| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"papa jack" |
| Date: |
08 Jul 2004 03:16:02 PM |
| Object: |
Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
On June 28, 2004, LifeNews.com posted an article by Steven
Ertelt titled "Abortion Business Attorney: Women Don't Need
to Know Abortion Risks."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat606.html
_____________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"Chasen, NAF's expert witness in the trial, had conducted a
study that showed an increase in the number of early term
(premature) deliveries subsequent to a partial-birth abortion
being performed.
"Judge Casey brought up the study and asked Hut whether
someone performing a partial-birth abortion has an obligation
to tell women of the risk.
"'There is certainly no obligation to report the results,' to
women considering abortion, Hut said.
"'How can you give informed consent if you don't tell them,'
Judge Casey responded, 'aren't we putting thousands of women
and their babies at risk if we don't have an obligation to
tell women who are considering abortion?'
"'Absolutely not,' Hut replied. He added that he thought the
study was meaningless.
"'And you don't think there is an obligation to tell women,
when obtaining so-called informed consent,' Judge Casey asked,
baffled. 'No,' Hut replied.
"Hut then said it would be wrong for someone performing an
abortion to tell women of the study because the issue is too
complex. Hut claimed the study was statistically insignificant.
[...]
"Later in the discussion, Hut said that the matter of informed
consent ‘is largely a matter of the individual judgment of the
doctor based on his or her well informed assessment of his or
her patient.'
"Judge Casey became indignant at this point and told Hut it
sounded to him that it was ‘as if the doctors were informed
and the women consented.'
"MR. HUT: I don't think so at all, your Honor. I think this
is a very delicate issue as to which sophisticated, experi-
enced doctors bring to bear years and years of judgment that
we lawyers -- we lawyers cannot begin to appreciate.
"THE COURT: It's not the doctor's consent, it's the woman's
consent.
"MR. HUT: And it's the doctors that understand the women that
are patients and those patients --
"THE COURT: Isn't that terribly patronizing when it's the woman
who's making the decision?
[...]
"Casey, concluded, by telling Hut he should take a more pro-woman
position. ‘And I think a little more deference to those women,
it would behoove you to give them that.'"
_____________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Here we see Judge Casey telling the Pro-Abort lawyer he should
have a little more deference to the women who seek abortions.
Like most big industries, the abortion industry is far more
interested in their own well being than they are in the well
being of their patients.
What I don't understand is why those not employed by the abortion
industry defend the abortion clinics rather than the women they
claim to speak for?
.
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
08 Jul 2004 06:31:23 PM |
|
|
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bd9f1f6b.0407081216.456ed436@posting.google.com...
On June 28, 2004, LifeNews.com posted an article by Steven
Ertelt titled "Abortion Business Attorney: Women Don't Need
to Know Abortion Risks."
==============================
But they do need to know about the risks of childbirth - right? Or are the
risks just brushed aside as my Dr. did when I asked him back in the 1960s.
Are the Drs and anti-choicers telling women the truth now?
--
Flower Power........
One women dies giving birth every 30 minutes in Afghanistan.
Do they also warn women of the dangers of term pregnancy and
birth?.......like:
http://www.indiaparenting.com/pregnancy/data/preg16_00.shtml
http://www.imnotsorry.net/
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as
that associated with abortion.27
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/deaths_smj.html
====================================================
What an abortion REALLY looks like.
http://www.angelfire.com/pq/pepsii/nuva.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Soeur Felicienne Angelica" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
15 Jul 2004 05:05:36 PM |
|
|
"Flower Power" <Woman-R-Free@this-time.net> wrote in message news:<GuCdneSk0fnPRHDdRVn-hQ@heartoftn.net>...
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bd9f1f6b.0407081216.456ed436@posting.google.com...
On June 28, 2004, LifeNews.com posted an article by Steven
Ertelt titled "Abortion Business Attorney: Women Don't Need
to Know Abortion Risks."
==============================
But they do need to know about the risks of childbirth - right? Or are the
risks just brushed aside as my Dr. did when I asked him back in the 1960s.
Are the Drs and anti-choicers telling women the truth now?
Uh, do you mean to suggest that as a general practice physicians in
the past told women that childbirth was a cakewalk? Sheesh, what's
wrong with you Doody Heads in here?
In any event, do you need a physician, FP, to lecture you on the
dangers of running stop signs every time you go to the supermarket? Do
you call your doctor for advice on whether or not to stick your tongue
in a meat grinder? Like, you need a peer-reviewed study on nutrition
before you make a decision on whether or not to eat 23 jelly doughnuts
in a row?
Of course childbirth is dangerous, as are thousands of other fairly
routine things we don't run to our doctor about before making a
decision on whether or not to expose ourselves to them. It's called
life. Abortions, on the other hand, are overwhemingly optional and
occur after the fact, that fact being our choice to engage in sex to
begin with. Your doctor isn't around when you set these events in
motion, just like he wouldn't be around if you ran a stop sign and got
busted up rather badly. But it's then when you need his advice on what
to do. You'd have options. Get the difference?
Soeur Felicienne Angelica - Sworn Enemy of "Toe-Tag" Liberals
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
16 Jul 2004 03:36:49 PM |
|
|
Soeur Felicienne Angelica wrote:
"Flower Power" <Woman-R-Free@this-time.net> wrote in message news:<GuCdneSk0fnPRHDdRVn-hQ@heartoftn.net>...
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bd9f1f6b.0407081216.456ed436@posting.google.com...
On June 28, 2004, LifeNews.com posted an article by Steven
Ertelt titled "Abortion Business Attorney: Women Don't Need
to Know Abortion Risks."
==============================
But they do need to know about the risks of childbirth - right? Or are the
risks just brushed aside as my Dr. did when I asked him back in the 1960s.
Are the Drs and anti-choicers telling women the truth now?
Uh, do you mean to suggest that as a general practice physicians in
the past told women that childbirth was a cakewalk?
In the past? Hell, they still do!
Sheesh, what's
wrong with you Doody Heads in here?
In any event, do you need a physician, FP, to lecture you on the
dangers of running stop signs every time you go to the supermarket? Do
you call your doctor for advice on whether or not to stick your tongue
in a meat grinder? Like, you need a peer-reviewed study on nutrition
before you make a decision on whether or not to eat 23 jelly doughnuts
in a row?
Of course childbirth is dangerous, as are thousands of other fairly
routine things we don't run to our doctor about before making a
decision on whether or not to expose ourselves to them. It's called
life. Abortions, on the other hand, are overwhemingly optional and
occur after the fact, that fact being our choice to engage in sex to
begin with. Your doctor isn't around when you set these events in
motion, just like he wouldn't be around if you ran a stop sign and got
busted up rather badly. But it's then when you need his advice on what
to do. You'd have options. Get the difference?
