Gallup Poll: 58% of Americans oppose all or most abortions

[J]

With Americans now able to see the true nature of abortion with the
murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, the days of legalized abortion are
numbered.







http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/10/gallup-poll-58-of-americans-oppose-all-or-most-abortions/








With the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell in full
swing, a new Gallup poll of Americans nationwide find well over half
oppose all or virtually all abortions.

Gallup�s annual Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 2-7, find 58
percent of Americans want either all or almost all abortions illegal �
with 20% saying it should be illegal in all circumstances and 38%
favoring it in only in a few circumstances.

Just 39 percent of Americans support all or most abortions remaining
legal, with only 26% of Americans favoring legalized abortion under
any circumstances (the position of Planned Parenthood and President
Barack Obama) and 13% favoring legality under most circumstances.

The poll also showed varying groups of Americans also strongly oppose
abortions and want it illegal in all or most circumstances. Some 59
percent of men and 57 percent of women want all or most abortions
illegal as do 57 percent of young Americans under the age of 34.
Republicans want all or most abortions illegal on a 78-21 percentage
point margin while 59 percent of independents and even 43 percent of
Democrats oppose all or most abortions.









J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

Honesty. Decency. Integrity

[W.T.S.]

Article <l5dro8l6f13hr8qbj...@4ax.com>, Jerk...@Lies.biz

>
> With Americans now able to see the true nature of abortion with the
> murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, the days of legalized abortion are
> numbered.

Sorry, "J", but the public doesn't get to vote on basic human and
Constitutional rights, including abortion, any more than they get to
vote on intergration/segregation.
P.S. How does it feel to know work continues on more and better
abortion medications?
>


We are indeed Carcinoma Sapiens, destroying, by insane fecundity, that
which we need to survive.
>
As always, organized religion opposes progress -
>
See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?
>
Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
>
"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of
love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned
alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal
fire of hell." --- Karl Popper
>
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig
>
Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want
to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can
but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then
he
is both powerless and wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.
>
"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth.
Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like
this, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist. He is thus either
impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11
>
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
>
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." --- Blaise Pascal.
>
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false,
and by rulers as useful."
--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
>
"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.
>
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.
>
"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow
>
"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen
>
"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." -
Mark
Twain
>
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain
>
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins
>
"Cult today, religion tomorrow."
>
The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
www.infidels.org
www.humaniststudies.org
www.atheistalliance.org
www.americanhumanist.org

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
illegal.

I don't think legal abortion is going anywhere anytime soon, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <l5dro8l6f13hr8qbj...@4ax.com>, J

<jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> With Americans now able to see the true nature of abortion with the
> murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, the days of legalized abortion are
> numbered.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/10/gallup-poll-58-of-americans-oppose-all-or-most-abortions/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> With the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell in full
> swing, a new Gallup poll of Americans nationwide find well over half
> oppose all or virtually all abortions.
>
> Gallup�s annual Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 2-7, find 58
> percent of Americans want either all or almost all abortions illegal �
> with 20% saying it should be illegal in all circumstances and 38%
> favoring it in only in a few circumstances.
>
> Just 39 percent of Americans support all or most abortions remaining
> legal, with only 26% of Americans favoring legalized abortion under
> any circumstances (the position of Planned Parenthood and President
> Barack Obama) and 13% favoring legality under most circumstances.
>
> The poll also showed varying groups of Americans also strongly oppose
> abortions and want it illegal in all or most circumstances. Some 59
> percent of men and 57 percent of women want all or most abortions
> illegal as do 57 percent of young Americans under the age of 34.

� Republicans say they are anti-abortion because that's what it takes to
win the votes of Catholics.

[duke]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
>illegal.

You flunked math, didn't you.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[Syd M.]

On May 10, 11:12 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> With Americans now able to see the true nature of abortion with the
> murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, the days of legalized abortion are
> numbered.
>

Dream on, woman hating forced birther.

PDW

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
>>illegal.
>
>You flunked math, didn't you.

No, Dook, I didn't.

Only 20% of the people want to make all abortions illegal.

Everyone else is, to varying degrees, pro-choice.

You're not too bright, are you, Dook?

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <r0vso8lsd3suv6c2k...@6ax.com>,

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
> >>illegal.
> >
> >You flunked math, didn't you.
>
> No, Dook, I didn't.
>
> Only 20% of the people want to make all abortions illegal.
>
> Everyone else is, to varying degrees, pro-choice.
>
> You're not too bright, are you, Dook?
>

• It's not that, he was inculcated by clever holy men not to do any deep
thinking.

[Les]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
>>illegal.
>
>You flunked math, didn't you.

Here are some more interesting stats for you:

More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a
religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and
25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The abortion
rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women
have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html

Since protestants outnumber catholics in number abortion
is more commonly asked for by catholic women that any
other grouping as stated above (22 per thousand)

So abortion is your problem not ours (in the USA)

When are you going to do something about it?

--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"When you are in a crowd and you stand out from the
crowd it's ususually because you are being carried on
the shoulders of others."
- Desmond Tutu

[elizabeth]

On May 10, 8:12 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

J, do the world a favor, google Robert J. Heishman, get some Texass
fertilizer, go to his place, and get blowed up real good.

[duke]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:51:10 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
>>>illegal.
>>
>>You flunked math, didn't you.

>Here are some more interesting stats for you:
>
>More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a
>religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and
>25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The abortion
>rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women
>have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]

They only checked the box they recognized.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <6m9vo89n68fd7f12k...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:51:10 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
> >>>illegal.
> >>
> >>You flunked math, didn't you.
>
> >Here are some more interesting stats for you:
> >
> >More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a
> >religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and
> >25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The abortion
> >rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women
> >have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]
>
> They only checked the box they recognized.
>

� So women can not recognize the word 'Protestant'? Damn!

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Why is that surprising?

Dook can't even spell it.

[linuxgal]

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:15:05 -0700,r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>> >In article<6m9vo89n68fd7f12k...@4ax.com>, duke
>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>>> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:51:10 +0100, Les<l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>>> >>
>>>> >> >On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54 -0400,Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >>>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
>>>>>> >> >>>illegal.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>You flunked math, didn't you.
>>> >>
>>>> >> >Here are some more interesting stats for you:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a
>>>> >> >religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and
>>>> >> >25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The abortion
>>>> >> >rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women
>>>> >> >have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]
>>> >>
>>> >>They only checked the box they recognized.
>>> >>

>> >� So women can not recognize the word 'Protestant'? Damn!

> Why is that surprising?
>
> Dook can't even spell it.

Freudian slip. Keeps thinking prostitute.


--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[�RLMeasures]

In article <4ervo8l4ogprlq0uk...@6ax.com>,

� because none of the women I know are that mentally challenged.

>
> Dook can't even spell it.

� no surprise there Otto.

