+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <bb1ha0h10gm3sf1vgajn37ts8suo1hs8cd@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <fkbea0p4me2j1brcgofjtrclnej35qq4oi@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <tgg9a09q4s5vdo5c89mm001ic1v8gipgms@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <9bm6a05ojka41dv5367gchio6q4gmcsske@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <lnj3a09cfp9906nla4q13tui8e86985e17@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <c4e1a05lpc9ebp24is88j57roap4emksnl@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

But Kerry gives the impression of being a malcontent even on the PCF
boat.

• There were many who became malcontented when they got an eye full of

Take for example these ads he's been running in the midwest and
'challenge' or key states. Some have suggested they saw the same
'Kerry in fatigues', marching in the jungle, in 'home movies' that he
himself shot back then, for really as yet unknown and vague purposes.
He had to have shot those in the theatre of operations, during a hot
war. If that's true, it smacks of some black comedy so popular with
writers in the 60s and 70s.

The three-and-out policy was not automatic. It may have been
that command simply wanted to be rid of this Kerry guy. And when he
returned, he not only referred to "atrocities", which he claimed to
have committed himself, presumeably in pursuance of his medals which
he threw over the fence, and which literally got him out of combat,
but is said to have sat in a meeting where militants of the VVAW voted
on whether to assassinate sitting members of the United States Senate.
And there's no record that this 'vet' reported a vote by such people
to literally go out and assassinate US officials. Most of those
opposing Kerry as unfit for CIC are those who not only served with
him, but were his immediate superiors or those in the chain of
command, at the time - in Vietnam. Remember, the 'war record' was the
one thing that supposedly got Kerry the nomination, and was
responsible for the almost humorously all-out assault on Dean,
particularly by the 'major' media or Dem press, and who was the
frontrunner prior to that, and before his I-have-a-scream speech which
was prominently advertized on Drudge.

• chortle. The name Drudge seems somehow appropriate.

He was key in sinking the Dean boat. That mention made 'the news',
that 'news' which is always otherwise slamming Drudge (didn't we
always know, and he's getting those hits from somewhere? Limbaugh is
always joking about the 'major media' getting their 'story prep', when
he signs on in his first hour.).

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <bb1ha0h10gm3sf1vgajn37ts8suo1hs8cd@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <fkbea0p4me2j1brcgofjtrclnej35qq4oi@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <tgg9a09q4s5vdo5c89mm001ic1v8gipgms@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <9bm6a05ojka41dv5367gchio6q4gmcsske@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <lnj3a09cfp9906nla4q13tui8e86985e17@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <c4e1a05lpc9ebp24is88j57roap4emksnl@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

But Kerry gives the impression of being a malcontent even on the PCF
boat.

• There were many who became malcontented when they got an eye full of the war.

Take for example these ads he's been running in the midwest and
'challenge' or key states. Some have suggested they saw the same
'Kerry in fatigues', marching in the jungle, in 'home movies' that he
himself shot back then, for really as yet unknown and vague purposes.
He had to have shot those in the theatre of operations, during a hot
war. If that's true, it smacks of some black comedy so popular with
writers in the 60s and 70s.

The three-and-out policy was not automatic. It may have been
that command simply wanted to be rid of this Kerry guy. And when he
returned, he not only referred to "atrocities", which he claimed to
have committed himself, presumeably in pursuance of his medals which
he threw over the fence, and which literally got him out of combat,
but is said to have sat in a meeting where militants of the VVAW voted
on whether to assassinate sitting members of the United States Senate.
And there's no record that this 'vet' reported a vote by such people
to literally go out and assassinate US officials. Most of those
opposing Kerry as unfit for CIC are those who not only served with
him, but were his immediate superiors or those in the chain of
command, at the time - in Vietnam. Remember, the 'war record' was the
one thing that supposedly got Kerry the nomination, and was
responsible for the almost humorously all-out assault on Dean,
particularly by the 'major' media or Dem press, and who was the
frontrunner prior to that, and before his I-have-a-scream speech which
was prominently advertized on Drudge.

• chortle. The name Drudge seems somehow appropriate.

He was key in sinking the Dean boat. That mention made 'the news',
that 'news' which is always otherwise slamming Drudge (didn't we
always know, and he's getting those hits from somewhere? Limbaugh is
always joking about the 'major media' getting their 'story prep', when
he signs on in his first hour.).

There are many other incidents in WWII. Would the public
have demanded, in early 1945, for a ceasefire with Nazi Germany? Would
they have demanded that US troops pull out? And why didn't the press
eagerly report atrocities, then? Were they taking sides . . then?
Which?

• The irony of the Allied atrocities during WW-2 is that they did nothing
to shorten it.

If they are taking sides, now - whose?

And, sadly, I think the world knows. So they oldline dying press
criticize FOX, newsmax, talk radio, freepers and the rest. And others
point out the side that 'major media' have taken. And it's nothing but
distrust, and then also a sort of credulity among those who grew up
with Cronkite before it was known which side Cronkite was really on,
people who to this day still think that sort of news is 'real'.

• Cronkite had the right delivery even if he didn't always have the right
info.

Peace.

Edward Murrow had been on the ground in Dresden, or cameras had shown
little girls, and ladies, burning alive, running down the street, in a
firestorm.

• Firebombing Dresden was a mistake. FDR made many.

God gives "special" children to "special" parents...they are a
blessing--that's the Catholic line.