Soeur Felicienne Angelica - Sworn Enemy of "Toe-Tag" Liberals
--
--sexkitten--Gone crazy, be back later, leave message.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
09 Jul 2004 10:43:49 AM |
|
|
"Flower Power" <Woman-R-Free@this-time.net> wrote
in message news:<GuCdneSk0fnPRHDdRVn-hQ@heartoftn.net>...
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bd9f1f6b.0407081216.456ed436@posting.google.com...
========================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
On June 28, 2004, LifeNews.com posted an article by Steven
Ertelt titled "Abortion Business Attorney: Women Don't Need
to Know Abortion Risks."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat606.html
_____________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"Chasen, NAF's expert witness in the trial, had conducted a
study that showed an increase in the number of early term
(premature) deliveries subsequent to a partial-birth abortion
being performed.
"Judge Casey brought up the study and asked Hut whether
someone performing a partial-birth abortion has an obligation
to tell women of the risk.
"'There is certainly no obligation to report the results,' to
women considering abortion, Hut said.
"'How can you give informed consent if you don't tell them,'
Judge Casey responded, 'aren't we putting thousands of women
and their babies at risk if we don't have an obligation to
tell women who are considering abortion?'
"'Absolutely not,' Hut replied. He added that he thought the
study was meaningless.
"'And you don't think there is an obligation to tell women,
when obtaining so-called informed consent,' Judge Casey asked,
baffled. 'No,' Hut replied.
"Hut then said it would be wrong for someone performing an
abortion to tell women of the study because the issue is too
complex. Hut claimed the study was statistically insignificant.
[...]
"Later in the discussion, Hut said that the matter of informed
consent ‘is largely a matter of the individual judgment of the
doctor based on his or her well informed assessment of his or
her patient.'
"Judge Casey became indignant at this point and told Hut it
sounded to him that it was ‘as if the doctors were informed
and the women consented.'
"MR. HUT: I don't think so at all, your Honor. I think this
is a very delicate issue as to which sophisticated, experi-
enced doctors bring to bear years and years of judgment that
we lawyers -- we lawyers cannot begin to appreciate.
"THE COURT: It's not the doctor's consent, it's the woman's
consent.
"MR. HUT: And it's the doctors that understand the women that
are patients and those patients --
"THE COURT: Isn't that terribly patronizing when it's the woman
who's making the decision?
[...]
"Casey, concluded, by telling Hut he should take a more pro-woman
position. ‘And I think a little more deference to those women,
it would behoove you to give them that.'"
_____________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Here we see Judge Casey telling the Pro-Abort lawyer he should
have a little more deference to the women who seek abortions.
Like most big industries, the abortion industry is far more
interested in their own well being than they are in the well
being of their patients.
What I don't understand is why those not employed by the abortion
industry defend the abortion clinics rather than the women they
claim to speak for?
========================================================================
Flower Power wrote:
But they do need to know about the risks of childbirth -
right? Or are the risks just brushed aside as my Dr. did
when I asked him back in the 1960s. Are the Drs and anti-
choicers telling women the truth now?
========================================================================
Papa Jack replies:
What does that have to do with the point raised by the
article cited above? Did you even read the quotes I
provided?
Sometimes I wonder if you are Ray's sister. Your tactics
are so much like Ray's. You seem to want to obfiscate
and confuse the issues at hand, rather than to make
logical comments on the points under discussion.
The primary point is that the abortion industry lawyer
openly took anti-women positions during argumets -- to
the point where the judge had to correct him.
Now, do you have an opinion on whether you agree with
Mr. Hut (the abortion industry lawyer) or with Judge
Casey?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
09 Jul 2004 07:38:58 PM |
|
|
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bd9f1f6b.0407090743.22a21511@posting.google.com...
Flower Power wrote:
But they do need to know about the risks of childbirth -
right? Or are the risks just brushed aside as my Dr. did
when I asked him back in the 1960s. Are the Drs and anti-
choicers telling women the truth now?
========================================================================
Papa Jack replies:
What does that have to do with the point raised by the
article cited above? Did you even read the quotes I
provided?
## Did you read my message? Are women being told the TRUTH about the risks
and dangers of childbirth?
Sometimes I wonder if you are Ray's sister. Your tactics
are so much like Ray's. You seem to want to obfiscate
and confuse the issues at hand, rather than to make
logical comments on the points under discussion.
## There is nothing to confuse. I asked a simple question. Are women being
told the TRUTH about the risks and dangers of childbirth? Teenage girls
are even more prone to problems and complications.
FP........
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
.
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
10 Jul 2004 05:01:55 PM |
|
|
"Flower Power" <Freedom@this-time.net> wrote
in message news:<ef6dnXejlqc6p3LdRVn-uw@heartoftn.net>...
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Flower Power" <Freedom@this-time.net> wrote:
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
========================================================================
::>> Papa Jack cited:
::>> On June 28, 2004, LifeNews.com posted an article by Steven
::>> Ertelt titled "Abortion Business Attorney: Women Don't Need
::>> to Know Abortion Risks."
::>> http://www.lifenews.com/nat606.html
_____________________________________________________________________
::>> Excerpts:
::>> [...]
::>> "Chasen, NAF's expert witness in the trial, had conducted a
::>> study that showed an increase in the number of early term
::>> (premature) deliveries subsequent to a partial-birth abortion
::>> being performed.
::>> "Judge Casey brought up the study and asked Hut whether
::>> someone performing a partial-birth abortion has an obligation
::>> to tell women of the risk.
::>> "'There is certainly no obligation to report the results,' to
::>> women considering abortion, Hut said.
::>> "'How can you give informed consent if you don't tell them,'
::>> Judge Casey responded, 'aren't we putting thousands of women
::>> and their babies at risk if we don't have an obligation to
::>> tell women who are considering abortion?'
::>> "'Absolutely not,' Hut replied. He added that he thought the
::>> study was meaningless.
::>> "'And you don't think there is an obligation to tell women,
::>> when obtaining so-called informed consent,' Judge Casey asked,
::>> baffled. 'No,' Hut replied.
::>> "Hut then said it would be wrong for someone performing an
::>> abortion to tell women of the study because the issue is too
::>> complex. Hut claimed the study was statistically insignificant.
::>>[...]
::>> "Later in the discussion, Hut said that the matter of informed
::>> consent ‘is largely a matter of the individual judgment of the
::>> doctor based on his or her well informed assessment of his or
::>> her patient.'
::>> "Judge Casey became indignant at this point and told Hut it
::>> sounded to him that it was ‘as if the doctors were informed
::>> and the women consented.'
::>> "MR. HUT: I don't think so at all, your Honor. I think this
::>> is a very delicate issue as to which sophisticated, experi-
::>> enced doctors bring to bear years and years of judgment that
::>> we lawyers -- we lawyers cannot begin to appreciate.