[MarkA]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 20:12:04 -0700, J wrote:


>
>
>
> With the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell in full
> swing, a new Gallup poll of Americans nationwide find well over half
> oppose all or virtually all abortions.
>

There is a *HUGE* difference between "all" and "virtually all", which this
post tries to cover up. The ONLY justification for the government to
outlaw abortion is if the fetus is ruled to be a "person". If the fetus
is not a person, the government has no more business outlawing its removal
than it would outlawing appendectomies. OTOH, if the fetus *IS* a person,
than NO abortions can be permitted. Rape, incest, health of the mother -
none are justification for executing a person.

Fortunately, most people are sane enough to realize that, even if they
don't like the idea of abortion, it is something they have to live with.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <pan.2013.05.12....@somewhere.invalid>,
MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
...

>There is a *HUGE* difference between "all" and "virtually all", which this
>post tries to cover up.

Yes. Of course. But you can't possibly expect the mentally (and math/science in
particular) challenged pro-liars to grasp it.

>The ONLY justification for the government to
>outlaw abortion is if the fetus is ruled to be a "person". If the fetus
>is not a person, the government has no more business outlawing its removal
>than it would outlawing appendectomies. OTOH, if the fetus *IS* a person,
>than NO abortions can be permitted. Rape, incest, health of the mother -
>none are justification for executing a person.

Very well put. And I say that because it echoes what I've been saying for years now.
It really does boil down to "Is it OK or isn't it?". As you say, if it isn't, then
obviously rape and/or incest have no pull - anymore than they would have any pull
over whether or not you can "abort" your two-year-old (or your 17 year-old).

It is for this reason that I reject the term "pro-choice" and happily call myself
"pro-abortion". I know it rankles some of the members of these groups, but the fact
is that the term "pro-choice" obscures the real issue. Pro-lifers are right to say
that it isn't a "choice". Whatever it is, it isn't a "choice". Anymore than it
would be a "choice" to "abort" your two-year-old (or your 17 year-old). Obviously,
that's not a "choice" that any of us would defend.

So, if the pro-liars are right (which they aren't) about the fetus being as much a
legally recognized human being as your 2 (or 17) year-old is, then "choice" has
nothing to do with it.

>Fortunately, most people are sane enough to realize that, even if they
>don't like the idea of abortion, it is something they have to live with.

Indeed.

We all do.

--
Here's a simple test for Fox viewers:

1) Sit back, close your eyes, and think (Yes, I know that's hard for you).
2) Think about and imagine all of your ridiculous fantasies about Barack Obama.
3) Now, imagine that he is white. Cogitate on how absurd your fantasies
seem now.

See? That wasn't hard, was it?

[Dakota]

You misunderstand what the "real issue" is and why those of us who are
pro-choice oppose the term 'pro-abortion'.

If abortion isn't a choice, why do some pregnant women have abortions
and others not have an abortion? Your false comparison of abortion
with murdering a two or 17-year old ignores the fact that murdering a
child requires a conscious decision to commit that crime. Choice is a
factor in each situation. So-called pro-lifers who claim otherwise are
as wrong about that as you are.

Calling ourselves pro-choice does not mean that we are pro-abortion
but only that we respect and support a woman's right to make her own
medical decisions regarding pregnancy without interference from the
government or from picketers in front of clinics. Most of us would be
delighted if abortion was rare. That is why we support family
planning, science-based sex education, and the wide availability of
contraception and Plan B. We consider abortion to be a necessary
procedure for those who need it but do not encourage or promote it. We
merely want it to remain legal and widely available without
interference. That's why we justifiably and proudly call ourselves
pro-choice.

We also oppose the term pro-life because those who call themselves
pro-choice regularly defend and hail as heroes those who murder
doctors and bomb clinics. The more accurate term for such hypocrites
is forced-birthers.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <kmpa93$8la$1...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
...

>You misunderstand what the "real issue" is and why those of us who are
>pro-choice oppose the term 'pro-abortion'.

I'll take "Totally Missing the Point" for $800, Alex.

--
A liberal, a moderate, and a conservative walk into a bar...

Bartender says, "Hi, Mitt!"

[MarkA]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 21:28:14 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> In article <pan.2013.05.12....@somewhere.invalid>,
> MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> ...
>>There is a *HUGE* difference between "all" and "virtually all", which this
>>post tries to cover up.
>
> Yes. Of course. But you can't possibly expect the mentally (and math/science in
> particular) challenged pro-liars to grasp it.
>
>>The ONLY justification for the government to
>>outlaw abortion is if the fetus is ruled to be a "person". If the fetus
>>is not a person, the government has no more business outlawing its removal
>>than it would outlawing appendectomies. OTOH, if the fetus *IS* a person,
>>than NO abortions can be permitted. Rape, incest, health of the mother -
>>none are justification for executing a person.
>
> Very well put. And I say that because it echoes what I've been saying for years now.
> It really does boil down to "Is it OK or isn't it?". As you say, if it isn't, then
> obviously rape and/or incest have no pull - anymore than they would have any pull
> over whether or not you can "abort" your two-year-old (or your 17 year-old).
>
> It is for this reason that I reject the term "pro-choice" and happily call myself
> "pro-abortion". I know it rankles some of the members of these groups, but the fact
> is that the term "pro-choice" obscures the real issue. Pro-lifers are right to say
> that it isn't a "choice". Whatever it is, it isn't a "choice". Anymore than it
> would be a "choice" to "abort" your two-year-old (or your 17 year-old). Obviously,
> that's not a "choice" that any of us would defend.

I'm not sure I'm following you. I would consider myself "pro-abortion
rights", but not necessarily "pro-abortion". It *IS* most certainly a
choice that the woman has to make when she finds herself pregnant, and she
should be able to make it without a lot of unwanted advice from others.
You don't "abort" a child who has already been born because they are no
longer directly parasitizing the woman's body. At that point, she has no
more business "aborting" her child than she would assassinating someone on
the other side of the planet.

>
> So, if the pro-liars are right (which they aren't) about the fetus being
> as much a legally recognized human being as your 2 (or 17) year-old is,
> then "choice" has nothing to do with it.
>
>>Fortunately, most people are sane enough to realize that, even if they
>>don't like the idea of abortion, it is something they have to live with.
>
> Indeed.
>
> We all do.

--

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <pan.2013.05.13....@somewhere.invalid>,
MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
...

>I'm not sure I'm following you. I would consider myself "pro-abortion
>rights", but not necessarily "pro-abortion". It *IS* most certainly a
>choice that the woman has to make when she finds herself pregnant, and she
>should be able to make it without a lot of unwanted advice from others.

Agreed. And trust me, we're on the same page on this one.
I really don't understand how posters such as JD seem to think there's something that
we (she & I) disagree about.

>You don't "abort" a child who has already been born because they are no
>longer directly parasitizing the woman's body. At that point, she has no
>more business "aborting" her child than she would assassinating someone on
>the other side of the planet.

Good one - a "drone" reference.

That opens up a whole 'nother can-of-worms, but suffice it to say that it is pretty
well-established law that if the government does it, it is legal/OK. Yes, that's
sarcasm.

