| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
31 Jul 2003 07:02:54 PM |
| Object: |
Democrats are Anti-Religious |
On July 31, 2003, the Committee for Justice released a
statement titled: "Many See the Anti-Religious Implications
of Dem Questions on Pryor." Go to:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030731/dcth036_1.html
_________________________________________________________________________
"The Committee for Justice, which supports constitutionalist
judicial nominees, today applauded the rising tide of com-
munity voices decrying Senate Judiciary Committee Demo-
crats' treatment of federal court nominee Bill Pryor, a
devout Catholic. The controversy stems from Democrats'
repeated citation of Pryor's "deeply held personal beliefs"
as rendering him unfit for the bench.
The Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, a possible
candidate for the Papacy, wrote this week, "[T]he commit-
tee debate on Pryor was ugly, and the vote to advance his
nomination split exactly along party lines. Why? Because Mr.
Pryor believes the Catholic teaching about the sanctity of
life is true; that the1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade deci-
sion was a poorly reasoned mistake; and that abortion is
wrong in all cases, even rape and incest."
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
wrote: "We are deeply troubled by those who have implied
that a person of faith cannot serve in a high level government
post that may raise issues at odds with his or her personal
beliefs."
The Catholic League's William A. Donohue wrote: "[I]t is
precisely Pryor's religious convictions that are being
scrutinized. Given the cast of mind of some of his critics,
it makes it virtually impossible for practicing Catholics
to ascend to the federal bench."
Former Boston Mayor and U.S. Ambassador to the
Vatican, Ray Flynn, a Democrat, said: "I don't know this
Mr. Pryor, but when I saw the (congressional) testimony,
they (Democrats) basically said, 'If you are a faithful
Catholic, meaning that you believe in the principles and
values and traditions of the Catholic Church, and you're
willing to acknowledge that openly ... that basically
disqualifies you, I guess, to be a member of the judiciary."
The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute's Austin
Ruse wrote: "It appears to me that a faithful Catholic,
that is one who upholds the Catholic teaching on the
inviolability of innocent human life from conception
onward, cannot be confirmed for the Federal bench by
this Senate. It very clearly is a religious test for
office, and therefore a violation of our Constitution.
The Knights of Columbus' Supreme Knight, Carl A. Anderson,
wrote: "Raising Mr. Pryor's 'deeply held beliefs' in terms
of his qualifications to serve on the federal bench thus
suggests a de facto religious test for public office,
something clearly prohibited by the Constitution.... [I]t
comes perilously close to suggesting that Catholics who
faithfully adhere to their church's teaching on abortion,
and perhaps other public moral issues, are unfit to serve
their country in the federal judiciary."
_________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
The antireligious bias of the Culture of Death becomes
more and more apparent.
The Pro-Aborts forget the great majority of Americans
consider their religions to be very important to their lives.
Their habitual arrogance in sneering at all things related
to religion will soon undermine their public support.
.
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
01 Aug 2003 01:26:20 PM |
|
|
(Papa Jack) wrote...
On July 31, 2003, the Committee for Justice released a
statement titled: "Many See the Anti-Religious Implications
of Dem Questions on Pryor." Go to:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030731/dcth036_1.html
[--whine, whine, whine--]
William Pryor lied under oath about his fundraising activities during
his tenure as Alabama's Attorney General. More specifically, he
personally solicited political contributions from corporate donors
under his jurisdiction.
His activities as Alabama's Attorney General should raise alarm with
anyone who cares about the Constitution and civil rights. He has
testified to Congress in favor of dropping a key part of the Voting
Rights Act. Of the 37 state attorneys general who submitted briefs to
the Supreme Court concerning the Violence Against Women Act, Pryor was
the only one to argue that the law was unconstitutional.
In regards to the recent Lawrence vs. Texas case, Prior submitted a
brief where he compared gay sex to necrophilia, bestiality, incest
and pedophilia.
His nomination is opposed by a spectrum of women's rights, civil
rights, environmental, church-state separation, disability, and
lesbian and gay rights groups. Even the gay Log Cabin Republicans
oppose Pryor.
I'd bet that William Pryor is even too crazy for *you*, PJ.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Bernath" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
31 Jul 2003 09:24:47 PM |
|
|
(Papa Jack) wrote:
Poor Papa Jack, a perpetual whining victim.
