Science > Abortion > A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2004 07:33:17 PM |
| Object: |
A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 16:00:51 -0400,
Joseph P. Belk <jpbelk@fuse.net> wrote:
There is no reason to seek any societal good out of abortion.
Society benefits from the ready AVAILABILITY of safe and
legal abortion to the same degree that it benefits from the ready
AVAILABILITY of aspirin, tonsillectomies, angioplasties, Band-Aids,
the setting of broken arms, or any *other* remedy.
PLUS the highly-valuable and serendipitous FRINGE BENEFIT,
as described in this post's SIG.
Any such good would be illusory, ...
NO more than the good derived from ANY other remedy would be.
The benefits are very tangible, very REAL, and hugely-beneficial,
since they SAVE the entire future plans, aspirations and opportunities
of women by the MILLIONS! Not even REMOTELY "illusory," no
matter HOW much hateful people like you WISH they were. You
fool NO one with such idiotic statements.
... since the deliberate killing of a child in the womb is a crime
against humanity.
No doubt it WOULD be. IF a "child" could BE in a womb. But no
child (ALL of whom have been BORN) has ever been in a womb, and
none ever will be. Only mere stages of the reproductive process...
zygotes, embryoes, and fetuses... are ever in wombs. NO children.
[Abortion providers] and advocates for more abortions...
The latter exist to PRECISELY the same degree that there are
"advocates for the setting of more broken arms."
The STUPIDITY of Anti-Choicers is appalling!
...had hoped to see cloned cell lines -- the fetal stem cells --
"Fetal" stem cells? That's a new one! The stems cells that are
most desirable for research are EMBRYONIC.
...emerge as irreplaceable medical research tools and sources of
new cures for some of humankind's oldest foes, like cancer.
And they WILL... despite the attempted restrictions by
election-thief Bush. Because those fetrictions impact ONLY the
federally-funded research facitities. PRIVATE facilities receiving
NO federal grants have NO such restrictions, and are free to do the
research however they want, to their heart's content. Until we OUST
the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him with an
*elected* President in possession of an actual brain, we can expect
these PRIVATE facilities to be in the forefront of such research.
No chance. An exact analogy was provided in the Nazi
Holocaust when lampshades were made of the skin of victims
from the slaughter.
Not even remotely analogous. But THANKS for providing us all
with this sterling example of the DESPERATION of the Anti-Choicers,
and their willingness to LIE through their teeth and play semantic
word-games to elicit sympathy from anyone ignorant or gullible
enough to fall for their tripe.
The Holocaust impacted REAL people, while embryoes are only
mere stages of the reproductive process -- NON-sentient, and the
equivalent, in all important ways, to the Stage One entities that you
hypocritically DON'T defend... gametes... which ALSO are human,
alive, unique, and only POTENTIAL people.
Whatever light was shed would be forever tainted by the murder
of the victim.
Murder applies ONLY to REAL people. Who have been BORN.
Thus, this absurd analogy has NOTHING to do with mere embryoes.
<Lying-propaganda-snip>
Worse news yet, while fetal stem cells have contributed no
breakthroughs and no cures, research into uses for adult stem cells,
those that can be collected without killing or harming anyone, ...
Using embryonic stem cells neither kills nor harms anyone... nor
anything of significance... either.
...has led to medical advances that are saving patients today
in hospitals around the world.
JUST as embryonic ones are, and will INCREASINGLY continue to
do. FAR better than adult ones, because they are FAR more versatile.
The United States has abortion on demand...
No. What we have is abortion-on-REQUEST. There's NO
"justification" required. Any more than there would be for any OTHER
routine remedy. That's exactly as it should be, and always WILL be.
...throughout the nine months of pregnancy because the U. S.
Supreme Court has struck down every one of the fifty states' laws
wherever those laws provided any other effect than this, that a
[woman] and a physician who agree the [woman] needs an
abortion for psychological health may proceed without further
government oversight to [have an abortion].
No problem!
One of the dissenting judges rightly called this decision "an
exercise of raw judicial power."
Doubltlessly almost as much of an idiot as you are.
Fortunately, JUST like you, in the minority. Not in the majority,
where the SENSIBLE people are.