--
One of the best lines I've heard lately:

Obama could cure cancer tomorrow, and the Republicans would be
complaining that he had ruined the pharmaceutical business.

(Heard on Stephanie Miller = but the sad thing is that there is an awful lot
of direct truth in it. We've constructed an economy in which eliminating
cancer would be a horrible disaster. There are many other such examples.)

[duke]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:15:05 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:

They don't know what they are just like they don't know who their daddy is..

[duke]

Or never go to Church.

>> Dook can't even spell it.
>� no surprise there Otto.

I spell it perfectly - "protest_er".

[duke]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:36:27 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:15:05 -0700,r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>>> >In article<6m9vo89n68fd7f12k...@4ax.com>, duke
>>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>>> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:51:10 +0100, Les<l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54 -0400,Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
>>>>>>> >> >>>illegal.
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >>You flunked math, didn't you.
>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >Here are some more interesting stats for you:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a
>>>>> >> >religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and
>>>>> >> >25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The abortion
>>>>> >> >rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women
>>>>> >> >have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]
>>>> >>
>>>> >>They only checked the box they recognized.
>>>> >>

>>> >� So women can not recognize the word 'Protestant'? Damn!

>> Why is that surprising?
>>
>> Dook can't even spell it.
>
>Freudian slip. Keeps thinking prostitute.

Good call for a women in a BC clinic.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <gfb2p8p4ruu3g9jjm...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:15:05 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <6m9vo89n68fd7f12k...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:51:10 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
> >> >>>illegal.
> >> >>
> >> >>You flunked math, didn't you.
> >>
> >> >Here are some more interesting stats for you:
> >> >
> >> >More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a
> >> >religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and
> >> >25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The abortion
> >> >rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women
> >> >have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]
> >>
> >> They only checked the box they recognized.
> >>
> >� So women can not recognize the word 'Protestant'? Damn!
>
> They don't know what they are just like they don't know who their daddy is..
>

� Say what?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <dib2p8p6fseonlilg...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:22:20 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <4ervo8l4ogprlq0uk...@6ax.com>,
> >Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:15:05 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <6m9vo89n68fd7f12k...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:51:10 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
> >> >> >>>illegal.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>You flunked math, didn't you.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Here are some more interesting stats for you:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a
> >> >> >religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and
> >> >> >25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The abortion
> >> >> >rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women
> >> >> >have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]
> >> >>
> >> >> They only checked the box they recognized.
> >> >>
> >> >• So women can not recognize the word 'Protestant'? Damn!
> >>
> >> Why is that surprising?
> >• because none of the women I know are that mentally challenged.
>
> Or never go to Church.

• A few still do.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <anb2p89lk4m2f3p9n...@4ax.com>, duke

• Remember boys and girls, use a condom one time, burn in Hell forever
and ever.

[Dreamer In Colore]

Remember, boys and girls... use a condom consistently, and prevent
your peepee from burning for the rest of your life.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

See?

Dook can't even spell the word.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.






>

[Dakota]

I certainly hope RL has always used effective birth control measures.
It would be a real shame if he passed along the genes his parents
passed to him to anyone else.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <krn2p851sf5rc72l6...@4ax.com>,

� and it might fall off.

[�RLMeasures]

� The two DNA errors I have were not passsed on.

[duke]

Nope. A repentant confession cleans the soul. If you were a Catholic, or even
a Christian, you'd understand that.

[duke]

Now you know.

[Dreamer In Colore]

So, 'fess up your lie about stealing the words of another, Dorkster.
If you were a Catholic or a Christian, you'd understand that.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[•RLMeasures]

In article <91gfp8l5radtlid0n...@4ax.com>, duke

• So pre-1215 Catholics were damned to Hell because there was no RC
Confessional box in those days?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <53gfp897ftrie6rlc...@4ax.com>, duke

• From you I know that some TBRCs have lost their God-given ability to think.

[Robert H]

On May 12, 5:28 pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

> In article <pan.2013.05.12.20.48.35.478...@somewhere.invalid>,MarkA  <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >There is a *HUGE* difference between "all" and "virtually all", which this
> >post tries to cover up.
>
> Yes.  Of course.  But you can't possibly expect the mentally (and math/science in
> particular) challenged pro-liars to grasp it.

That explains why you can't.

>
> >The ONLY justification for the government to
> >outlaw abortion is if the fetus is ruled to be a "person".  If the fetus
> >is not a person, the government has no more business outlawing its removal
> >than it would outlawing appendectomies.  OTOH, if the fetus *IS* a person,
> >than NO abortions can be permitted.  Rape, incest, health of the mother -
> >none are justification for executing a person.
>
> Very well put.  And I say that because it echoes what I've been saying for years now.
> It really does boil down to "Is it OK or isn't it?".  As you say, if it isn't, then
> obviously rape and/or incest have no pull - anymore than they would have any pull
> over whether or not you can "abort" your two-year-old (or your 17 year-old).
>
> It is for this reason that I reject the term "pro-choice" and happily call myself
> "pro-abortion".

Because that's what it is!!

 I know it rankles some of the members of these groups, but the fact
> is that the term "pro-choice" obscures the real issue.  Pro-lifers are right to say
> that it isn't a "choice".  Whatever it is, it isn't a "choice".  Anymore than it
> would be a "choice" to "abort" your two-year-old (or your 17 year-old).  Obviously,
> that's not a "choice" that any of us would defend.
>
> So, if the pro-liars are right (which they aren't) about the fetus being as much a
> legally recognized human being as your 2 (or 17) year-old is, then "choice" has
> nothing to do with it.
>
> >Fortunately, most people are sane enough to realize that, even if they
> >don't like the idea of abortion, it is something they have to live with.
>
> Indeed.
>
> We all do.
>
> --
> Here's a simple test for Fox viewers:

Tell you what, I can post some Fox articles, and challenge you to
prove they are wrong.

Up for it?

Or are you just a bigot who likes to attack people based on their
preferences?

>
> 1) Sit back, close your eyes, and think (Yes, I know that's hard for you).

Yes, you're a bigot.

> 2) Think about and imagine all of your ridiculous fantasies about Barack Obama.
> 3) Now, imagine that he is white.  Cogitate on how absurd your fantasies
> seem now.
>
> See?  That wasn't hard, was it?

So what do you think about the DOJ scandal with the cell phones?
Benghazi?
The IRS targeting?

Close your eyes and think (yes, I know that's hard for you), but guess
what...you're precious Democrats right now are in trouble.