The antireligious bias of the Culture of Death becomes
more and more apparent.
Whatever. The fringe Catholics you praise want birth control banned.
They're extremists, out of touch with the beliefs of most Americans.
Thank God for courageous legislators who'll defend us from such
dangerous lunatics.
The Pro-Aborts forget the great majority of Americans
consider their religions to be very important to their lives.
Their habitual arrogance in sneering at all things related
to religion will soon undermine their public support.
You never get tired of being a lying sack of *****, do you? It's what
defines you.
Name one pro-choice person here who has sneered at all things
religious.
Oh, you can't. You made it up. Your hero Bush has made lying
fashionable again, and that fills you with joy.
Greg Bernath
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
31 Jul 2003 09:34:32 PM |
|
|
"Greg Bernath" <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sijjivo1hcdn0v5l3pcn7dioivrpbo7ta4@4ax.com...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
Poor Papa Jack, a perpetual whining victim.
The antireligious bias of the Culture of Death becomes
more and more apparent.
Whatever. The fringe Catholics you praise want birth control banned.
They're extremists, out of touch with the beliefs of most Americans.
Thank God for courageous legislators who'll defend us from such
dangerous lunatics.
The Pro-Aborts forget the great majority of Americans
consider their religions to be very important to their lives.
Their habitual arrogance in sneering at all things related
to religion will soon undermine their public support.
You never get tired of being a lying sack of *****, do you? It's what
defines you.
Name one pro-choice person here who has sneered at all things
religious.
Donald, Adam, Bob, Mizzy...just to name a few. And you only asked for one
Oh, you can't. You made it up. Your hero Bush has made lying
fashionable again, and that fills you with joy.
Oh, you mean with recognizing that Iraq was a threat?
Oh please do tell, did these folks lie too?
"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some
ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his
program of weapons of mass destruction ... he will then conclude that he can
go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction ...
Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." - Bill Clinton,
Feb. 18 1998
CNN Story dated Dec. 16, 1998
"The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
presented a threat to the entire world. 'Saddam must not be allowed to
threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or
biological weapons.'"
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi
government - a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a
government that respects the rights of its people."
Sen. John F. Kerry, D - Mass., said on Feb. 23, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has
already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to
continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do
so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat
with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It
is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
Tom Daschel, Feb. 1998: "Look, we have exhausted virtually all our
diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and
with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force
them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And
the answer is we don't have another option. We have go to force them to
comply, and we are doing so militarily."
Weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein refusing to comply with
inspectors. Regime change. A threat to the entire world. Use the military
to force them to comply. Sounds like the arguments that the Bush
administration used. In fact, in President Bush's January 28 State of the
Union speech, he specifically cited the information gathered by the U N, the
International Atomic Energy Agency and Bill Clinton as a basis for his
conclusion that Iraq did indeed have WMD.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
01 Aug 2003 12:24:54 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:-_GcnRCI6PYrTLSiXTWJiQ@comcast.com...
"Greg Bernath" <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sijjivo1hcdn0v5l3pcn7dioivrpbo7ta4@4ax.com...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
Poor Papa Jack, a perpetual whining victim.
The antireligious bias of the Culture of Death becomes
more and more apparent.
Whatever. The fringe Catholics you praise want birth control banned.
They're extremists, out of touch with the beliefs of most Americans.
Thank God for courageous legislators who'll defend us from such
dangerous lunatics.
The Pro-Aborts forget the great majority of Americans
consider their religions to be very important to their lives.
Their habitual arrogance in sneering at all things related
to religion will soon undermine their public support.
You never get tired of being a lying sack of *****, do you? It's what
defines you.
Name one pro-choice person here who has sneered at all things
religious.
Donald, Adam, Bob, Mizzy...just to name a few. And you only asked for one
Oh, you can't. You made it up. Your hero Bush has made lying
fashionable again, and that fills you with joy.
Oh, you mean with recognizing that Iraq was a threat?
Oh please do tell, did these folks lie too?
"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some
ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop
his
program of weapons of mass destruction ... he will then conclude that he
can
go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction ...
Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." - Bill Clinton,
Feb. 18 1998
CNN Story dated Dec. 16, 1998
"The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
presented a threat to the entire world. 'Saddam must not be allowed to
threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or
biological weapons.'"