Advocates of abortion know what shaky ground they are on.
What the Supreme Court has granted, a new Supreme Court
can take away. The margin on the court today is 5-4 against
the overturn of Roe vs. Wade. [An Anti-Choice] President stands
poised to reverse that ratio with one appointment.
Which cannot happen in the short time rmaining ro Bush in this term,
which hopefully will be his ONLY one. Even if he *were* to be elected
(not "re"-elected) in November, and were then to (1) attempt such an
appointment, and (2) the appointment be confirmed by the Senate.
Because SOUTER supposedly was to have been such a justice... but
he pleaseantly surprised the country by proving himself to be more
INTELLIGENT and SENSIBLE than that.
And even if the worst happened, there quickly would follow a
period of intense internal disruption in America as the Pro-Choice
majority rushed through a "Freedom of Choice" Constitutional
Amendment to UNDO that damage.
It would only be a TEMPORARY problem. America would NEVER
permit a return to the Dark Ages. COUNT on that. We activists of
the Pro-Choice majority will NEVER permit that to happen. Ever.
Naturally, advocates of abortion want some additional protection.
Get it right. Pro-Choicers are advocates of ready ACCESS to
safe and legal abortion. Just as we support ACCESS to the option of
carrying-to-term, for women who choose that. (Of course, of the two
options, the only one that needs to be DEFENDED from a minority
collection of hateful, ignorant LOONS is abortion.)
Grasping at straws, they championed the harvesting of stem
cells from aborted fetuses.
Embryoes. And it wasn't "grasping at straws." It was
advocation of the sensible utilization of a valuable medical
resource that otherwise would have been wasted.
Then they championed further the in-vitro fertilization of human
eggs, producing new human beings for the sole purpose of obtaining
new clone cell lines as the [embryoes] initiated by researchers were
[utilized] by those same researchers. Now a ban on this ... has
passed the U. S. House and languishes in the U. S. Senate,
where ... Senator Daschle may have succeeded in killing that ban
for this year, at least.
<LYING & propagandistic tripe -- snip>
I'll let my own U.S Senator, from here in Iowa, provide the
proper response to your idiotic statement:
From:
http://www.humancloning.org/harkin.htm
"Senator Thomas Harkin, a democrat serving the state
of Iowa, has spoken out in support of human cloning.
Showing great courage, Harkin said that he welcomes
human cloning and he called the anti-cloning fervor
"rubbish." Senator Harkin is noted for being a friend
of all forms of medical research. The following quote
has also been attributed to Senator Harkin:
"This has enormous potential for good, There should
be no limits on human knowledge, none whatever. To
those like President Clinton who say we can't play God,
I say OK, fine, you can take your side alongside Pope
Paul V who in 1616 tried to stop Galileo, they accused
Galileo of trying to play God too. [...]
"I don't think cloning is demeaning to human nature, to
attempt to limit human knowledge is demeaning. It's not
legitimate to try to stop cloning. What nonsense, what
utter, utter nonsense to think we can hold up our hand
and just say "stop". Cloning will continue, the human
mind will continue to inquire into it. Human cloning will
take place and it will take place in my lifetime, and I
don't fear it at all. I want to be on the side of the
Galileos and those who say the human mind has no
limits, rather than trying to stop something that's going
to happen anyway."
-- US Senator Tom Harkin, (D) IA
(And to Harkin, I say, you have MY vote! Literally, since you're
MY Senator, and I support you 100%! And from the polls I've seen,
you'll have NO problem being re-elected! For as long as you want
the job!)
Finally, a citation for those who put great store in them:
"On May 1, in the journal _Nature Technology_, scientists from Norway
and the United States described how they have taken ordinary skin
cells and, without the use of cloning techniques or embryonic stem
cells, transformed them into T cells --- these are key immune system
cells. 'The message here is that we're developing an entirely new
approach to tissue replacement therapy that avoids the issues related
to cloning and embryonic stem cell research...it shows that tissues
can be generated from adult cells without the need to destroy
embryos.' Briefly stated, they punched holes in mature skin cells and
soaked them in a solution made from immune system cells. After a
period, 'they truned them into cells that look and act like T cells.'