[Robert H]

On May 13, 4:02 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

> In article <pan.2013.05.13.02.33.09.929...@somewhere.invalid>,MarkA  <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >I'm not sure I'm following you.  I would consider myself "pro-abortion
> >rights", but not necessarily "pro-abortion".  It *IS* most certainly a
> >choice that the woman has to make when she finds herself pregnant, and she
> >should be able to make it without a lot of unwanted advice from others.
>
> Agreed.  And trust me, we're on the same page on this one.
> I really don't understand how posters such as JD seem to think there's something that
> we (she & I) disagree about.
>
> >You don't "abort" a child who has already been born because they are no
> >longer directly parasitizing the woman's body.  At that point, she has no
> >more business "aborting" her child than she would assassinating someone on
> >the other side of the planet.
>
> Good one - a "drone" reference.
>
> That opens up a whole 'nother can-of-worms, but suffice it to say that it is pretty
> well-established law that if the government does it, it is legal/OK.  Yes, that's
> sarcasm.
>
> --
> One of the best lines I've heard lately:
>
>     Obama could cure cancer tomorrow, and the Republicans would be
>     complaining that he had ruined the pharmaceutical business.

Obama could walk into a bank with a gun, hold up a teller and demand
all the money and walk out, while being video taped.

Liberals would applaud him and say he was just trying to take money to
give to others.

Reagan could fart and liberals would blame him for destroying the
Ozone Layer
Obama could fart and liberals would praise him for creating natural
gas.

I am independent by the way, but I call it as I see it. And you
liberals will lie, cheat, deceive, or do what every you have to do to
protect your Democrats.
And when the scandals and lies are revealed, you hide and bury your
heads. NEVER EVER holding your party accountable.

That's reality, that's how it is.

[linuxgal]

Robert H wrote:
> Reagan could fart and liberals would blame him for destroying the
> Ozone Layer
> Obama could fart and liberals would praise him for creating natural
> gas.

Someone could invent a way to plug appliances directly into the ground,
and the Obama EPA would halt the roll-out because it might affect the
navigation system of the common house moth.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Jason]

In article <T5ednYHmTKDdcArM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> Robert H wrote:
> > Reagan could fart and liberals would blame him for destroying the
> > Ozone Layer
> > Obama could fart and liberals would praise him for creating natural
> > gas.
>
> Someone could invent a way to plug appliances directly into the ground,
> and the Obama EPA would halt the roll-out because it might affect the
> navigation system of the common house moth.

Obama could rob a bank and kill everyone in the bank and obama's
supporters will claim he is a hero since he may give that money to poor
people.

Even if Obama kept the money for himself, they would still consider him to
be a hero for robbing that bank and killing all of those bank employees.

[Tom McDonald]

You do know, Jason, don't you, that you're not supposed to talk like
that out of the clubhouse?

[Robert H]

On May 18, 6:47 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/2013 5:03 PM, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <T5ednYHmTKDdcArMnZ2dnUVZ_sadn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

> > <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> >> Robert H wrote:
> >>> Reagan could fart and liberals would blame him for destroying the
> >>> Ozone Layer
> >>> Obama could fart and liberals would praise him for creating natural
> >>> gas.
>
> >> Someone could invent a way to plug appliances directly into the ground,
> >> and the Obama EPA would halt the roll-out because it might affect the
> >> navigation system of the common house moth.
>
> > Obama could rob a bank and kill everyone in the bank and obama's
> > supporters will claim he is a hero since he may give that money to poor
> > people.
>
> > Even if Obama kept the money for himself, they would still consider him to
> > be a hero for robbing that bank and killing all of those bank employees.
>
> You do know, Jason, don't you, that you're not supposed to talk like
> that out of the clubhouse?

Tom, a very well documented liar, comes out of the wood works.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:02:32 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism:

It's remarkable to see you accuse anyone of being a liar with your track
record.

Would you know a fact if it slapped you?

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

What you don't understand, Dook, is that when the RCC tells women that
it's against God's plan to use birth control, it doesn't make people
question birth control...

It makes them question the RCC.

There's a reason that the RCC is failing, Dook.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.






>

[•RLMeasures]

In article <4l5gp8tp6u0u4sk25...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

• It's SOP for him. Lying is not proscribed by the Ten Commandments, so
why not lie to help his church?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-18051...@66-53-208-232.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Why did you post this idiotic fantasy again?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <hlwdjsd2-BC3EF2...@news.giganews.com>,
Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
...

>Why did you post this idiotic fantasy again?

That's how the rightwing "brain" works. Repeating old lies, over and over and over.

Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...
Bengahzi...

--
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order -

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:06:02 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

>Robert H wrote:
>> Reagan could fart and liberals would blame him for destroying the
>> Ozone Layer
>> Obama could fart and liberals would praise him for creating natural
>> gas.
>
>Someone could invent a way to plug appliances directly into the ground,
>and the Obama EPA would halt the roll-out because it might affect the
>navigation system of the common house moth.

We're it left to today's Republicans, we'd be back to firefighting our
rivers.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <hlwdjsd2-BC3EF2...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

• maybe he wants to help our side?

[Robert H]

On May 18, 8:03 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:02:32 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

I know it's a fact that you're a hypocrite, a liar, and childish.
Did I miss anything?

[Robert H]

On May 18, 10:11 pm, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article <4l5gp8tp6u0u4sk257ccvpuk69tq255...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:02:32 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

Is this all you morons have left in you? When you can't argue with the
person, this is it?

Kind of pathetic.

[Robert H]

On May 19, 3:58 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:
> In article <hlwdjsd2-BC3EF2.00283519052...@news.giganews.com>,

> Jeanne Douglas  <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> >Why did you post this idiotic fantasy again?
>
> That's how the rightwing "brain" works.  Repeating old lies, over and over and over.
>
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
>
> --
> "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
> white is really black, if the hierarchy  of the church so decides."
>
>     - Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order -

The laughable part of this is..you know I'm right. There is nothing
left for you left wingers to say. You're boys are getting caught in
one lie after another and not one of you is willing to hold them
accountable.

[•RLMeasures]

In article
<72975feb-92c7-46c4...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Robert
H <cra...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On May 18, 10:11=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article <4l5gp8tp6u0u4sk257ccvpuk69tq255...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > > On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:02:32 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net=

> >
> > > wrote in alt.atheism:
> >
> > > >On May 18, 6:47=A0pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 5/18/2013 5:03 PM, Jason wrote:
> >

> > > >> > In article <T5ednYHmTKDdcArMnZ2dnUVZ_sadn...@giganews.com>, linuxg=

> al
> > > >> > <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> >> Robert H wrote:

> > > >> >>> Reagan could fart and liberals would blame him for destroying th=
> e
> > > >> >>> Ozone Layer
> > > >> >>> Obama could fart and liberals would praise him for creating natu=
> ral
> > > >> >>> gas.
> >
> > > >> >> Someone could invent a way to plug appliances directly into the g=
> round,
> > > >> >> and the Obama EPA would halt the roll-out because it might affect=

> the
> > > >> >> navigation system of the common house moth.
> >
> > > >> > Obama could rob a bank and kill everyone in the bank and obama's

> > > >> > supporters will claim he is a hero since he may give that money to=
> poor
> > > >> > people.
> >
> > > >> > Even if Obama kept the money for himself, they would still conside=
> r
> > him to
> > > >> > be a hero for robbing that bank and killing all of those bank empl=

> oyees.
> >
> > > >> You do know, Jason, don't you, that you're not supposed to talk like
> > > >> that out of the clubhouse?
> >
> > > >Tom, a very well documented liar, comes out of the wood works.
> >

> > > It's remarkable to see you accuse anyone of being a liar with your trac=
> k
> > > record.
> >
> > =95 =A0It's SOP for him. =A0Lying is not proscribed by the Ten Commandmen=

> ts, so
> > why not lie to help his church?
>
> Is this all you morons have left in you? When you can't argue with the
> person, this is it?
>
> Kind of pathetic.
>

*** Christianity is.

[Robert H]

On May 19, 10:16 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article

> <72975feb-92c7-46c4-bef6-e45cf406a...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Robert

Wow, you're just getting more and more pathetic.
So, are you a bigot too?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:09:04 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>

You were 100% wrong. I don't expect you to change.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:11:12 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism:

We know that you are allergic to facts and willing to believe any lie a
reactionary fool tells you.

