>
>At the very same time there was such media attention to TerryS including big
>buck offers to keep her alive there was a small child allowed to die in
>Texas due to the lack of money to keep it alive. The story barely made the
>Houston papers and there were no offers of money to help the child.
>
You are either very stupid or an intentional liar.
That child had leukemia of the brain and flesh eating infection. The
hospital treating her was doing so, free of charge. Money was never
an issue. [except for the child's father who thought he saw big bucks
on HIS horizon.
The media coverage in Houston was heavy. And by the way, Houston only
has one daily paper.
Additionally the childs family received money from a variety of
sources.
You, like your hero Appman, try and make the facts fit your position.
>M<
Appieman
>
> That child had leukemia of the brain and flesh eating infection. The
> hospital treating her was doing so, free of charge. Money was never
> an issue. [except for the child's father who thought he saw big bucks
> on HIS horizon.
>
> The media coverage in Houston was heavy. And by the way, Houston only
> has one daily paper.
>
> Additionally the childs family received money from a variety of
> sources.
>
> You, like your hero Appman, try and make the facts fit your position.
Skipping over you newly created disorder of leukemia of the brain and to
the real point which is could the child breath on it's own. And, I
believe the answer to that was no. The second question was if you keep
the child on a respirator was there some treatment in the foreseeable
future that would have resolved the underlying problem and again the
answer was no. It was appropriate to disconnect the respirator and for
whatever period of time the child lived it should have been fed and
hydrated. The only value the story had was to blame the conservative
folks. By taking your version of this I take it there could be no
criticism of GW Bush as was previously stated.
jls
<ma...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:v0c1811qk83oa9vgl...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 May 2005 20:02:48 -0400, "Not Me" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >At the very same time there was such media attention to TerryS including
big
> >buck offers to keep her alive there was a small child allowed to die in
> >Texas due to the lack of money to keep it alive. The story barely made
the
> >Houston papers and there were no offers of money to help the child.
> >
> You are either very stupid or an intentional liar.
>
Well, cuzzin Madee, your statement is eloquent and accurate. However I
would have said he's stupid *and/or* an intentional liar. JMO.
Such bizarre thinking as that guy and a few more conservaloons hanging out
here. Bill Frist, another conservaloon, made his diagnosis on the basis of
30 minutes of tv footage. Tom Delay made his diagnosis to deflect
attention away from his and his family's spectacle of corrupt dealings
accepting a cool million or so from shady lobbyists.
Typical Chicken Little conservaloon logic is the slippery slope. The logic
goes like this: Since the courts wouldn't let the conservaloons "rescue"
the shell of Terry Schiavo, that means on the horizon, if and when any of us
reach 80 our police state gummint will euthanize us and send our carcases to
the soylent green factory.
jls
> ma...@hal-pc.org wrote:
>
> >
It was appropriate to disconnect the respirator and for
> whatever period of time the child lived it should have been fed and
> hydrated. The only value the story had was to blame the conservative
> folks. By taking your version of this I take it there could be no
> criticism of GW Bush as was previously stated.
>
> Appieman
>
a hypocrite. As governor he signed the Texas bill into law which in a sense
legitimizes euthanasia. The legislation coldly applies economic
considerations for disconnecting life-support and permits the hospital to
pull the plug in spite of the family's objections. Bush and his
sanctimonious brother took a contradictory position in the Terry Sciavo
case. Those two are like Delay and Frist --- panderers. In the NT they're
called Pharisees.
The Chief Instigator
>"The Chief Instigator"
>| > Rights of the disabled: If you cannot speak
>| >for yourself and are injured, government is not permitted to make a
>| >distinction between your right to die and a supposed right of your husband
>| >to starve you to death.
>| I hope you can come up with a remotely credible source for any of these
>| assertions.
>Actually there is a law in Texas no less and signed by then Gov Bush that
>allows bean counters to pull the plug. Interesting fact while the right was
>so hot on the TerryS case no one gave a rat's about an infant that was
>allowed to die basically because the mother could not find either the money
>or a place to move the child.