::>> "THE COURT: It's not the doctor's consent, it's the woman's
::>> consent.
::>> "MR. HUT: And it's the doctors that understand the women that
::>> are patients and those patients --
::>> "THE COURT: Isn't that terribly patronizing when it's the woman
::>> who's making the decision?
::>>[...]
::>> "Casey, concluded, by telling Hut he should take a more pro-woman
::>> position. ‘And I think a little more deference to those women,
::>> it would behoove you to give them that.'"
_____________________________________________________________________
::>> Papa Jack comments:
::>> Here we see Judge Casey telling the Pro-Abort lawyer he should
::>> have a little more deference to the women who seek abortions.
::>> Like most big industries, the abortion industry is far more
::>> interested in their own well being than they are in the well
::>> being of their patients.
::>> What I don't understand is why those not employed by the abortion
::>> industry defend the abortion clinics rather than the women they
::>> claim to speak for?
========================================================================
Flower Power wrote:
But they do need to know about the risks of childbirth -
right? Or are the risks just brushed aside as my Dr. did
when I asked him back in the 1960s. Are the Drs and anti-
choicers telling women the truth now?
========================================================================
Papa Jack replies:
What does that have to do with the point raised by the
article cited above? Did you even read the quotes I
provided?
========================================================================
Flower Power wrote:
## Did you read my message? Are women being told the
TRUTH about the risks and dangers of childbirth?
========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
If you want to discuss THAT different issue, why don't
you start your own thread? Instead, you keep horning
into my threads. You delete much of what is being
discussed and try to totally change the subject under
discussion.
That's rude -- and I have no obligation to answer you
distracting questions or comments.
========================================================================
Papa Jack
Sometimes I wonder if you are Ray's sister. Your tactics
are so much like Ray's. You seem to want to obfiscate
and confuse the issues at hand, rather than to make
logical comments on the points under discussion.
========================================================================
Flower Power wrote:
## There is nothing to confuse. I asked a simple question.
Are women being told the TRUTH about the risks and dangers
of childbirth? Teenage girls are even more prone to problems
and complications.
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
But your "simple question" is totally off topic.
Frankly, I think you do this sort of thing to divert
attention away from the difficult questions for
Pro-Aborts like you to answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" anti-choicers hide the truth |
10 Jul 2004 10:18:37 PM |
|
|
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bd9f1f6b.0407101401.6de9ecb0@posting.google.com...
Flower Power wrote:
## Did you read my message? Are women being told the
TRUTH about the risks and dangers of childbirth?
========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
If you want to discuss THAT different issue, why don't
you start your own thread? Instead, you keep horning
into my threads.
* Why not? You're threads are often very biased and one sided. Women and
girls need to know BOTH sides of the issue.
You delete much of what is being
discussed and try to totally change the subject under
discussion.
* BS, there is no need to waste bandwidth with redundancy.
That's rude -- and I have no obligation to answer you
distracting questions or comments.
* Because you CAN'T without exposing your dishonesty. Allow me to answer
for you. The anti-choicers DO NOT tell women the dangers of childbirth nor
the expenses she will incur - huge expenses if there are complications with
one of both of them. They DO NOT tell women that only healthy white male
infants are wanted by barren couples. Or that the rest can just rot in
Foster Care, a horrendous system here in the USA.
--
Flower Power........
One women dies giving birth every 30 minutes in Afghanistan.
Do they also warn women of the dangers of term pregnancy and
birth?.......like:
http://www.indiaparenting.com/pregnancy/data/preg16_00.shtml
http://www.imnotsorry.net/
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as
that associated with abortion.27
What an abortion REALLY looks like.
http://www.angelfire.com/pq/pepsii/nuva.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
10 Jul 2004 06:01:20 PM |
|
|
In article <bd9f1f6b.0407101401.6de9ecb0@posting.google.com>, papa jack
<papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Flower Power wrote:
## Did you read my message? Are women being told the
TRUTH about the risks and dangers of childbirth?
========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
If you want to discuss THAT different issue, why don't
you start your own thread? Instead, you keep horning
into my threads. You delete much of what is being
discussed and try to totally change the subject under
discussion.
You don't own the thread and you are a master at changing the meaning
of things. For example, this comment was made during closing argument
which means NOTHING.
That's rude -- and I have no obligation to answer you
distracting questions or comments.
Of course not. You can just keep cutting the guts out of stories in an
effort to lie.
========================================================================
Papa Jack
Sometimes I wonder if you are Ray's sister. Your tactics
are so much like Ray's. You seem to want to obfiscate
and confuse the issues at hand, rather than to make
logical comments on the points under discussion.
You have a reputation for taking a story and turning it into the exact
opposite through the use of ellipses and she obfiscates?
========================================================================
Flower Power wrote:
## There is nothing to confuse. I asked a simple question.
Are women being told the TRUTH about the risks and dangers
of childbirth? Teenage girls are even more prone to problems
and complications.
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
But your "simple question" is totally off topic.
But your "topic" is made up. Why are you trying to control what
people talk about? Control is all you neoconservatives are up to these
days.
Frankly, I think you do this sort of thing to divert
attention away from the difficult questions for
Pro-Aborts like you to answer.
There are no "difficult" questions for pro-aborts because there are no
"pro-aborts." Start "your thread" with a little honesty and perhaps
you will get a discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
11 Jul 2004 05:55:42 PM |
|
|
"David Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote
in message news:<100720041601201649%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <bd9f1f6b.0407101401.6de9ecb0@posting.google.com>, papa jack
<papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
========================================================================
Flower Power wrote:
## Did you read my message? Are women being told the
TRUTH about the risks and dangers of childbirth?
========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
If you want to discuss THAT different issue, why don't
you start your own thread? Instead, you keep horning
into my threads. You delete much of what is being
discussed and try to totally change the subject under
discussion.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
You don't own the thread...
========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Never claimed to "own" the thread. But, all too often
when I start a thread folks like Ray and Flower Power
come along and try to distract folks from the point of
the initial message by totally unrelated comments or
questions -- usually after deleting most of what the
initial item included.
Remember when, as children, we played the game of
gossip? There were always one or two who wouldn't
even try to pass on WHAT THEY HEARD. They would make
up some off-color remark or pure gobbledegook just
to get attention and mess up the real game. That's
how I see those like Ray and Flower Power.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...and you are a master at changing the meaning
of things....
========================================================================
Papa Jack shakes his head:
You're straining a bit too hard, David. You know
there's no truth whatsoever to that allegation,
but you hope to repeat it often enough to get
the readers to believe it. Shades of Hitler,
Goebbels, Ley, and Hess. Go to:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...For example, this comment was made during
closing argument which means NOTHING.
========================================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Huh? I don't understand. Would you like to elucidate?