[•RLMeasures]

In article
<086f733f-cc34-4b3e...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Robert
H <cra...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On May 19, 10:16=A0am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article

> > <72975feb-92c7-46c4-bef6-e45cf406a...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Rober=
> t
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > > On May 18, 10:11=3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D95RLMeasures) wrote:
> > > > In article <4l5gp8tp6u0u4sk257ccvpuk69tq255...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
> >
> > > > <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > > > > On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:02:32 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast=
> .net=3D

> >
> > > > > wrote in alt.atheism:
> >
> > > > > >On May 18, 6:47=3DA0pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> On 5/18/2013 5:03 PM, Jason wrote:
> >

> > > > > >> > In article <T5ednYHmTKDdcArMnZ2dnUVZ_sadn...@giganews.com>, li=
> nuxg=3D

> > > al
> > > > > >> > <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> >> Robert H wrote:

> > > > > >> >>> Reagan could fart and liberals would blame him for destroyin=
> g th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > >> >>> Ozone Layer
> > > > > >> >>> Obama could fart and liberals would praise him for creating =
> natu=3D
> > > ral
> > > > > >> >>> gas.
> >
> > > > > >> >> Someone could invent a way to plug appliances directly into t=
> he g=3D
> > > round,
> > > > > >> >> and the Obama EPA would halt the roll-out because it might af=
> fect=3D
> > > =A0the

> > > > > >> >> navigation system of the common house moth.
> >

> > > > > >> > Obama could rob a bank and kill everyone in the bank and obama=
> 's
> > > > > >> > supporters will claim he is a hero since he may give that mone=
> y to=3D
> > > =A0poor
> > > > > >> > people.
> >
> > > > > >> > Even if Obama kept the money for himself, they would still con=
> side=3D
> > > r
> > > > him to
> > > > > >> > be a hero for robbing that bank and killing all of those bank =
> empl=3D
> > > oyees.
> >
> > > > > >> You do know, Jason, don't you, that you're not supposed to talk =

> like
> > > > > >> that out of the clubhouse?
> >
> > > > > >Tom, a very well documented liar, comes out of the wood works.
> >

> > > > > It's remarkable to see you accuse anyone of being a liar with your =
> trac=3D
> > > k
> > > > > record.
> >
> > > > =3D95 =3DA0It's SOP for him. =3DA0Lying is not proscribed by the Ten =
> Commandmen=3D

> > > ts, so
> > > > why not lie to help his church?
> >
> > > Is this all you morons have left in you? When you can't argue with the
> > > person, this is it?
> >
> > > Kind of pathetic.
> >
> > *** Christianity is.
>
> Wow, you're just getting more and more pathetic.
> So, are you a bigot too?

*** Secular history influenced me indelibly.

[linuxgal]

Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <hlwdjsd2-BC3EF2...@news.giganews.com>,
> Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Why did you post this idiotic fantasy again?
>
> That's how the rightwing "brain" works. Repeating old lies, over and over and over.
>
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...
> Bengahzi...

Yeah, and back in the summer of '73 it was Watergate, Watergate,
Watergate...alla time.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <P5idnbZkpeO1bgXM...@giganews.com>,

I think you just walked into the trap. Welcome. Enjoy your stay.


--
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

- John Kenneth Galbraith -

[Robert H]

On May 19, 10:42 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:09:04 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

Denial noted.

I'm right, you liberals will lie, cheat, steal, or do what ever you
have to do to protect your party.

Obama and his administration has a lot of questions to answer. And the
liberals, they are burying their heads in the sand.

You are too much of a coward to admit it. You must be a loyal liberal.
Obama does no wrong. Hail Obama!!

[Robert H]

On May 19, 10:43 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:11:12 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

Facts are, DOJ is under investigation, IRS is under investigation,
Obama administration is under investigation.

You will deny it and ignore it.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>

Why would I deny facts. You do understand that almost everyone who has
paid attention thinks that the DOJ has done something well within the
law by investigating what is considered a national security leak. I do
not like that law and would hope that it would be overturned by the
Supreme Court, but there's no evidence that the DOJ violated any laws.
As for the IRS, there is an investigation into what was going on, it was
not only the right-wing (c)(4)'s but left wing ones that were asked to
provide more information and, as far as I know, only one, a left-wing
one was denied (c)(4) status. The head of the IRS is gone and an
investigation is going forward. The real problem, again, is that the law
appears to be corrupt itself.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:43:47 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

"Take Watergate, add in Iran/Contra and multiply by ten, and you'll be
in the Benghazi zone." the rightards said.

Now?

It's back to "who changed the talking points?" and Republicans telling
embarrassing lies about what certain documents said.

There's no there there, and it's not looking like there's any there
there with the other incidents either.

But hey... That hasn't stopped the right wing so far, why should it
stop them now?

Soon, they'll be on about Obama's birth certificate again.

[Robert H]

On May 19, 12:27 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

Oh? So that's why they are under investigation. Fast and Furious, now
this.
Your boy in the AG spot is awesome isn't he?

I do
> not like that law and would hope that it would be overturned by the
> Supreme Court, but there's no evidence that the DOJ violated any laws.

Right, that's why they are under investigation.

> As for the IRS, there is an investigation into what was going on, it was
> not only the right-wing (c)(4)'s but left wing ones that were asked to
> provide more information and, as far as I know, only one, a left-wing
> one was denied (c)(4) status.

You're denying the facts.

The head of the IRS is gone and an
> investigation is going forward. The real problem, again, is that the law
> appears to be corrupt itself.

And then there is Benghazi, and why the Obama administration withheld
so much information, mislead the public, allowed 4 Americans to get
killed.

For what?

Oh yea, it was election year. Silly me.

[duke]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:23:01 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:54:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>

>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:25:38 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <anb2p89lk4m2f3p9n...@4ax.com>, duke
>>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:36:27 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>So, 'fess up your lie about stealing the words of another, Dorkster.
>If you were a Catholic or a Christian, you'd understand that.