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi
government - a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a
government that respects the rights of its people."
Sen. John F. Kerry, D - Mass., said on Feb. 23, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has
already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to
continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do
so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat
with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis.
It
is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
It has got to be REALLY bad if even John F. Scary agrees about the Middle
East problems.
Tom Daschel, Feb. 1998: "Look, we have exhausted virtually all our
diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements
and
with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to
force
them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question.
And
the answer is we don't have another option. We have go to force them to
comply, and we are doing so militarily."
I wonder what the demobrats think about what Tom Dasshole said.
Weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein refusing to comply with
inspectors. Regime change. A threat to the entire world. Use the
military
to force them to comply. Sounds like the arguments that the Bush
administration used. In fact, in President Bush's January 28 State of the
Union speech, he specifically cited the information gathered by the U N,
the
International Atomic Energy Agency and Bill Clinton as a basis for his
conclusion that Iraq did indeed have WMD.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
01 Aug 2003 10:28:29 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:ohKdnREusNCH-7eiXTWJig@comcast.com:
[...nothing much...]
coward osprey (Robert Heishman), you falsely
claimed that six people were pro-abortion in
news:3E8EE004.3060101@mail.com
by your failure to repost the full article
to support you claim while concurrently
responding to calls for you to post such
evidence, you have conclusively proven
that you lied about six people who post
here.
adding cowardice to your blatant dishonesty,
you have called on those you lied about to
post proof of their innocence of the lies
you posted about them.
in addition, you demonstrated blatant hypocrisy
by ignoring your own statement made in
news:8912d58d.0307090126.4a25ab87@posting.google.com:
"If you are going to make the claim, prove it.
Then you refused to do that with your own claims.
[this notice will be appended to each of your
posts to talk abortion and alt.abortion until
you have apologized for this specific lie.]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Signorelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
02 Aug 2003 10:33:19 PM |
|
|
In article <GQmWa.54638$zy.45265@fed1read06>, Chris <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
It has got to be REALLY bad if even John F. Scary agrees about the Middle
East problems.
I wonder what the demobrats think about what Tom Dasshole said.
Would someone please advise me on this "Chris" guy? John Scary?
Demobrats? Dasshole? Is he seven years old or does he just talk like
it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
03 Aug 2003 03:46:14 PM |
|
|
"John Signorelli" <john@amelgmm.com> wrote in message
news:020820032033198579%john@amelgmm.com...
In article <GQmWa.54638$zy.45265@fed1read06>, Chris <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
It has got to be REALLY bad if even John F. Scary agrees about the
Middle
East problems.
I wonder what the demobrats think about what Tom Dasshole said.
Would someone please advise me on this "Chris" guy? John Scary?
Demobrats? Dasshole? Is he seven years old or does he just talk like
it?
False dilemma. This "'Chris' guy" uses sarcasm on occasion. Ever hear of it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
03 Aug 2003 05:06:23 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in
news:6xeXa.61955$zy.15875@fed1read06:
"John Signorelli" <john@amelgmm.com> wrote in message
news:020820032033198579%john@amelgmm.com...
Would someone please advise me on this "Chris" guy? John
Scary? Demobrats? Dasshole? Is he seven years old or does
he just talk like it?
False dilemma. This "'Chris' guy" uses sarcasm on occasion.
Ever hear of it?
christ!! that's newbie excuse #2. this particular excuse is usually
posted between weeks 2 and 4 by the most inept newbies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
03 Aug 2003 04:06:00 PM |
|
|
Chris <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
"John Signorelli" <john@amelgmm.com> wrote in message
Chris <reddd@juno.com>
I wonder what the demobrats think about what Tom Dasshole said.
Would someone please advise me on this "Chris" guy? John Scary?
Demobrats? Dasshole? Is he seven years old or does he just talk like
it?
False dilemma. This "'Chris' guy" uses sarcasm on occasion. Ever hear of it?
Ah yes, the oldest excuse around. "I was only kidding."
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
02 Aug 2003 10:45:47 PM |
|
|
John Signorelli <john@amelgmm.com> wrote:
Chris <reddd@juno.com>
It has got to be REALLY bad if even John F. Scary agrees about the Middle
East problems.
I wonder what the demobrats think about what Tom Dasshole said.
Would someone please advise me on this "Chris" guy? John Scary?