Which of the judge's comments are you saying "means NOTHING?"
* "Judge Casey became indignant at this point and
told Hut it sounded to him that it was ‘as if
the doctors were informed and the women consented.'
* "THE COURT: Isn't that terribly patronizing when
it's the woman who's making the decision?
* "Casey, concluded, by telling Hut he should take a
more pro-woman position. ‘And I think a little
more deference to those women, it would behoove
you to give them that.'"
========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
That's rude -- and I have no obligation to answer you
distracting questions or comments.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
Of course not. You can just keep cutting the guts out
of stories in an effort to lie.
========================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
There you go again, David. You keep making this and
similar sweeping generalities without a shred of
proof, evidence, or logic. Just broad accusations
designed to paint a particular picture of me which
is totally untrue.
Is that what you learned in law school?
========================================================================
Papa Jack
Sometimes I wonder if you are Ray's sister. Your tactics
are so much like Ray's. You seem to want to obfiscate
and confuse the issues at hand, rather than to make
logical comments on the points under discussion.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
You have a reputation for taking a story and turning it
into the exact opposite through the use of ellipses and
she obfiscates?
========================================================================
Papa Jack challenged:
Okay, David, give us examples of how I turned a story
"into the exact opposite through the use of ellipses and
she obfiscates [sic]."
========================================================================
Flower Power wrote:
## There is nothing to confuse. I asked a simple question.
Are women being told the TRUTH about the risks and dangers
of childbirth? Teenage girls are even more prone to problems
and complications.
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
But your "simple question" is totally off topic.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
But your "topic" is made up....
========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
My "topic" is a report of a trial on the constitutionality
of the new federal partial-birth abortion ban law. That's
hardly a made up "topic."
A major portion of the sections I provided are QUOTES
from the trial. How is THAT a "made up topic?"
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
Why are you trying to control what people talk about?...
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Why are you trying to defend the practice some Pro-Aborts
have of posting "red herrings" to distract attention away
from anything they think is unfavorable to the PA side?
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...Control is all you neoconservatives are up to these
days.
========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Go to Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
Is that what you really meant to call me, David?
I've a hunch you were trying to associate the term
"neoconservative" with "neo-Nazi."
========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Frankly, I think you do this sort of thing to divert
attention away from the difficult questions for
Pro-Aborts like you to answer.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
There are no "difficult" questions for pro-aborts because
there are no "pro-aborts."...
========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
"That dog won't hunt," David. You can depend on your
little rhetorical games all you want to, but most folks
with any judgement understand you are just playing word
games to hide the nature of what it is you support.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...Start "your thread" with a little honesty and perhaps
you will get a discussion.
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
That's a really ironic statement coming from Herr "Goebbels"
Barnes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
11 Jul 2004 06:30:20 PM |
|
|
In article <bd9f1f6b.0407111455.5940a34c@posting.google.com>, papa jack
<papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"David Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote
in message news:<100720041601201649%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <bd9f1f6b.0407101401.6de9ecb0@posting.google.com>, papa jack
<papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
========================================================================
Flower Power wrote:
## Did you read my message? Are women being told the
TRUTH about the risks and dangers of childbirth?
========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
If you want to discuss THAT different issue, why don't
you start your own thread? Instead, you keep horning
into my threads. You delete much of what is being
discussed and try to totally change the subject under
discussion.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
You don't own the thread...
========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Never claimed to "own" the thread. But, all too often
when I start a thread folks like Ray and Flower Power
come along and try to distract folks from the point of
the initial message by totally unrelated comments or
questions -- usually after deleting most of what the
initial item included.
You mean too often it doesn't go as you planned.
Remember when, as children, we played the game of
gossip? There were always one or two who wouldn't
even try to pass on WHAT THEY HEARD. They would make
up some off-color remark or pure gobbledegook just
to get attention and mess up the real game. That's
how I see those like Ray and Flower Power.
Papa_Jack, you are know for distorting these stories. How can you now
complain?
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...and you are a master at changing the meaning
of things....
========================================================================
Papa Jack shakes his head:
You're straining a bit too hard, David. You know
there's no truth whatsoever to that allegation,
but you hope to repeat it often enough to get
the readers to believe it. Shades of Hitler,
Goebbels, Ley, and Hess. Go to:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm
If you really don't distort, why not just offer up the url? You always
offer pieces that are out of context.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...For example, this comment was made during
closing argument which means NOTHING.
========================================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Huh? I don't understand. Would you like to elucidate?
Which of the judge's comments are you saying "means NOTHING?"
* "Judge Casey became indignant at this point and
told Hut it sounded to him that it was ‘as if
the doctors were informed and the women consented.'
* "THE COURT: Isn't that terribly patronizing when
it's the woman who's making the decision?
* "Casey, concluded, by telling Hut he should take a
more pro-woman position. ‘And I think a little
more deference to those women, it would behoove
you to give them that.'"
I wasn't speaking of the judges comments. A lawyers final comments to
a jury are merely comments and not evidence. But since you asked, the
same is true with the Judge.
========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
That's rude -- and I have no obligation to answer you
distracting questions or comments.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
Of course not. You can just keep cutting the guts out
of stories in an effort to lie.
========================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
There you go again, David. You keep making this and
similar sweeping generalities without a shred of
proof, evidence, or logic. Just broad accusations
designed to paint a particular picture of me which
is totally untrue.
Is that what you learned in law school?
There is a rule in evidence that stop attorneys from doing what you do.
The courts want the truth, not some lawyers desire for some spin.
========================================================================
Papa Jack
Sometimes I wonder if you are Ray's sister. Your tactics
are so much like Ray's. You seem to want to obfiscate
and confuse the issues at hand, rather than to make
logical comments on the points under discussion.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
You have a reputation for taking a story and turning it
into the exact opposite through the use of ellipses and
she obfiscates?
========================================================================
Papa Jack challenged:
Okay, David, give us examples of how I turned a story
"into the exact opposite through the use of ellipses and
she obfiscates [sic]."
The only reason I misspelled obfuscates is I cut and pasted your quote.
I guess that was a a mistake.
========================================================================
Flower Power wrote:
## There is nothing to confuse. I asked a simple question.
Are women being told the TRUTH about the risks and dangers
of childbirth? Teenage girls are even more prone to problems
and complications.
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
But your "simple question" is totally off topic.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
But your "topic" is made up....
========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
My "topic" is a report of a trial on the constitutionality
of the new federal partial-birth abortion ban law. That's
hardly a made up "topic."
A major portion of the sections I provided are QUOTES
from the trial. How is THAT a "made up topic?"
They were opinion, right?
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
Why are you trying to control what people talk about?...
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Why are you trying to defend the practice some Pro-Aborts
have of posting "red herrings" to distract attention away
from anything they think is unfavorable to the PA side?
What makes you the person to decide what is a red herring?