This [entirely new approach] could replace the entire effot now being
generated through stem cells & cloning." From the August 2002
newsletter of Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. See their
website www.AffirmingLife.org for all newsletter issues.
Good for them. ALL medical research is worthwhile. So obviously,
the ABOVE research avenue can do ITS thing while the OTHER
researchers are pursuing THEIRS, with the embyonic stem cells. Thus
*maximizing* the variety of approaches, for best results. There's no
need to curtail ANY avenue of research. And rest assured, researchers
will NOT abandon a productive avenue just because someone else is
pursuing a DIFFERENT approach.
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
PREFACE to This SIG -- The following 8/27/2000 ABC News story...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Record Drop in Violent Crime
W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 27 -- Violent crime dropped
for the sixth straight year in 1999, taking overall crime rates to
their lowest in 27 years, the U.S. Justice Department said today.
The Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics said the total
number of non-lethal violent crimes, which includes rape,
robbery and assault, fell by more than 10 percent in 1999 from
the year before, a record one-year drop, according to the
bureau’s National Crime Victimization Survey.
Today’s report confirmed the overall drop in crime
across the country has continued.
Property crime also fell 9 percent, led by a drop in
burglaries and household thefts, continuing its downward
trend from 1974.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
ABORTION'S GREAT FRINGE BENEFIT!
WHY is America doing so fabulously well, lately, with an unheard-of
economy? There are MANY interacting factors. But one factor that
CAN'T HURT is THIS one: In tens of millions of cases over the last
27 years, children have NOT been born into hardship in such great
numbers as would have occurred without Roe vs. Wade, and a higher
percentage of children HAVE been born into loving, and stable homes.
That cannot have helped but to have been of HUGE benefit to society,
in terms of productivity and as a major contributor to the steeply-
declining crime rate, as more and more of those WANTED children (who
replaced the UNwanted ones who would otherwise have been born)
have been reaching adulthood and entering the workforce. Can I
PROVE that? No. I don't know how we could generate such
statistics. But common sense tells us that this MUST be so. To what
degree, we don't know. But ANY degree is worthwhile and beneficial.
God never gave the SLIGHTEST indication that abortion was wrong,
or that we couldn't make such reproductive decisions. He DID give us
brains, though, presumably with some expectation that we would use
them intelligently within the parameters that He DID establish for us.
We've been doing just that. And there's no reason to change it.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 02:16:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri 30 Jan 2004 08:33:17p, (Craig Chilton) wrote in
news:401b01fa.1741056@netnews.mchsi.com:
ABORTION'S GREAT FRINGE BENEFIT!
WHY is America doing so fabulously well, lately, with an unheard-of
economy? There are MANY interacting factors. But one factor that
CAN'T HURT is THIS one: In tens of millions of cases over the last
27 years, children have NOT been born into hardship in such great
numbers as would have occurred without Roe vs. Wade, and a higher
percentage of children HAVE been born into loving, and stable homes.
Craig, why do you keep posting this crap that has been repeatedly been
shown to be false? Child abuse and neglect has gone up since Roe v Wade.
Over ninety percent of battered children are wanted pregnancies.
That cannot have helped but to have been of HUGE benefit to society,
in terms of productivity and as a major contributor to the steeply-
declining crime rate, as more and more of those WANTED children (who
replaced the UNwanted ones who would otherwise have been born)
have been reaching adulthood and entering the workforce.
Europe has a new economic crisis on its hands with declining populations.
There are fewer people being born to replace the current aging workforce
and to pay taxes for social programs. The crisis has been directly
attributed to abortion.
Can I PROVE that? No.
'Nuff said.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "Purple" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 08:31:07 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<06c1ea62d44aa6e89007e2a587531ef5@news.teranews.com>...
Europe has a new economic crisis on its hands with declining populations.
There are fewer people being born to replace the current aging workforce
and to pay taxes for social programs. The crisis has been directly
attributed to abortion.
Oh well, nothing a healthy dose of immigration from overpopulated
areas of the world can't solve.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "K Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 05:03:34 PM |
|
|
Snubis,
Over ninety percent of battered children are wanted pregnancies.
That doesn't change the fact that abortion is still a woman's right to
choose.