I claim no ownership of the statement. I do reject your site as the one I used.
Anything else?

>Cheers,
>Dreamer
>AA 2306

[duke]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:03:00 -0700, r...@somis.org (�ｿｽRLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <91gfp8l5radtlid0n...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:25:38 -0700, r...@somis.org (�ｿｽRLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <anb2p89lk4m2f3p9n...@4ax.com>, duke
>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:36:27 -0800, linuxgal
><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> >> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:15:05 -0700,r...@somis.org (�ｿｽRLMeasures) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >In article<6m9vo89n68fd7f12k...@4ax.com>, duke
>> >> >>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:51:10 +0100, Les<l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>> >> >>>> >>
>> >> >>>>> >> >On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke<duckg...@cox.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >> >>>>>> >> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54
>-0400,Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want
>abortion to be
>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>illegal.
>> >> >>>>>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>>> >> >>You flunked math, didn't you.
>> >> >>>> >>
>> >> >>>>> >> >Here are some more interesting stats for you:
>> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >> >>>>> >> >More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a
>> >> >>>>> >> >religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7%
>> >other), and
>> >> >>>>> >> >25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The
>> >abortion
>> >> >>>>> >> >rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while
>> >Catholic women
>> >> >>>>> >> >have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]
>> >> >>>> >>
>> >> >>>> >>They only checked the box they recognized.
>> >> >>>> >>

>> >> >>> >�ｿｽ So women can not recognize the word 'Protestant'? Damn!

>> >> >> Why is that surprising?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dook can't even spell it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Freudian slip. Keeps thinking prostitute.
>> >>
>> >> Good call for a women in a BC clinic.
>> >>

>> >�ｿｽ Remember boys and girls, use a condom one time, burn in Hell forever

>> >and ever.
>>
>> Nope. A repentant confession cleans the soul. If you were a Catholic,
>or even
>> a Christian, you'd understand that.
>>

>�ｿｽ So pre-1215 Catholics were damned to Hell because there was no RC
>Confessional box in those days?

Jews had the day of atonement hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.

[duke]

Yet the statement says that one is artificially blocking the natural path of
procreation given by God and substituting pleasures of the flesh only.

>It makes them question the RCC.

God doesn't take kindly to our messing around with his ways like we are his
equal in decision.

[duke]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:04:55 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <53gfp897ftrie6rlc...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:22:55 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <gfb2p8p4ruu3g9jjm...@4ax.com>, duke
>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:15:05 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <6m9vo89n68fd7f12k...@4ax.com>, duke

>> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:51:10 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want abortion to be
>> >> >> >>>illegal.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>You flunked math, didn't you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Here are some more interesting stats for you:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a
>> >> >> >religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and
>> >> >> >25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The abortion
>> >> >> >rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women
>> >> >> >have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They only checked the box they recognized.
>> >> >>
>> >> >• So women can not recognize the word 'Protestant'? Damn!
>> >>

>> >> They don't know what they are just like they don't know who their
>daddy is..
>> >>
>> >• Say what?
>>
>> Now you know.
>>
>• From you I know that some TBRCs have lost their God-given ability to think.

That's more than I'll give you credit for having.

[Dreamer In Colore]

We're already past the idea of which specific site you ripped off.
It's good that you acknowledged that you stole the words, but it took
a lot of force for that to happen. You should have done it when you
first stole them... but you're a dishonest little Dork.

Why is it so hard for you to be ethical about this kind of thing?

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[•RLMeasures]

In article <722ip8hoa54d3pkpu...@4ax.com>, duke
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:03:00 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <91gfp8l5radtlid0n...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:25:38 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <anb2p89lk4m2f3p9n...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:36:27 -0800, linuxgal
> ><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

> >> >> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:15:05 -0700,r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >In article<6m9vo89n68fd7f12k...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>>> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:51:10 +0100, Les<l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> >>
> >> >> >>>>> >> >On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke<duckg...@cox.net>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> >> >
> >> >> >>>>>> >> >>On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54
> >-0400,Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want
> >abortion to be
> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>illegal.
> >> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>>> >> >>You flunked math, didn't you.
> >> >> >>>> >>
> >> >> >>>>> >> >Here are some more interesting stats for you:
> >> >> >>>>> >> >
> >> >> >>>>> >> >More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion
report a
> >> >> >>>>> >> >religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7%
> >> >other), and
> >> >> >>>>> >> >25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The
> >> >abortion
> >> >> >>>>> >> >rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while
> >> >Catholic women
> >> >> >>>>> >> >have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]
> >> >> >>>> >>
> >> >> >>>> >>They only checked the box they recognized.
> >> >> >>>> >>

> >> >> >>> >• So women can not recognize the word 'Protestant'? Damn!

> >> >> >> Why is that surprising?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dook can't even spell it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Freudian slip. Keeps thinking prostitute.
> >> >>
> >> >> Good call for a women in a BC clinic.
> >> >>

> >> >• Remember boys and girls, use a condom one time, burn in Hell forever

> >> >and ever.
> >>
> >> Nope. A repentant confession cleans the soul. If you were a Catholic,
> >or even
> >> a Christian, you'd understand that.
> >>

> >• So pre-1215 Catholics were damned to Hell because there was no RC

> >Confessional box in those days?
>
> Jews had the day of atonement hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.
>

• Say anything to try to defend RCism.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <q82ip81kpi3mr5920...@4ax.com>, duke

• _____

[elizabeth]

On May 19, 8:43 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> Kenny McCormack wrote:

> > In article <hlwdjsd2-BC3EF2.00283519052...@news.giganews.com>,

> > Jeanne Douglas  <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >> Why did you post this idiotic fantasy again?
>
> > That's how the rightwing "brain" works.  Repeating old lies, over and over and over.
>
> > Bengahzi...
> > Bengahzi...
> > Bengahzi...
>
> Yeah, and back in the summer of '73 it was Watergate, Watergate,
> Watergate...alla time.

My high school pal got to go to some of those hearings.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Who cares, Dook?

Most Catholics don't and neither does anyone else.

Neither are they afraid of the RCC's threats any longer.

People just roll their eyes and shake their heads dismissively

Further, you're wasting your time posting your Catholic bullshit on
the Internet.

Most who own a computer are already immune to your nonsense.

Best stick to the third world, where people are still shitting
themselves over witches and Catholicism still has a chance at some
traction.

But then, it's not so easy to communicate with them, is it, Dook?

As soon as they get computers, they'll be able to figure out that
Catholic bullshit is Catholic bullshit too, and they'll join the rest
of us.

>>It makes them question the RCC.
>
>God doesn't take kindly to our messing around with his ways like we are his
>equal in decision.

People care less and less what Catholics say God wants, Dook.

They don't -believe- what the RCC is selling any longer, and that's
one of the reasons the RCC is a failing religion.

And, you can save your threats.

Hardly anyone cares about them either.

The RCC had a fair run, but it's nearing the end.