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...Control is all you neoconservatives are up to these
days.
========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Go to Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
Is that what you really meant to call me, David?
I assumed you haven't always been so mean spirited.
I've a hunch you were trying to associate the term
"neoconservative" with "neo-Nazi."
No. I said what I meant.
========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Frankly, I think you do this sort of thing to divert
attention away from the difficult questions for
Pro-Aborts like you to answer.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
There are no "difficult" questions for pro-aborts because
there are no "pro-aborts."...
========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
"That dog won't hunt," David. You can depend on your
little rhetorical games all you want to, but most folks
with any judgement understand you are just playing word
games to hide the nature of what it is you support.
It is you who is playing rhetorical games with "pro-abort." How can
you say otherwise?
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...Start "your thread" with a little honesty and perhaps
you will get a discussion.
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
That's a really ironic statement coming from Herr "Goebbels"
Barnes.
Hypocrite.
That wasn't much fun. Maybe we need to start again. :-)
You don't own the thread!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
11 Jul 2004 08:00:59 PM |
|
|
papa jack wrote:
"David Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote
in message news:<100720041601201649%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <bd9f1f6b.0407101401.6de9ecb0@posting.google.com>, papa jack
<papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
========================================================================
Flower Power wrote:
## Did you read my message? Are women being told the
TRUTH about the risks and dangers of childbirth?
========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
If you want to discuss THAT different issue, why don't
you start your own thread? Instead, you keep horning
into my threads. You delete much of what is being
discussed and try to totally change the subject under
discussion.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
You don't own the thread...
========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Never claimed to "own" the thread.
"Instead, you keep horning into my threads."
You realize that using "my" implies ownership?
But, all too often
when I start a thread folks like Ray and Flower Power
come along and try to distract folks from the point of
the initial message by totally unrelated comments or
questions -- usually after deleting most of what the
initial item included.
That's usually because most of the initial item included has nothing to
do with your "point of view"
Remember when, as children, we played the game of
gossip?
uhhh... no
There were always one or two who wouldn't
even try to pass on WHAT THEY HEARD. They would make
up some off-color remark or pure gobbledegook just
to get attention and mess up the real game. That's
how I see those like Ray and Flower Power.
They're messing up your elementary school game?
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...and you are a master at changing the meaning
of things....
========================================================================
Papa Jack shakes his head:
You're straining a bit too hard, David. You know
there's no truth whatsoever to that allegation,
but you hope to repeat it often enough to get
the readers to believe it. Shades of Hitler,
Goebbels, Ley, and Hess. Go to:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...For example, this comment was made during
closing argument which means NOTHING.
========================================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Huh? I don't understand. Would you like to elucidate?
Which of the judge's comments are you saying "means NOTHING?"
* "Judge Casey became indignant at this point and
told Hut it sounded to him that it was ‘as if
the doctors were informed and the women consented.'
* "THE COURT: Isn't that terribly patronizing when
it's the woman who's making the decision?
* "Casey, concluded, by telling Hut he should take a
more pro-woman position. ‘And I think a little
more deference to those women, it would behoove
you to give them that.'"
========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
That's rude -- and I have no obligation to answer you
distracting questions or comments.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
Of course not. You can just keep cutting the guts out
of stories in an effort to lie.
========================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
There you go again, David. You keep making this and
similar sweeping generalities without a shred of
proof, evidence, or logic. Just broad accusations
designed to paint a particular picture of me which
is totally untrue.
Is that what you learned in law school?
========================================================================
Papa Jack
Sometimes I wonder if you are Ray's sister. Your tactics
are so much like Ray's. You seem to want to obfiscate
and confuse the issues at hand, rather than to make
logical comments on the points under discussion.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
You have a reputation for taking a story and turning it
into the exact opposite through the use of ellipses and
she obfiscates?
========================================================================
Papa Jack challenged:
Okay, David, give us examples of how I turned a story
"into the exact opposite through the use of ellipses and
she obfiscates [sic]."
========================================================================
Flower Power wrote:
## There is nothing to confuse. I asked a simple question.
Are women being told the TRUTH about the risks and dangers
of childbirth? Teenage girls are even more prone to problems
and complications.
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
But your "simple question" is totally off topic.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
But your "topic" is made up....
========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
My "topic" is a report of a trial on the constitutionality
of the new federal partial-birth abortion ban law. That's
hardly a made up "topic."
So the topic is the constitutionality of the partial birth abortion law,
but your chosen subject line is "Attorney: 'Women Don't Need to Know
Abortion Risks'"?
A major portion of the sections I provided are QUOTES
from the trial. How is THAT a "made up topic?"
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
Why are you trying to control what people talk about?...
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Why are you trying to defend the practice some Pro-Aborts
have of posting "red herrings" to distract attention away
from anything they think is unfavorable to the PA side?
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...Control is all you neoconservatives are up to these
days.
========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Go to Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
Is that what you really meant to call me, David?
I've a hunch you were trying to associate the term
"neoconservative" with "neo-Nazi."
========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Frankly, I think you do this sort of thing to divert
attention away from the difficult questions for
Pro-Aborts like you to answer.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
There are no "difficult" questions for pro-aborts because
there are no "pro-aborts."...
========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
"That dog won't hunt," David. You can depend on your
little rhetorical games all you want to, but most folks
with any judgement understand you are just playing word
games to hide the nature of what it is you support.
Funny how you'll repeat a purely biased term over and over again, or
make up an entirely new one, and then accuse others of playing
"rhetorical games" for not using the same terminology.
========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...Start "your thread" with a little honesty and perhaps
you will get a discussion.
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
That's a really ironic statement coming from Herr "Goebbels"
Barnes.
Ironic or not, it's true.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
11 Jul 2004 06:28:03 PM |
|
|
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"David Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote
You don't own the thread...
Never claimed to "own" the thread. But, all too often
when I start a thread folks like Ray and Flower Power
come along and try to distract folks from the point of
the initial message by totally unrelated comments or
questions -
"Unrelated" mean any refutation of Jackass's sleazy propaganda.
-- usually after deleting most of what the
initial item included.
Jackass whines whenever people challenge his lies and unsupported
claims. he whines even more when people refuse to repeat his
hate-propaganda and malicious lies.
...and you are a master at changing the meaning
of things....
You're straining a bit too hard, David. You know
there's no truth whatsoever to that allegation,
It is quite true, Jackass. You routinely try to change
the meaning of words.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
12 Jul 2004 03:29:22 PM |
|
|
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
in message news:<ccsie3$dhd$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"David Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote
=========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
You don't own the thread...
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Never claimed to "own" the thread. But, all too often
when I start a thread folks like Ray and Flower Power
come along and try to distract folks from the point of
the initial message by totally unrelated comments or
questions -
=========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
"Unrelated" mean any refutation of Jackass's sleazy propaganda.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
I wish you really did have the wit to try to refute what I
post, Ray. However, all you really do is call me Jackass,
and post ad hominem remarks which often have little or no
relationship to the topics at hand.