Europe has a new economic crisis on its hands with declining populations.
There are fewer people being born to replace the current aging workforce
and to pay taxes for social programs. The crisis has been directly
attributed to abortion.
Sounds scary...in any case.
But, can you PROVE this? I don't think it's attributed to abortion, but
rather to a decline in overall birth rates and the widespread use of
contraception. In other words, the size of families are decreasing. May not
be a good thing, but the right to control one's own reproductive function
still stands.
KD
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 02:02:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri 30 Jan 2004 08:33:17p, (Craig Chilton) wrote in
news:401b01fa.1741056@netnews.mchsi.com:
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him with
an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 07:07:54 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him with
an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
Indeed. 5 votes to 4.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 07:07:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 08:07:54p, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:bvhjh9$sa5$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him with
an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
Indeed. 5 votes to 4.
Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount. Read the ruling.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 07:31:05 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him with
an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
Indeed. 5 votes to 4.
Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount.
There was nothing illegal about it.
Read the ruling.
Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court
decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore
got the most votes.
Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason,
right?
A: Right.
Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
hand-counts were legal and should be done.
Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would
find any legal ballots?
A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine
justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an
unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean,
complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be
counted but can't be.
Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't
conservatives love that?
A: Yes. These five justices have held that the federal government
has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal
trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor
does the federal government have any business telling a state that it
should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the
equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop
violence against women.
Q: Is there an exception in this case?
A: Yes, the "Gore exception." States have no rights to control
their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected
President. This decision is limited to only this situation.
Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present
circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election
processes generally presents many complexities."
Q: What complexities?
A: They didn't say.
Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The
votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the
rules of the election after it was held." Right?
A. Wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme
Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme
Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was
wrong.
Q: Huh?
A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for
counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was
condemned for not adopting a clearer standard.
Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the
Legislature's law after the election.
A: Right.
Q: So what's the problem?
A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme
Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for
determining what is a legal vote."
Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
A: Right.
Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would
have been overturned.
A: Right. You're catching on.
Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been
overturned for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned
for not changing the rules. That means that no matter what the
Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted if they
would end up with a possible Gore victory.
A: Right. Next question.
Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that
some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a
problem?
A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of
systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely
Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like
the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record
only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are
thrown in the trash can.
Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!
A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of
Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That
"complexity" was not a problem.
Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and
tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and
Buchanan?
A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan
got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish
old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed
their mind about Hitler.
Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?
A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of
Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is
that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots (100 to 300 votes) may
have been determined under slightly different standards because
judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the
legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter" may have a
slightly opinion about the voter's intent, even though a single judge
was overseeing the entire process to resolve any disputes.
Q: A single judge? I thought the standards were different. I
thought that was the whole point of the Supreme Court opinion.
A: Judge Terry Lewis, who received the case upon remand from the
Florida Supreme Court, had already ordered each of the counties to
fax him their standards so he could be sure they were uniform when
the US Supreme Court stopped him from counting the uncounted votes
(favoring Gore). Republican activists did their best to send junk
faxes to Lewis in order to prevent him from standardizing the process
in a way that could justify the vote counting. They succeeded.
Q: Hmmm. Well, even if those .005% of difficult-to-tell votes are
thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the
voter's intent is clear, right?
A: Nope.
Q: Why not?
A: No time.
Q: I thought the Supreme Court said that the Constitution was more
important than speed.
A: It did. It said, "The press of time does not diminish the
constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse
for ignoring equal protection guarantees."
Q: Well that makes sense. So there's time to count the votes when
the intent is clear and everyone is treated equally then. Right?
A: No. The Supreme Court won't allow it.
Q: But they just said that the constitution is more important than
time!
A: You forget. There is the "Gore exception."
Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans,
agree the intent is clear? Why not?
A: Because December 12 was yesterday.
Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
A: No. January 6, 2001 is the deadline. In the Election of 1960,
Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4, 1961
Q: So why is December 12 important?
A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the
results.
Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme
Court?
A: Nothing.
Q: But I thought --
A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to
complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress.
The United States Supreme Court is trying to "help" the Florida
Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline
that everyone agrees is not binding.
Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the
votes counted by December 12.
A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices
stopped the recount last Saturday.
Q: Why?
A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.
Q: So why not separate the votes into piles -- indentations for
Gore, hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one
candidate or the other -- so that we know exactly how Florida voted
before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say,
indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know
right away who won Florida?
A. Great idea! An intelligent, rational solution to a difficult
problem! The US Supreme Court rejected it. (Gore exception) They
held that such counts would likely to produce election results
showing Gore won and Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance"
and that would "cast[] a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would
harm "democratic stability."
Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they
won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? Or a political one?
A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American
law, this reason has no basis in law. But that didn't stop the five
conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.
Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count
the votes afterward?
A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is
not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on
December 12.
Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for
arbitrarily setting a deadline?
A: Yes.
Q: But, but --
A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws
it sets for other courts.
Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the
rent-a-mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating
officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount
Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
A: Gore, of course.
Q: Tell me this, are Florida's election laws unconstitutional?
A: Yes, according to the Supreme Court.
Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted
differently are unconstitutional?
A: Yes, according to the logic of the Supreme Court opinion. And 33
states have the same "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US
Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.
Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
A: Um. Because...um...the Supreme Court doesn't say...
Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly
declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't
know who really won the election there, right?
A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won
Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).
Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state?
count under a single uniform standard?
A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.
Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political
favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's
wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the
Bush administration.
[This story appeared after the article was written]
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was upset during an
election-night party when she heard erroneous reports that Florida
had been won by Vice President Al Gore, exclaiming, ``this is
terrible,'' according to a report in Newsweek magazine released
Sunday.
Quoting two witnesses, Newsweek said O'Connor then
declared that meant the election was ``over'' because Gore
had also won two other key states.
O'Connor reportedly then walked off to get a plate of food, and her
husband, John, explained to friends and acquaintances that she was
upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona and a Gore presidency
meant they would have to wait another four years because she did not
want a Democrat to name her successor.
Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?
A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the
Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been
affirmed.
Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political
way.
A: Read the opinions for yourself:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00%2D949.pdf
Q: So what are the consequences of this?
A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under
our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice
(Bush) who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote, which trumps
America's choice
Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
A: True, in a democracy. But America in 2000 is no longer a
democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme
Court votes wins.
Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes
President?
A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to
ensure that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon
lawless justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.
Q: Is there any way to stop this?
A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the
Senate. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the
50 Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that
they will not approve a single judge appointed by him until a
President can be democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign
of terror can end...and one day we can hope to return to the rule of
law and the will of the people.
Q: What do I do now?
A: Email this to everyone you know, and write or call your Senator,
reminding him or her that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand
votes (three times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe
that VOTERS rather than JUDGES should determine who wins an election
by counting every vote. And to protect our judiciary from
overturning the will of the people, you want them to confirm NO NEW
JUDGES APPOINTED BY A NON-DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT until 2004
when a president is finally chosen by the American people, instead of
Antonin Scalia.
Mark H. Levine
Attorney at Law
P.S.
Q: Isn't anyone on the US Supreme Court a rational follower of the
rule of law?
A: Yes. Read the four dissents. Excerpts below:
Justice John Paul Stevens (Republican appointed by Ford):
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of
the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the
loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge
as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Justice David Souter (Republican appointed by Bush):
"Before this Court stayed the effort to [manually recount the
ballots] the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get
that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the
opportunity to try to count all the disputed ballots now.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
Chief Justice Rehnquist would "disrupt" Florida's "republican
regime." [In other words, democracy in Florida is imperiled.] The
court should not let its "untested prophecy" that counting votes is
"impractical" "decide the presidency of the United States."
Justice Steven Breyer (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
"There is no justification for the majority's remedy....We "risk a
self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the court, but
the nation."
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 07:42:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 08:31:05p, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:bvhkso$b1s$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly
declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't
know who really won the election there, right?
A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won
Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).
Wrong again (no surprise there). The Miami Herald found that Gore would have
only gained 790 votes, short of the 930 needed for victory.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.html
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 10:51:57 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly
declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't
know who really won the election there, right?
A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won
Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).