True - that's one statute I wasn't paying attention about, but it was George
who made sure to push that through back in Legislature 76.
>(I should note that in this instance intervention (save divine intervention)
>would have only prolonged the inevitable but much the same could be said of
>the TerryS case.)
>Might also mention that up until a few years ago ~69% of the SSA disability
>cases were wrongfully denied in Texas (these data from the GAO) SSA promised
>it would change. It did ... the situation grew worse. The one program that
>had some demonstrated hope of helping was dumped, by SSA as the
>'stakeholders' did not want the program. BTW the 'stakeholders' were the
>people inside the SSA. The opinions of the folk on the outside, the
>disabled,were dismissed.
Jefferson had a few cautions against such things happening - unfortunately,
almost no one wants to rock the boat...
The Chief Instigator
I showed up the year after the revised version was shoved upon us, and learned
its history when I was in high school in the early 1970s...and have stuck with
the 1892 original ever since, Homeland Security be damned. ;-)
Not Me
" jls" <
| Regardless of what was previously stated, the criticism of GW is that he
is
| a hypocrite. As governor he signed the Texas bill into law which in a
sense
| legitimizes euthanasia. The legislation coldly applies economic
| considerations for disconnecting life-support and permits the hospital to
| pull the plug in spite of the family's objections. Bush and his
| sanctimonious brother took a contradictory position in the Terry Sciavo
| case. Those two are like Delay and Frist --- panderers. In the NT
they're
| called Pharisees.
Bingo. There are many cases where folk could have lived and functioned but
the insurance industry does all that it can to see that they don't.
Ashcroft would go wild with concerns about the possibility of assisted
suicide to the extent of making pain clinics such as the one at UTSW Med
school reluctant to give meds to folk in pain because of intimidation by the
DEA and the DOJ yet take no action against insurance company docs (aka
Hospitalest <spl?>) that did manage to enable folk to die even if it were
involuntary on their part. For example fully 1/3 of the patients presenting
themselves to ER with the same symptoms as the VP had are sent home against
good medical practice by insurance company docs.
Not Me
|
| >
| >
| >At the very same time there was such media attention to TerryS including
big
| >buck offers to keep her alive there was a small child allowed to die in
| >Texas due to the lack of money to keep it alive. The story barely made
the
| >Houston papers and there were no offers of money to help the child.
| >
| You are either very stupid or an intentional liar.
|
| That child had leukemia of the brain and flesh eating infection. The
| hospital treating her was doing so, free of charge. Money was never
| an issue. [except for the child's father who thought he saw big bucks
| on HIS horizon.
|
| The media coverage in Houston was heavy. And by the way, Houston only
| has one daily paper.
|
| sources.
|
| You, like your hero Appman, try and make the facts fit your position.
Houston like Dallas has on one 'official news paper but there are lesser non
establishment rags as well that tend to be a PIA for the established media
and politicians. Regardless I would have been more accurate stating 'media'
which includes broadcast.
The point is that faith like morals is not a variable. You can't be
pro-life on one hand but make exceptions base on monetary or racial
consideration. Make great campaign speeches about the topic but then gut
programs that make abortion less likely.
Make one law to protect the medical provider from loss (which is what the
Texas law is about) but then give the insurance industry protection (in
return for campaign contributions) from having to make timely payments to
doctors and hospitals.
Push a bankruptcy reform program that harms the little guy to the benefit of
the banks and credit card companies but take on action to reform the
business bankruptcy law that result in employees getting the shaft by
companies (like the airlines and steel industry) when they unload the
responsibility on the taxpayer (retirement guarantee corp.) and leave the
employees with less than they were promised. Push tort reform that
effectively keeps the little guy out of the court house but make no effort
to address B2B tort. (P2P/P2B legal action has been in decline for 10+
years, B2B has been on the up swing during the same time)
Likewise take no action when our troops are subject to 400+% interest rate
from pay day loan companies. I remind you that years ago (perhaps during
Ann Richards term) there was a move to limit the abuse of pay day loans.