Your primary purpose seems to be to delete most of what
I posted because it was negative toward the Pro-Abort side.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
...-- usually after deleting most of what the
initial item included.
Remember when, as children, we played the game of
gossip? There were always one or two who wouldn't
even try to pass on WHAT THEY HEARD. They would make
up some off-color remark or pure gobbledegook just
to get attention and mess up the real game. That's
how I see those like Ray and Flower Power.
=========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jackass whines whenever people challenge his lies and
unsupported claims.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
I typically post quotations from articles and comments
taken from a wide variety of sources. How do you
rationalize calling those "lies and unsupported claims?"
Oh, yes, I forgot -- you simply delete what I quoted and
pretend it never existed.
=========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
...he whines even more when people refuse to repeat his
hate-propaganda and malicious lies.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
Most of the items I quoted to start this thread were
direct quotes from the judge and and the abortion
industry in a trial. Do you really expect our readers
to agree those are "hate-propaganda and malicious lies?"
As usual, you're pathetic, Ray.
=========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...and you are a master at changing the meaning
of things....
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
You're straining a bit too hard, David. You know
there's no truth whatsoever to that allegation,
=========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
It is quite true, Jackass. You routinely try to change
the meaning of words.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
You often accuse me of such, but you seldom even try to
back it up, Ray.
Oh, yes, I remember, you'll want to drag oout that raggedy,
tattered list of out-of-context quotes from years ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
13 Jul 2004 08:33:07 AM |
|
|
papa jack wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
in message news:<ccsie3$dhd$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"David Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote
=========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
You don't own the thread...
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Never claimed to "own" the thread. But, all too often
when I start a thread folks like Ray and Flower Power
come along and try to distract folks from the point of
the initial message by totally unrelated comments or
questions -
=========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
"Unrelated" mean any refutation of Jackass's sleazy propaganda.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
I wish you really did have the wit to try to refute what I
post, Ray. However, all you really do is call me Jackass,
and post ad hominem remarks which often have little or no
relationship to the topics at hand.
Your primary purpose seems to be to delete most of what
I posted because it was negative toward the Pro-Abort side.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
...-- usually after deleting most of what the
initial item included.
Remember when, as children, we played the game of
gossip? There were always one or two who wouldn't
even try to pass on WHAT THEY HEARD. They would make
up some off-color remark or pure gobbledegook just
to get attention and mess up the real game. That's
how I see those like Ray and Flower Power.
=========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jackass whines whenever people challenge his lies and
unsupported claims.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
I typically post quotations from articles and comments
taken from a wide variety of sources.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that I'd bet over 75% of your "wide
variety of sources" comes from LifeNews.
How do you rationalize calling those "lies and unsupported claims?"
LifeNews is not the most unbiased, accurate news source. You know that
just as well as they do.
Oh, yes, I forgot -- you simply delete what I quoted and
pretend it never existed.
And more often than not, you adopt what you quote from LifeNews as your
own "point of view"
=========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
...he whines even more when people refuse to repeat his
hate-propaganda and malicious lies.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
Most of the items I quoted to start this thread were
direct quotes from the judge and and the abortion
industry in a trial. Do you really expect our readers
to agree those are "hate-propaganda and malicious lies?"
As usual, you're pathetic, Ray.
=========================================================================
David Barnes wrote:
...and you are a master at changing the meaning
of things....
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
You're straining a bit too hard, David. You know
there's no truth whatsoever to that allegation,
=========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
It is quite true, Jackass. You routinely try to change
the meaning of words.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
You often accuse me of such, but you seldom even try to
back it up, Ray.
He doesn't need to. When it comes to integrity, you're right up there
with the Vatican:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/07/vatican.document/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/12/seminary.porn.ap/index.html
Oh, yes, I remember, you'll want to drag oout that raggedy,
tattered list of out-of-context quotes from years ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
15 Jul 2004 05:42:30 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote
in message news:<40F3E4B5.F90178CE@citlink.net>...
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"David Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote
=========================================================================
[snip]
=========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jackass whines whenever people challenge his lies and
unsupported claims.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
I typically post quotations from articles and comments
taken from a wide variety of sources.
=========================================================================
Frank Dwyer wrote:
I'll go out on a limb here...
=========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
C..R..
A..C..
K..
=========================================================================
Frank Dwyer wrote:
...and say that I'd bet over 75% of your "wide variety
of sources" comes from LifeNews.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack countered:
Sorry, Frank, you LOSE bad. Only 1 out of my last
20 references were from LifeNews.
Take a look and see what I mean when I claim to use
a wide variety of sources.
Wo, what did you bet?
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
1) Ignorance Isn't Bliss
Date: 2004-07-15 05:01:09 PST
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37954-2004Jul8.html
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
2) Coulter: "Kerry Adopts Puppy"
Date: 2004-07-08 14:02:08 PST
Ann Coulter's column
http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/070704p.htm
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
3) Re: Coulter: "Kerry Adopts Puppy"
Date: 2004-07-11 16:54:51 PST
http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040624/pl_nm/iraq_usa_gore_dc_3&printer=1
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
4) "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks"
Date: 2004-07-08 13:16:03 PST
http://www.lifenews.com/nat606.html
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
5) Watch Me in the Womb
Date: 2004-06-28 13:45:35 PST
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
6) European Court Refuses to Rule on When Human Life Begins
Date: 2004-07-09 07:43:47 PST
http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040709/NEWS03/207090362/-1/news
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
7) Re: European Court Refuses to Rule on When Human Life Begins
Date: 2004-07-10 14:35:08 PST
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
8) Kerry's Different Faces
Date: 2004-07-10 10:25:39 PST
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/naral012103/kerr012103spt.html
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
9) Re: Unborn Child Pain Awareness
Date: 2004-07-09 09:20:49 PST
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/july/0707_abortion_pain_act.shtml
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
10) Bush Chastises Dem Senators for Blocking Judical Nominees
Date: 2004-07-07 18:02:59 PST
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9100707.htm
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
11) Re: Go see it.
Date: 2004-07-02 17:12:13 PST
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=4345
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
12) Re: Go see it.
Date: 2004-07-06 07:44:59 PST
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040701.shtml
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
13) Re: Kerry Flip-Flop: Life Starts at Conception
Date: 2004-07-07 13:55:10 PST
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124967,00.html
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
14) "'It' is a Life -- Let Them Kill 'It' Anyway."
Date: 2004-07-06 16:20:57 PST
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4391
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
15) Re: "'It' is a Life -- Let Them Kill 'It' Anyway."