Wrong again (no surprise there). The Miami Herald found that Gore would have
only gained 790 votes, short of the 930 needed for victory.
In fact the media recount put Gore ahead of Bush.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.html
This link does not say anything about a recount of the state. It
refers only to a recount of a couple of counties.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
01 Feb 2004 12:27:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 11:51:57p, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:bvi0lc$muv$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote
Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly
declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't
know who really won the election there, right?
A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won
Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).
Wrong again (no surprise there). The Miami Herald found that Gore would
have only gained 790 votes, short of the 930 needed for victory.
In fact the media recount put Gore ahead of Bush.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.ht
ml
This link does not say anything about a recount of the state. It
refers only to a recount of a couple of counties.
The two recounts after the election showed that Bush was the winner.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
01 Feb 2004 12:51:41 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 11:51:57p, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:bvi0lc$muv$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote
Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly
declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't
know who really won the election there, right?
A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won
Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).
Wrong again (no surprise there). The Miami Herald found that Gore would
have only gained 790 votes, short of the 930 needed for victory.
In fact the media recount put Gore ahead of Bush.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.ht
ml
This link does not say anything about a recount of the state. It
refers only to a recount of a couple of counties.
The two recounts after the election showed that Bush was the winner.
At the heart of the legal wrangling is whether manual recounts in
Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties should be included in
Florida's final presidential vote totals.
Lawyers for Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican presidential
candidate, asked the court on Sunday to reject those ballots and
allow Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to certify
unofficial results that give Bush the lead.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/11/19/legal.filings/
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 07:37:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 08:31:05p, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:bvhkso$b1s$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
A: True, in a democracy. But America in 2000 is no longer a
democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme
Court votes wins.
America never was a democracy. And the American people don't vote for the
president.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 10:50:25 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 08:31:05p, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:bvhkso$b1s$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
A: True, in a democracy. But America in 2000 is no longer a
democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme
Court votes wins.
America never was a democracy.
People don't vote in the United States?
And the American people don't vote for the
president.
Who said that they do?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
01 Feb 2004 12:26:41 PM |
|
|
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 11:50:25p, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:bvi0ih$mrf$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 08:31:05p, (Ray Fischer)
wrote in news:bvhkso$b1s$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
A: True, in a democracy. But America in 2000 is no longer a
democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme
Court votes wins.
America never was a democracy.
People don't vote in the United States?
Voting does not equal democracy. When Saddam was the leader of Iraq, people
voted for him. Did that make Iraq a democracy? The Constitution of the United
States says that the United States is a republic.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
01 Feb 2004 12:44:20 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
A: True, in a democracy. But America in 2000 is no longer a
democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme
Court votes wins.
America never was a democracy.
People don't vote in the United States?
Voting does not equal democracy. When Saddam was the leader of Iraq, people
voted for him. Did that make Iraq a democracy? The Constitution of the United
States says that the United States is a republic.
What kind of republic? Theocratic? Oligarchic? Hereditary?
Or democratic?
democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or
through elected representatives.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy
Looks like the US is a democracy after all.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 07:35:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 08:31:05p, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:bvhkso$b1s$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him
with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
Indeed. 5 votes to 4.
Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount.
There was nothing illegal about it.
It was illegal because only one recount was allowed. Gore wanted a second
recount in selected counties. Bush got the most votes anyway.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.html
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 10:49:47 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him
with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
Indeed. 5 votes to 4.
Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount.
There was nothing illegal about it.
It was illegal because only one recount was allowed.
Which is one more than was actually done.
But it isn't the place of the US Supreme Court to dictate to Florida
how it conducts its election. The US Constitution says, quite
explicitely, that the states determine how elections are conducted.
Gore wanted a second
recount in selected counties.
Revisionist history.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
01 Feb 2004 12:24:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 11:49:47p, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:bvi0ha$mqh$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him
with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
Indeed. 5 votes to 4.
Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount.
There was nothing illegal about it.
It was illegal because only one recount was allowed.
Which is one more than was actually done.
Wrong again (no surprise there). A machine recount was done the day after
the election. Gore even got second recount and he still lost.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
01 Feb 2004 12:42:12 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him
with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
Indeed. 5 votes to 4.
Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount.
There was nothing illegal about it.
It was illegal because only one recount was allowed.
Which is one more than was actually done.
Wrong again (no surprise there). A machine recount was done the day after
the election.
Running magnetic tapes through the machine again does not recount any
ballots.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
02 Feb 2004 08:30:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 18:42:12 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him
with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
Indeed. 5 votes to 4.
Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount.
There was nothing illegal about it.
It was illegal because only one recount was allowed.
Which is one more than was actually done.
Wrong again (no surprise there). A machine recount was done the day after
the election.
Running magnetic tapes through the machine again does not recount any
ballots.
Actually, they ran the punched cards thorugh the reader again. Of
course, since the second run removed some of the chad, the totals were
different. That is why machine counts are not as accurate as hand
counts.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 02:35:19 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:4e1a24cbea4d847ef06b53661dcfc320@news.teranews.com:
On Fri 30 Jan 2004 08:33:17p, (Craig Chilton)
wrote in news:401b01fa.1741056@netnews.mchsi.com:
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him
with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision not to
count votes for his opponent, the person who was actually elected.
--
"James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support
legalized abortion."
-coward bobby heishman lying as "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
"I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized
abortion as well."
-Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in
<ouednVs5R7Zs5m2iRVn-vA@comcast.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 03:02:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 03:35:19p, "james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
wrote in news:Xns94819E909D476keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:4e1a24cbea4d847ef06b53661dcfc320@news.teranews.com:
On Fri 30 Jan 2004 08:33:17p, (Craig Chilton)
wrote in news:401b01fa.1741056@netnews.mchsi.com:
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him
with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision not to
count votes for his opponent, the person who was actually elected.
The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 03:16:50 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:89286632aabd363752018d6d6ac48548@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 03:35:19p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns94819E909D476keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:4e1a24cbea4d847ef06b53661dcfc320@news.teranews.com:
On Fri 30 Jan 2004 08:33:17p, (Craig
Chilton) wrote in news:401b01fa.1741056@netnews.mchsi.com:
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace
him with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision
not to count votes for his opponent, the person who was actually
elected.
The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount.
does it make you feel better to lie about what is common knowledge?
--
"James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support
legalized abortion."
-coward bobby heishman lying as "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
"I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized
abortion as well."
-Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in
<ouednVs5R7Zs5m2iRVn-vA@comcast.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 03:25:17 PM |
|
|
On 31 Jan 2004 21:16:50 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9481A59A7CF93keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount.
does it make you feel better to lie about what is common knowledge?
The only 'common knowledge' it that there will never be an agreement
about this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 04:34:55 PM |
|
|
prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in
news:l87o10lotu3cqkmhrdaht27q546ou5rs9r@4ax.com:
On 31 Jan 2004 21:16:50 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9481A59A7CF93keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount.
does it make you feel better to lie about what is common knowledge?
The only 'common knowledge' it that there will never be an agreement
about this.
of course there will. the facts of the matter won't change.
it is common for people to resist accepting things that are so ugly and
so despicable that their sensibilities are offended. take watergate,
for example. it tooks years for people to accept facts. that facts
didn't change. only perceptions changed.
the same could be said for the roman catholic church's cover ups of so
much child abuse. the facts didn't change. only perceptions changed.
--
"James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support
legalized abortion."
-coward bobby heishman lying as "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
"I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized
abortion as well."
-Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in
<ouednVs5R7Zs5m2iRVn-vA@comcast.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 03:38:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 04:16:50p, "james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
wrote in news:Xns9481A59A7CF93keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:89286632aabd363752018d6d6ac48548@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 03:35:19p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns94819E909D476keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:4e1a24cbea4d847ef06b53661dcfc320@news.teranews.com:
On Fri 30 Jan 2004 08:33:17p, (Craig
Chilton) wrote in news:401b01fa.1741056@netnews.mchsi.com:
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace
him with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision
not to count votes for his opponent, the person who was actually
elected.