The entire process was blocked by a Houston law maker who was a big owner of
number of these pay day loan companies.
ma...@hal-pc.org
>
><ma...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
>news:v0c1811qk83oa9vgl...@4ax.com...
>| On Mon, 9 May 2005 20:02:48 -0400, "Not Me" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>|
>| >
>| >
>| >At the very same time there was such media attention to TerryS including
>big
>| >buck offers to keep her alive there was a small child allowed to die in
>| >Texas due to the lack of money to keep it alive. The story barely made
>the
>| >Houston papers and there were no offers of money to help the child.
>| >
>| You are either very stupid or an intentional liar.
>|
>| That child had leukemia of the brain and flesh eating infection. The
>| hospital treating her was doing so, free of charge. Money was never
>| an issue. [except for the child's father who thought he saw big bucks
>| on HIS horizon.
>|
>| The media coverage in Houston was heavy. And by the way, Houston only
>| has one daily paper.
>|
>| Additionally the child's family received money from a variety of
>| sources.
>|
>| You, like your hero Appman, try and make the facts fit your position.
>
>Houston like Dallas has on one 'official news paper but there are lesser non
>establishment rags as well that tend to be a PIA for the established media
>and politicians. Regardless I would have been more accurate stating 'media'
>which includes broadcast.
Other than the Houston Press which carries almost no stories like this
and the Spanish language papers and a few other ethnic papers, there
are almost no "lesser non establishment rags". And the 'media['
covered the story ad nauseum.
>
>The point is that faith like morals is not a variable.
Who says?
\You can't be
>pro-life on one hand but make exceptions base on monetary or racial
>consideration. Make great campaign speeches about the topic but then gut
>programs that make abortion less likely.
Who has done this?. The reverse is actually more apt to occur.
Your whole posting sounds like you are advocating dumping Dubya and
his party. I'm all for that.
?M<
Not Me
| >| The media coverage in Houston was heavy. And by the way, Houston only
| >| has one daily paper.
| >|
| >| Additionally the child's family received money from a variety of
| >| sources.
| >|
| >| You, like your hero Appman, try and make the facts fit your position.
| >
| >Houston like Dallas has on one 'official news paper but there are lesser
non
| >establishment rags as well that tend to be a PIA for the established
media
| >and politicians. Regardless I would have been more accurate stating
'media'
| >which includes broadcast.
| Other than the Houston Press which carries almost no stories like this
| and the Spanish language papers and a few other ethnic papers, there
| are almost no "lesser non establishment rags". And the 'media'
| covered the story ad nauseum.
|
| >
| >The point is that faith like morals is not a variable.
Who says?
Obviously not GWB and co.
| \You can't be
| >pro-life on one hand but make exceptions base on monetary or racial
| >consideration. Make great campaign speeches about the topic but then gut
| >programs that make abortion less likely.
| Who has done this?. The reverse is actually more apt to occur.
|
| Your whole posting sounds like you are advocating dumping Dubya and
| his party. I'm all for that.
I knew GWB (not up close but in a business sense) before he ran for gov of
texas. I was not impress them and I'm much less impress now.
I was a Goldwater Republican that is now an independent because of the games
GWB and co have been playing and the damages they have done to this country.
joevan
Somehow I know that, but would it be good to see them numbered one to
a hundred in order of magnitude as to the harm they are doing. Or
should the number be higher. Gawd, what a bunch of greedy idiots.
joevan
>GWB and co have been playing and the damages they have done to this country.
Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you that GW pissed in YKW's horn.
Not Me
"joevan"
| >| Your whole posting sounds like you are advocating dumping Dubya and
| >| his party. I'm all for that.
| >
| >I knew GWB (not up close but in a business sense) before he ran for gov
of
| >texas. I was not impress them and I'm much less impress now.
| >
| >I was a Goldwater Republican that is now an independent because of the
games
| >GWB and co have been playing and the damages they have done to this
country.
| >
| "and the damages they have done to this country."
| Somehow I know that, but would it be good to see them numbered one to
| a hundred in order of magnitude as to the harm they are doing. Or
| should the number be higher. Gawd, what a bunch of greedy idiots.