Good riddance, I say.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists....

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Jason]

In article <lrbip8dhea5codmvj...@4ax.com>,

Martin Luther King done the same sort of thing in his Ph.D. thesis:


<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._authorship_issues>


Authorship issues concerning Martin Luther King, Jr. center around claims
of plagiarism and fall into two general categories: his academic research
papers, including his doctoral dissertation, and his speeches.


[edit] Dissertation and other academic papers

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s papers were donated by his wife Coretta
Scott King to Stanford University's King Papers Project. During the late
1980s, as the papers were being organized and catalogued, the staff of the
project discovered that King's doctoral dissertation at Boston University,
titled A Comparison of the Conception of God in the Thinking of Paul
Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman, included large sections from a
dissertation written by another student (Jack Boozer) three years earlier
at Boston University.[1][2]

As Clayborne Carson, director of the King Papers Project at Stanford
University, has written, "instances of textual appropriation can be seen
in his earliest extant writings as well as his dissertation. The pattern
is also noticeable in his speeches and sermons throughout his career."[3]

Boston University, where King received his Ph.D. in systematic theology,
conducted an investigation that found he plagiarized major portions of his
doctoral thesis from various other authors who wrote about the
topic.[4][5]

According to civil rights historian Ralph E. Luker, who worked on the King
Papers Project directing the research on King's early life, King's paper
The Chief Characteristics and Doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism[6] was taken
almost entirely from secondary sources.[7] He writes:
Moreover, the farther King went in his academic career, the more deeply
ingrained the patterns of borrowing language without clear attribution
became. Thus, the plagiarism in his dissertation seemed to be, by then,
the product of his long-established practice.[7]


The incident was first reported in the December 3, 1989 edition of the
Sunday Telegraph by Frank Johnson, titled "Martin Luther King�Was He a
Plagiarist?" The incident was then reported in U.S. in the November 9,
1990 edition of the Wall Street Journal, under the title of "To Their
Dismay, King Scholars Find a Troubling Pattern." Several other newspapers
then followed with stories, including the Boston Globe and the New York
Times. Numerous newspaper editorials defended King, saying he was still a
great man regardless of his academic fraud.[citation needed]

Boston University decided not to revoke his doctorate, saying that
although King acted improperly, his dissertation still "makes an
intelligent contribution to scholarship." However, a letter is now
attached to King's dissertation in the university library, noting that
numerous passages were included without the appropriate quotations and
citations of sources.[1][8][9]

Ralph Luker has questioned whether King's professors at the Crozer
Theological Seminary held him to lower standards because he was an
African-American, citing as evidence the fact that King received lower
marks (a C+ average) at the historically black Morehouse College than at
Crozer, where he was a minority being graded mostly by white teachers and
received an A- average.[7][10] Boston University has denied that King
received any special treatment.[1]

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project addresses authorship issues on
pp.�25�26 of Volume II of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., entitled
"Rediscovering Precious Values, July 1951�� November 1955," Clayborne
Carson, Senior Editor. Following is an excerpt from these pages:


The readers of King's dissertation, L. Harold DeWolf and S. Paul
Schilling, a professor of systematic theology who had recently arrived at
Boston University, failed to notice King's problematic use of sources.
After reading a draft of the dissertation, DeWolf criticized him for
failing to make explicit "presuppositions and norms employed in the
critical evaluation," but his comments were largely positive. He commended
King for his handling of a "difficult" topic "with broad learning,
impressive ability and convincing mastery of the works immediately
involved." Schilling found two problems with King's citation practices
while reading the draft, but dismissed these as anomalous and praised the
dissertation in his Second Reader's report....



As was true of King's other academic papers, the plagiaries in his
dissertation escaped detection in his lifetime. His professors at Boston
University, like those at Crozer, saw King as an earnest and even gifted
student who presented consistent, though evolving, theological identity in
his essays, exams and classroom comments.... Although the extent of King's
plagiaries suggest he knew that he was at least skirting academic norms,
the extant documents offer no direct evidence in this matter. Thus he may
have simply become convinced, on the basis of his grades at Crozer and
Boston, that his papers were sufficiently competent to withstand critical
scrutiny. Moreover, King's actions during his early adulthood indicate
that he increasingly saw himself as a preacher appropriating theological
scholarship rather than as an academic producing such scholarship.

[Tom McDonald]

On 5/19/2013 6:07 PM, Jason wrote:
> In article <lrbip8dhea5codmvj...@4ax.com>,
> dreamer...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:13:20 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:23:01 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:54:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:25:38 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <anb2p89lk4m2f3p9n...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>>>> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:36:27 -0800, linuxgal
> <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:15:05 -0700,r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article<6m9vo89n68fd7f12k...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>>>>>>>>> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:51:10 +0100, Les<l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke<duckg...@cox.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54
> -0400,Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want
> abortion to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You flunked math, didn't you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are some more interesting stats for you:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion
> report a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7%
>>>>>> other), and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The
>>>>>> abortion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while
>>>>>> Catholic women
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They only checked the box they recognized.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> � So women can not recognize the word 'Protestant'? Damn!

>>>>>>>>> Why is that surprising?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dook can't even spell it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Freudian slip. Keeps thinking prostitute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good call for a women in a BC clinic.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>> � Remember boys and girls, use a condom one time, burn in Hell forever

>>>>>> and ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. A repentant confession cleans the soul. If you were a
> Catholic, or even
>>>>> a Christian, you'd understand that.
>>>
>>>> So, 'fess up your lie about stealing the words of another, Dorkster.
>>>> If you were a Catholic or a Christian, you'd understand that.
>>>
>>> I claim no ownership of the statement. I do reject your site as the
> one I used.
>>> Anything else?
>>>
>>
>> We're already past the idea of which specific site you ripped off.
>> It's good that you acknowledged that you stole the words, but it took
>> a lot of force for that to happen. You should have done it when you
>> first stole them... but you're a dishonest little Dork.
>>
>> Why is it so hard for you to be ethical about this kind of thing?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dreamer
>> AA 2306
>
> Martin Luther King done the same sort of thing in his Ph.D. thesis:

Perhaps you could show us how this invalidates King's legacy.

<snip>

[Jason]

In article <fDdmt.6428$CG1....@newsfe21.iad>, Tom McDonald

<kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/19/2013 6:07 PM, Jason wrote:
> > In article <lrbip8dhea5codmvj...@4ax.com>,
> > dreamer...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:13:20 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:23:01 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> >>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:54:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:25:38 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article <anb2p89lk4m2f3p9n...@4ax.com>, duke
> >>>>>> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:36:27 -0800, linuxgal
> > <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:15:05 -0700,r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article<6m9vo89n68fd7f12k...@4ax.com>, duke
> >>>>>>>>>>> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:51:10 +0100, Les<l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:03 -0500, duke<duckg...@cox.net>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 03:37:54
> > -0400,Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or, in other words, only 20% of the people want
> > abortion to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You flunked math, didn't you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are some more interesting stats for you:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion
> > report a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7%
> >>>>>> other), and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The
> >>>>>> abortion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while
> >>>>>> Catholic women
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They only checked the box they recognized.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> • So women can not recognize the word 'Protestant'? Damn!