Date: 2004-07-07 09:45:46 PST
http://www.partyplatform.com/republican2000.html
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
16) Britain's Abortion Law Goes "Too Far."
Date: 2004-07-06 14:58:08 PST
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/britain_health_abortion
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
17) 04 Democrat Party Platform Draft
Date: 2004-07-03 11:27:29 PST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4273414,00.html
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
18) Gender Ratios in India
Date: 2004-07-04 14:16:11 PST
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_866715,0005.htm
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
19) Late-Term Abortions Limits Blocked by Judge
Date: 2004-07-03 12:55:42 PST
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040703/NEWS01/407030359/1002
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
20) bortions Killing Off Liberals
Date: 2004-06-28 14:29:29 PST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
13 Jul 2004 06:48:48 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in
news:40F3E4B5.F90178CE@citlink.net:
papa jack wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<ccsie3$dhd$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"David Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote
=======================================================================
==
David Barnes wrote:
You don't own the thread...
=======================================================================
==
Papa Jack wrote:
Never claimed to "own" the thread. But, all too often
when I start a thread folks like Ray and Flower Power
come along and try to distract folks from the point of
the initial message by totally unrelated comments or questions -
=======================================================================
==
Ray Fischer wrote:
"Unrelated" mean any refutation of Jackass's sleazy propaganda.
=======================================================================
== Papa Jack smiled:
I wish you really did have the wit to try to refute what I
post, Ray. However, all you really do is call me Jackass, and post ad
hominem remarks which often have little or no relationship to the
topics at hand.
Your primary purpose seems to be to delete most of what
I posted because it was negative toward the Pro-Abort side.
=======================================================================
==
Papa Jack wrote:
...-- usually after deleting most of what the initial item
included.
Remember when, as children, we played the game of
gossip? There were always one or two who wouldn't
even try to pass on WHAT THEY HEARD. They would make
up some off-color remark or pure gobbledegook just
to get attention and mess up the real game. That's how I see those
like Ray and Flower Power.
=======================================================================
==
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jackass whines whenever people challenge his lies and unsupported
claims.
=======================================================================
== Papa Jack stated:
I typically post quotations from articles and comments taken from a
wide variety of sources.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that I'd bet over 75% of your "wide
variety of sources" comes from LifeNews.
How do you rationalize calling those "lies and unsupported claims?"
LifeNews is not the most unbiased, accurate news source. You know that
just as well as they do.
Oh, yes, I forgot -- you simply delete what I quoted and pretend it
never existed.
And more often than not, you adopt what you quote from LifeNews as your
own "point of view"
=======================================================================
==
Ray Fischer wrote:
...he whines even more when people refuse to repeat his
hate-propaganda and malicious lies.
=======================================================================
== Papa Jack stated:
Most of the items I quoted to start this thread were
direct quotes from the judge and and the abortion
industry in a trial. Do you really expect our readers
to agree those are "hate-propaganda and malicious lies?"
As usual, you're pathetic, Ray.
=======================================================================
==
David Barnes wrote:
...and you are a master at changing the meaning of things....
=======================================================================
==
Papa Jack wrote:
You're straining a bit too hard, David. You know there's no truth
whatsoever to that allegation,
=======================================================================
==
Ray Fischer wrote:
It is quite true, Jackass. You routinely try to change the meaning
of words.
=======================================================================
== Papa Jack commented:
You often accuse me of such, but you seldom even try to back it up,
Ray.
He doesn't need to. When it comes to integrity, you're right up there
with the Vatican:
You must mean down_there with the vatican.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/07/vatican.document/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/12/seminary.porn.ap/index.html
Oh, yes, I remember, you'll want to drag oout that raggedy, tattered
list of out-of-context quotes from years ago.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
12 Jul 2004 11:44:58 PM |
|
|
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Papa Jack wrote:
Never claimed to "own" the thread. But, all too often
when I start a thread folks like Ray and Flower Power
come along and try to distract folks from the point of
the initial message by totally unrelated comments or
questions -
"Unrelated" mean any refutation of Jackass's sleazy propaganda.
I wish you really did have the wit to try to refute what I
post, Ray.
I do not wish for the utter lack of morals that you exhibit. You
have run away from my arguments so many times that I have long since
lost count. Your hatred and demonization would impress even Goebbels.
Jackass whines whenever people challenge his lies and
unsupported claims.
I typically post quotations from articles and comments
taken from a wide variety of sources.
A "wide variety" of right-wing anti-abortion propaganda web sites.
...he whines even more when people refuse to repeat his
hate-propaganda and malicious lies.
Most of the items I quoted to start this thread were
direct quotes from the judge and and the abortion
industry in a trial.
You're a liar. It was another pro-lie web site speing the
usual disinformation.
It is quite true, Jackass. You routinely try to change
the meaning of words.
You often accuse me of such, but you seldom even try to
back it up, Ray.
"Human being".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
13 Jul 2004 07:04:50 PM |
|
|
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
in message news:<ccvpca$ebn$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
==========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Never claimed to "own" the thread. But, all too often
when I start a thread folks like Ray and Flower Power
come along and try to distract folks from the point of
the initial message by totally unrelated comments or
questions -
==========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
"Unrelated" mean any refutation of Jackass's sleazy
propaganda.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
I wish you really did have the wit to try to refute what I
post, Ray. {{However, all you really do is call me Jackass,
and post ad hominem remarks which often have little or no
relationship to the topics at hand.
Your primary purpose seems to be to delete most of what
I posted because it was negative toward the Pro-Abort side.}}
NOTE: {{ and }} show parts reinserted after Ray deleted.
==========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
I do not wish for the utter lack of morals that you
exhibit...
==========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
See what I mean, Gentle Reader. The man has no wit.
All he does is make broad childish insults without
providing any examples or reasons.
This is a case in point. Ray has frequently claimed
I have no morals or bad morals simply because I oppose
women having millions of abortions for convenience.
==========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
...You have run away from my arguments so many times
that I have long since lost count....
==========================================================================
Papa Jack answered:
That's convenient. Since you "lost count" no one can
expect you to provide any examples. [smirk]
==========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
...Your hatred and demonization would impress even
Goebbels.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack noted:
A great case of projection.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
{{...-- usually after deleting most of what the
initial item included.
Remember when, as children, we played the game of
gossip? There were always one or two who wouldn't
even try to pass on WHAT THEY HEARD. They would make
up some off-color remark or pure gobbledegook just
to get attention and mess up the real game. That's
how I see those like Ray and Flower Power.}}
NOTE: {{ and }} show parts reinserted after Ray deleted.
==========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jackass whines whenever people challenge his lies and
unsupported claims.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
I typically post quotations from articles and comments
taken from a wide variety of sources. {{How do you
rationalize calling those "lies and unsupported claims?"