It's easy to calulate. Use the following:
x = 1/0
joevan
Maybe pi to the 200th power.
Appieman
FAITH - everyone relies on
> faith daily) there's a tendency to start the name-calling in an attempt to
> discredit the one whom you (plural) disagree with.
There is a tendency by some here on occasion to divert attention from
their weakness of ideas by getting out the red pencil (including the
unreasonable belief they have rights to a red pencil).
appieman
Not Me
"joevan"
| >
| >x = 1/0
| >
| Maybe pi to the 200th power.
one divided by zero = infinity (the operation is not allowed regardless but
it served it's purpose here <g>)
The Chief Instigator
>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szkd5s1...@eris.io.com...
>> "Helen" <@abuse.roman.gov> writes:
>> >The courts are decreeing radical changes to our rights and culture, and
>> >redefining personal and societal behavior
>> >In the very recent past (a partial list):
>> Could you at least provide a source for this list?
>McConnel v. Federal Election Commission
>Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America
>Goodridge case (litany of filings) Commonwealth of Massachusetts
>Newdow I and Newdow II (Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow) ad nauseum..
> (BTW Newdow is a self-professed preacher...and an atheist)...
> Locke v. Davey
><snip>
>> I hope you can come up with a remotely credible source for any of these
>> assertions.
>Those are the sources, as for "credible" and "assertions" (court decisions
>you may shrug off as 'assertions' if you wish, nonetheless they affect us
>all); you may deem these sources other than "credible" but they are fact
>nonetheless; just as denying that poison is poison doesn't change the fact
>that it will kill you if you ingest it. Some seem to think that denying and
>name-calling lends 'credibility' to their own view, but that isn't so.
>Disagreement is one thing, denial and name-calling is not only petty but
>wholly unbecoming. When something is posted that hits too close to home, is
>contrary to the readers' own beliefs (cough, cough, cough.... FAITH -
>everyone relies on faith daily) there's a tendency to start the name-calling
>in an attempt to discredit the one whom you (plural) disagree with. Those
>court cases have been in the news, I'm surprised you hadn't heard of
>them...but then maybe not.
Fear not, I've heard of them - I just don't think they mean quite what you
think they should mean. Just to keep it simple for the simple-minded, though,
here's what I think about it: If you (that's the editorial plural, not the
singular) come to my door trying to shove your bible (or Torah, or Koran, or
whatever) in my face, you'll get precisely one (1) chance to remove
it...failure to do so will result in you learning to live the rest of your
life as an amputee. My religion is my business, and that's the way I like it.
I don't tolerate theocrats.
joevan
Yeah, since that is not allowed I thought I would put something down
that was correct and maybe would have some truth in it.
Not Me
"joevan"
| >| >x = 1/0
| >| >
| >| Maybe pi to the 200th power.
| >
| >one divided by zero = infinity (the operation is not allowed regardless
but
| >it served it's purpose here <g>)
| >
| Yeah, since that is not allowed I thought I would put something down
| that was correct and maybe would have some truth in it.
Recall we're talking politicians here, truth has no part in the process.
joevan
By jove, you are core rect. I stand correctly. Er directly core
rected.
Ray Kinsella
I don't tolerate theocrats.
Very well said Chief. I agree 100%.
--
The Chief Instigator
>My religion is my business, and that's the way I like it.
>I don't tolerate theocrats.
>Very well said Chief. I agree 100%.
It comes with being a rabid Fundamentalist Agnostic. ;-) (That's what I put
down on the form when I'm summoned for a jury panel, which happens an average
of every couple of years, in Harris County - eligible to vote since 1973, and
my next trip to the county courthouse will make my 16th jury service. So far,
no one in power has questioned it.)