The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount.
does it make you feel better to lie about what is common knowledge?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.html
Prove your position.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 04:00:40 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:b49022b8c96f1ae7121c0ea9117c278e@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 04:16:50p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns9481A59A7CF93keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:89286632aabd363752018d6d6ac48548@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 03:35:19p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns94819E909D476keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:4e1a24cbea4d847ef06b53661dcfc320@news.teranews.com:
On Fri 30 Jan 2004 08:33:17p, (Craig
Chilton) wrote in news:401b01fa.1741056@netnews.mchsi.com:
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace
him with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision
not to count votes for his opponent, the person who was
actually elected.
The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount.
does it make you feel better to lie about what is common
knowledge?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010
226.html
Prove your position.
you made the claim "George Bush *was* elected." are you admitting
your claim was false?
--
"James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support
legalized abortion."
-coward bobby heishman lying as "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
"I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring
legalized
abortion as well."
-Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in
<ouednVs5R7Zs5m2iRVn-vA@comcast.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 04:16:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 05:00:40p, "james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
wrote in news:Xns9481AD08E599Fkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:b49022b8c96f1ae7121c0ea9117c278e@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 04:16:50p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns9481A59A7CF93keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:89286632aabd363752018d6d6ac48548@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 03:35:19p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns94819E909D476keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:4e1a24cbea4d847ef06b53661dcfc320@news.teranews.com:
On Fri 30 Jan 2004 08:33:17p, (Craig
Chilton) wrote in news:401b01fa.1741056@netnews.mchsi.com:
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace
him with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision
not to count votes for his opponent, the person who was
actually elected.
The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount.
does it make you feel better to lie about what is common
knowledge?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010
226.html
Prove your position.
you made the claim "George Bush *was* elected." are you admitting
your claim was false?
No. Prove Bush wasn't elected.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 04:35:48 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:8d04f9c63bec909bca16ad066151a523@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 05:00:40p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns9481AD08E599Fkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:b49022b8c96f1ae7121c0ea9117c278e@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 04:16:50p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns9481A59A7CF93keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:89286632aabd363752018d6d6ac48548@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 03:35:19p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns94819E909D476keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:4e1a24cbea4d847ef06b53661dcfc320@news.teranews.com:
On Fri 30 Jan 2004 08:33:17p, (Craig
Chilton) wrote in news:401b01fa.1741056@netnews.mchsi.com:
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and
replace him with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
not really. he was appointed as the result of a court
decision not to count votes for his opponent, the person who
was actually elected.
The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount.
does it make you feel better to lie about what is common
knowledge?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots0
10 226.html
Prove your position.
you made the claim "George Bush *was* elected." are you admitting
your claim was false?
No.
i didn't think you could prove your claim. given that, usenet
convention dictates that the claim is considered false.
--
"James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support
legalized abortion."
-coward bobby heishman lying as "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
"I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring
legalized
abortion as well."
-Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in
<ouednVs5R7Zs5m2iRVn-vA@comcast.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion |
31 Jan 2004 05:36:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 05:35:48p, "james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
wrote in news:Xns9481B2FCECA19keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:8d04f9c63bec909bca16ad066151a523@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 05:00:40p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns9481AD08E599Fkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:b49022b8c96f1ae7121c0ea9117c278e@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 04:16:50p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns9481A59A7CF93keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:89286632aabd363752018d6d6ac48548@news.teranews.com:
On Sat 31 Jan 2004 03:35:19p, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns94819E909D476keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:4e1a24cbea4d847ef06b53661dcfc320@news.teranews.com:
On Fri 30 Jan 2004 08:33:17p, (Craig
Chilton) wrote in news:401b01fa.1741056@netnews.mchsi.com:
Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and
replace him with an *elected* President
George Bush *was* elected. Get over it.
not really. he was appointed as the result of a court
decision not to count votes for his opponent, the person who
was actually elected.
The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount.
does it make you feel better to lie about what is common
knowledge?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots0
10 226.html
Prove your position.
you made the claim "George Bush *was* elected." are you admitting
your claim was false?
No.
i didn't think you could prove your claim. given that, usenet
convention dictates that the claim is considered false.
I've already proven my position. I'll take your refusal to provide proof
for your claim as an admission of defeat.
--
€
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