• I've heard this argument, Paul. I know of a family 7-miles to the East
of here whose firstborn was retarded. Their priest told them that God
gives "special" children to "special" parents. They had another child.
It too was "special". Again their priest told them that God gives
"special" children to "special" parents. When child number three was
born it too was "special". Again their priest told them that God gives
"special" children to "special" parents. Child number four was also
"special". Again their priest told them that God gives "special"
children to "special" parents. After child #5 proved to have mental
retardation, the couple decided to have no more children.

Are you of the opinion, just in general, that mental retardation,
learning disabilities even, are rather than a mark of being 'special'
are more a sort of black mark that should warrant . . what . . death,
execution?

God gives "special" children to "special" parents...they are a
blessing--that's the Catholic line.

• I've heard this argument, Paul. I know of a family 7-miles to the East
of here whose firstborn was retarded. Their priest told them that God
gives "special" children to "special" parents. They had another child.
It too was "special". Again their priest told them that God gives
"special" children to "special" parents. When child number three was
born it too was "special". Again their priest told them that God gives
"special" children to "special" parents. Child number four was also
"special". Again their priest told them that God gives "special"
children to "special" parents. After child #5 proved to have mental
retardation, the couple decided to have no more children.

Are you of the opinion, just in general, that mental retardation,
learning disabilities even, are rather than a mark of being 'special'
are more a sort of black mark that should warrant . . what . . death,
execution?

God gives "special" children to "special" parents...they are a
blessing--that's the Catholic line.

• I've heard this argument, Paul. I know of a family 7-miles to the East
of here whose firstborn was retarded. Their priest told them that God
gives "special" children to "special" parents. They had another child.
It too was "special". Again their priest told them that God gives
"special" children to "special" parents. When child number three was
born it too was "special". Again their priest told them that God gives
"special" children to "special" parents. Child number four was also
"special". Again their priest told them that God gives "special"
children to "special" parents. After child #5 proved to have mental
retardation, the couple decided to have no more children.

Are you of the opinion, just in general, that mental retardation,
learning disabilities even, are rather than a mark of being 'special'
are more a sort of black mark that should warrant . . what . . death,
execution?

In article <obgu90lnj43op4t75r51p2heohgacuhrqi@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (? R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <icij90d9lkht53mn1cmsadt17ifj0g1rkk@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (? R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <40984D89.CBC0134@comcast.net>, Paul Duca
<tomservo@comcast.net> wrote:

"? R.L. Measures" wrote:

In article <5ocg90t129ttjc4802cvpm56psemdoui93@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (? R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <ggue90hk56e6fl2j7ls2v5265km656m8f1@4ax.com>,
102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (? R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <25e1e54f.0405031945.277ab939@posting.google.com>,
jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) wrote:

? The woman choses first and the physician choses to perform the
procedure or not.

Funny how the word - mother - is never used.

Don't you think that's funny?

? Both are used interchangably.

In Mark's church world, if you're a woman, automatically you are

(or want

? Church world reality is seemingly always guy-reality. I got a chuckle
out of Karol Wojtyla

He's about as 'funny', sometimes - for other reasons.

But do you really get a "chuckle" over this idea that - mother - is
never used?

? Never say never, except in mathematics, of course.

Never, see below.

It's always "woman", and maybe, "her doctor". But the
"doctor" never matters. And if it comes to an abortionist, that's not
even a doctor.

? that's a bloody Satanic murderer, right?

But I thought the doctor was just in it because the mother had already
decided for him.

? depends on circumstances. A slightly pregnant 39-yr old woman friend
was advised by her physician that the fetus she was carring had a serious
brain defect that in his opinion should be aborted. The woman concurred.
The fetus was aborted. A few months later she was again pregnant, but
this time the fetus was normal. When she delivered, she became a mother.
If the woman had decided to deliver the fetus with the brain defect, today
she would be the mother of a kid with veggie-brain instead of the mother
of girl who was a perfect 10 at birth who is an excellent reader. When a
mother dog gives birth to puppies with a congenital defect, God has
apparently given her enough common sense to walk away.

...

Gee, what happened to the 'woman and her doctor' cant?

• The woman choses first and the physician choses to perform the
procedure or not.

Funny how the word - mother - is never used.
Don't you think that's funny?

• Both are used interchangably.

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

102334.12@compuserve.com wrote:

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <25e1e54f.0405031945.277ab939@posting.google.com>,
jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) wrote:

• What kind of a conscience absolutely denies abortion when the mother's
health is at risk?

Like I said in the other message, your mind seems to atrophy day by
day.

Under abortion control laws, struck down by a meddling 'lib' Court
which effectively amended the Constitution to include, then, a 'right'
to abortion, just as a similar set of fools have recently discovered
an essential right to sodomy,

• There are reportedly women who occasionally enjoy this activity.

I'm positive of the fact that many people even enjoy harming other
people, in many ways. We tend to degeneracy by our fallen nature. It
the unnatural tendency, as all evil knows.

+r@somis.org (• R.L. Measures) wrote:

In article <25e1e54f.0405031945.277ab939@posting.google.com>,
jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) wrote:

• What kind of a conscience absolutely denies abortion when the mother's
health is at risk?

Like I said in the other message, your mind seems to atrophy day by
day.

Under abortion control laws, struck down by a meddling 'lib' Court
which effectively amended the Constitution to include, then, a 'right'
to abortion, just as a similar set of fools have recently discovered
an essential right to sodomy, such laws always allowed for therapuetic
induced abortion. Always. What confuses you is that, in the 60s, the
'therapuetic' was redefined, 'lib' fashion, into a broad loophole so
that it meant just about anything.