Oh, yes, I forgot -- you simply delete what I quoted and
pretend it never existed.}}
NOTE: {{ and }} show parts reinserted after Ray deleted.
==========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
A "wide variety" of right-wing anti-abortion propaganda
web sites.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
Here's just a few of those "right-wing anti-abortion propaganda
web sites" from my recent posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch Me in the Womb
Date: 2004-06-28
On 28 June, 2004, the BBC posted: "In pictures:
Watch me grow." go to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm
The BBC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
European Court Refuses to Rule on When Human Life Begins
Date: 2004-07-09
On Jul. 9, 2004, the AP posted an article titled "Court
Won't Rule on Fetus Case." Go to:
http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040709/NEWS03/207090362/-1/news
The AP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry's Different Faces
Date: 2004-07-10
Sen. John Kerry
NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner, Washington, DC, January 21, 2003
TRANSCRIPT --- TRANSCRIPT --- TRANSCRIPT
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/naral012103/kerr012103spt.html
NARAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Chastises Dem Senators for Blocking Judical Nominees
Date: 2004-07-07
On Jul. 07, 2004, Knight Ridder Newspapers posted an
article by William Douglas and Anna Griffin titled
"Bush Attacks Democratic Senators for Blocking Judicial
Nominees." Go to:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9100707.htm
Knight Ridder Newspapers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Flip-Flop: Life Starts at Conception
Date: 2004-07-05
On July 5, 2004, the Washington Post posted an article by Jonathan
Finer
titled "Kerry Says He Believes Life Starts at Conception." Go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27920-2004Jul4?language=printer
Washington Post
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Britain's Abortion Law Goes "Too Far."
Date: 2004-07-06
On Jul 4, 2004 AFP posted an article titled "Abortion Law
Has Gone Too Far Warns Former Liberal Leader." Go to:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/britain_health_abortion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AFP
==========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
...he whines even more when people refuse to repeat his
hate-propaganda and malicious lies.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Most of the items I quoted to start this thread were
direct quotes from the judge and and the abortion
industry lawyer in a trial.
{{Do you really expect our readers to agree those
are "hate-propaganda and malicious lies?"
As usual, you're pathetic, Ray.}}
==========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
You're a liar. It was another pro-lie web site speing [sic]
the usual disinformation.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
No, Ray, I'm not a liar. The quotes WERE FROM THE JUDGE
AND THE LAWYER. Our readers are free to go to the URL
and judge for themselves:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat606.html
==========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
It is quite true, Jackass. You routinely try to change
the meaning of words.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
You often accuse me of such, but you seldom even try to
back it up, Ray.
==========================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
"Human being".
==========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Yep, I'm a human being, Ray -- are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Attorney: "Women Don't Need to Know Abortion Risks" |
13 Jul 2004 11:08:36 PM |
|
|
Jackass is lying abotu what I [posted, as usual.
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
I wish you really did have the wit to try to refute what I
post, Ray.
I do not wish for the utter lack of morals that you
exhibit...
See what I mean, Gentle Reader. The man has no wit.
All he does is make broad childish insults without
providing any examples or reasons.
Examples? Well, let's skip, for the moment, your attempt to justify
the murder of innocent children, and your attempt to justify forcing
girls to get abortions.
Jackass, as revealed by his own words.
He _claims_ he wants to debate ...
I am always willing to debate,
Papa Jackass in <3380A603.1189@express-news.net>
But whenever challenged he runs away. Maybe he means that only
_other_ people are expected to debate.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Papa Jackass in <31E7BC11.674F@express-news.net>
Jackass is a known liar, but then, he's already pretty much admitted
as much.
When you can't meet someone in honest debate, you run around
spreading total, complete lies about them.
Papa Jackass in <331518B2.3221@express-news.net>
And his typical reaction when he's inevitably revealed to be a liar
and a hypocrite?
K I S S M Y A S S!!!! D I D Y O U U N D E R S T A N D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W H A T I S A I D? K I S S M Y A S S.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Papa Jackass in <31FFC35F.4D2A@express-news.net>
The question people ask after reading Jackass's contributions?
But WHY do YOU prefer to attack the person rather than the
argument
Papa Jackass in <3213893E.1DD7@express-news.net>
But he's answered that question too.
You have no interest in abortion issues. You are a little boy
running around agitating both sides.
Papa Jackass in <330A415B.2497@express-news.net>
Of course, he needs to pretend to be interested in the debate so that
people just don't ignore him for the amoral old fool that he is.
And so he'll periodically claim that he's interested in debate.
I prefer to discuss things at the adult level,
Papa Jackass in <3377230D.4EA3@express-news.net>
Alas, such claims are never backed up with actual debate. What we get
instead is ...
Society has no responsibility to make sure you can safely
screw around on your husband, MINXS. If you want to be a *****
and jump from bed to bed, why bother to get married?
Papa Jackass in <3495FB4F.C35ACEDE@express-news.net>
Once again, we see Mark proving that he is the stinkinest
***** on talk.abortion. Ray gives him a close run, but I'm
going to award the AH Award to Mark. He is a totally pathetic
excuse for a human being.
Papa Jackass in <3359AD8D.1EBA@express-news.net>
And then again those sort of insults followed with another pretense of
moral superiority.
Now if you want to play with the big boys and girls, clean up your
language, cut out the shock tactics, treat others religious beliefs
(or lack thereof) with reasonable respect, and try logic versus
bluster and noise.
Papa Jackass in <34F5F0C8.25EA0A32@geocities.com>
Which leads people to wonder which part of ...
Ah, I finally found how to get your attention. Guess I'll
have to call you Fuckface, *****, and limpdick more often,
Papa Jackass in <335483D4.3238@express-news.net>
Constitutes "reasonable respect". Who knows. Ethics and morality
seem to have no relevance to the world of Jackass.
Please note that I deleted a number of words in several of
Ray's statements without showing the editing. This, of
course, changed the meaning of what he said in a dishonest
and false way.
Papa Jackass in <3245F156.1BEF@express-news.net>
Sometimes he''l even demonstrate hypocrisy in a single sentence.
Gosh, Paul, I never pictured you as being into totally illogical and
overripe emotionalism -- or, are you just pandering?
Papa Jackass in <34B8534B.9E3D6A7D@geocities.com>
Sometimes he acts reasonable ...
You must do more than make edicts -- you must persuade with
logic, facts, figures, expert opinion -- you know, evidence
and "stuff" like that.
Papa Jackass in <31FBAD5A.526F@express-news.net>
Only to revert to a more typical behavior.
Second, why should I apologize for calling a ***** what
he really is. You and I both know Mark is one of the most
cold-blooded and vicious human beings on the newsgroups.
Papa Jackass in <336E66C7.7D89@express-news.net>
I am demonstrating for all to read that you are a toothless
*****. I am insulting you several times a d | | | | | | | | | | | |