> >>>>>>>>> Why is that surprising?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dook can't even spell it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Freudian slip. Keeps thinking prostitute.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Good call for a women in a BC clinic.
> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>> • Remember boys and girls, use a condom one time, burn in Hell forever

> >>>>>> and ever.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope. A repentant confession cleans the soul. If you were a
> > Catholic, or even
> >>>>> a Christian, you'd understand that.
> >>>
> >>>> So, 'fess up your lie about stealing the words of another, Dorkster.
> >>>> If you were a Catholic or a Christian, you'd understand that.
> >>>
> >>> I claim no ownership of the statement. I do reject your site as the
> > one I used.
> >>> Anything else?
> >>>
> >>
> >> We're already past the idea of which specific site you ripped off.
> >> It's good that you acknowledged that you stole the words, but it took
> >> a lot of force for that to happen. You should have done it when you
> >> first stole them... but you're a dishonest little Dork.
> >>
> >> Why is it so hard for you to be ethical about this kind of thing?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Dreamer
> >> AA 2306
> >
> > Martin Luther King done the same sort of thing in his Ph.D. thesis:
>
> Perhaps you could show us how this invalidates King's legacy.
>
> <snip>

I don't think that is does invalidate King's legacy.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-19051...@67-150-123-165.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Completely irrelevant.

Why did you bring up something so completely irrelevant to the
conversation?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jason]

In article <hlwdjsd2-F32D2B...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:


> > > We're already past the idea of which specific site you ripped off.
> > > It's good that you acknowledged that you stole the words, but it took
> > > a lot of force for that to happen. You should have done it when you
> > > first stole them... but you're a dishonest little Dork.
> > >
> > > Why is it so hard for you to be ethical about this kind of thing?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Dreamer
> > > AA 2306
> >
> > Martin Luther King done the same sort of thing in his Ph.D. thesis:
>
> Completely irrelevant.
>
> Why did you bring up something so completely irrelevant to the
> conversation?

The comment that is above--I made it easy for you to find it.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-19051...@67-150-122-245.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

I watched the rightards on the news shows get asked over and over
again exactly what laws were broken, rightard.

None had an answer, only innuendo.

Neither have you named any broken laws in your post, and you too are
relying on innuendo.

These "scandals" are rightards shoveling bullshit, and little more.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

[Paul Duca]

> >Nope. A repentant confession makes God forget all you've done.
>
> >Then you can do what you want until the next time you MUST
>
> >feel superior to all non-Catholics.

>
>
>
> So, 'fess up your lie about stealing the words of another, Dorkster.
>
> If you were a Catholic or a Christian, you'd understand that.
>
>
>

> Cheers,
>
> Dreamer
>
> AA 2306

[Paul Duca]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:35:46 PM UTC-4, Robert H wrote:
> On May 13, 4:02 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2013.05.13.02.33.09.929...@somewhere.invalid>,MarkA  <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > ...
>
> >
>
> > >I'm not sure I'm following you.  I would consider myself "pro-abortion
>
> > >rights", but not necessarily "pro-abortion".  It *IS* most certainly a
>
> > >choice that the woman has to make when she finds herself pregnant, and she
>
> > >should be able to make it without a lot of unwanted advice from others.
>
> >
>
> > Agreed.  And trust me, we're on the same page on this one.
>
> > I really don't understand how posters such as JD seem to think there's something that
>
> > we (she & I) disagree about.
>
> >
>
> > >You don't "abort" a child who has already been born because they are no
>
> > >longer directly parasitizing the woman's body.  At that point, she has no
>
> > >more business "aborting" her child than she would assassinating someone on
>
> > >the other side of the planet.
>
> >
>
> > Good one - a "drone" reference.
>
> >
>
> > That opens up a whole 'nother can-of-worms, but suffice it to say that it is pretty
>
> > well-established law that if the government does it, it is legal/OK.  Yes, that's
>
> > sarcasm.
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > One of the best lines I've heard lately:
>
> >
>
> >     Obama could cure cancer tomorrow, and the Republicans would be
>
> >     complaining that he had ruined the pharmaceutical business.
>
>
>
> Obama could walk into a bank with a gun, hold up a teller and demand
>
> all the money and walk out, while being video taped.
>
>
>
> Liberals would applaud him and say he was just trying to take money to
>
> give to others.

>
>
>
> Reagan could fart and liberals would blame him for destroying the
>
> Ozone Layer
>
> Obama could fart and liberals would praise him for creating natural
>
> gas.
>
>
>

> I am independent by the way, but I need my Church so I can function.
>
> And as the Republicans are willing to suck up to it,
>
> I am more than willing to return the favor.
>

[Paul Duca]

"Jews have Yom Kippur...one day of fasting and all their sins are gone. Christians have Lent--40 days of repentance. Even in sin, you pay retail!"--Jon Stewart


Paul

[duke]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:00:55 -0400, Dreamer In Colore

http://discoveryupdate.com/discovery2.htm is a great site backing up the words
from my site..

>Why is it so hard for you to be ethical about this kind of thing?

Heeheehee.

[duke]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:25:06 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:


>>>>>• Remember boys and girls, use a condom one time, burn in Hell forever

>>>>>and ever.
>>>>
>>>>Nope. A repentant confession cleans the soul. If you were a Catholic, or even
>>>>a Christian, you'd understand that.
>>>
>>>What you don't understand, Dook, is that when the RCC tells women that
>>>it's against God's plan to use birth control, it doesn't make people
>>>question birth control...
>>
>>Yet the statement says that one is artificially blocking the natural path of
>>procreation given by God and substituting pleasures of the flesh only.

>Who cares, Dook?

God. And that's scary.

[duke]

Always truth.

[Dreamer In Colore]

That's because your site stole them from discoveryupdate.com to begin
with. So much for ethics...

>>Why is it so hard for you to be ethical about this kind of thing?
>
>Heeheehee.
>

It's sad and pathetic that you find it funny that you're a thief and a
liar, Dork.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:27:26 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:25:06 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>� Remember boys and girls, use a condom one time, burn in Hell forever
>>>>>>and ever.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. A repentant confession cleans the soul. If you were a Catholic, or even
>>>>>a Christian, you'd understand that.
>>>>
>>>>What you don't understand, Dook, is that when the RCC tells women that
>>>>it's against God's plan to use birth control, it doesn't make people
>>>>question birth control...
>>>
>>>Yet the statement says that one is artificially blocking the natural path of
>>>procreation given by God and substituting pleasures of the flesh only.
>
>>Who cares, Dook?
>
>God. And that's scary.

Not to anyone with a brain.

Which, of course, explains why you're so scared.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists....

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.






>>
>

[duke]

Haahaahaa.