Demobrats? Dasshole? Is he seven years old or does he just talk like
it?
Whether he actually is a juvenile his does most certainly act it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
02 Aug 2003 11:25:39 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:bgi0ha$8vq$1@bolt.sonic.net:
John Signorelli <john@amelgmm.com> wrote:
Chris <reddd@juno.com>
It has got to be REALLY bad if even John F. Scary agrees
about the Middle East problems.
I wonder what the demobrats think about what Tom Dasshole
said.
Would someone please advise me on this "Chris" guy? John
Scary? Demobrats? Dasshole? Is he seven years old or does he
just talk like it?
Whether he actually is a juvenile his does most certainly act
it.
that's true. i think he's lonesome and just wants someone to talk
with him, anyone really.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
03 Aug 2003 12:17:28 PM |
|
|
In article <bgi0ha$8vq$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
says...
Subject: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious
From: (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
John Signorelli <john@amelgmm.com> wrote:
Chris <reddd@juno.com>
It has got to be REALLY bad if even John F. Scary agrees about the Middle
East problems.
I wonder what the demobrats think about what Tom Dasshole said.
Would someone please advise me on this "Chris" guy? John Scary?
Demobrats? Dasshole? Is he seven years old or does he just talk like
it?
Whether he actually is a juvenile his does most certainly act it.
The condition described in the following like would seem to match the
behaviour we constantly observe from Chris in here:
http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aswhatisit.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
03 Aug 2003 01:35:51 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:MPG.199754008e05e01c98a67b@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
In article <bgi0ha$8vq$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net says...
Whether he actually is a juvenile his does most certainly act
it.
The condition described in the following like would seem to
match the behaviour we constantly observe from Chris in here:
http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aswhatisit.html
wow. this does seem very descriptive of chris. i was previously
unaware fo this condition. thanks for posting it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
04 Aug 2003 12:34:58 AM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <bgi0ha$8vq$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
says...
Subject: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious
From: (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
John Signorelli <john@amelgmm.com> wrote:
Chris <reddd@juno.com>
It has got to be REALLY bad if even John F. Scary agrees about the Middle
East problems.
I wonder what the demobrats think about what Tom Dasshole said.
Would someone please advise me on this "Chris" guy? John Scary?
Demobrats? Dasshole? Is he seven years old or does he just talk like
it?
Whether he actually is a juvenile his does most certainly act it.
The condition described in the following like would seem to match the
behaviour we constantly observe from Chris in here:
http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aswhatisit.html
Well, how intolerant you are! Don't let Krispybumbum know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MyTwoAngels" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
08 Aug 2003 06:57:12 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<3F2DF082.2B235F12@spam.com>...
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <bgi0ha$8vq$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
says...
Subject: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious
From: (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
John Signorelli <john@amelgmm.com> wrote:
Chris <reddd@juno.com>
It has got to be REALLY bad if even John F. Scary agrees about the Middle
East problems.
I wonder what the demobrats think about what Tom Dasshole said.
Would someone please advise me on this "Chris" guy? John Scary?
Demobrats? Dasshole? Is he seven years old or does he just talk like
it?
Whether he actually is a juvenile his does most certainly act it.
The condition described in the following like would seem to match the
behaviour we constantly observe from Chris in here:
http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aswhatisit.html
Well, how intolerant you are!
I'd consider it a public service.
Don't let Krispybumbum know.
Do they have Krispy Kreme in New Zealand? If not, then I guess your
chances of having an orgasm are nil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
11 Aug 2003 08:11:49 AM |
|
|
MyTwoAngels <krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com> wrote:
Do they have Krispy Kreme in New Zealand? If not, then I guess your
chances of having an orgasm are nil.
They're not that good.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Signorelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
02 Aug 2003 10:34:20 PM |
|
|
In article <ohKdnREusNCH-7eiXTWJig@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I wonder what the demobrats think about what Tom Dasshole said.
I don't know if you have noticed or not, but they are quiet and acting like
it was never said. I guess the think it will go away.
Dasshole? Are you this childish, too? Let me guess, your children are
the adults in the family.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Signorelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
02 Aug 2003 10:31:28 PM |
|
|
In article <-_GcnRCI6PYrTLSiXTWJiQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Oh please do tell, did these folks lie too?
"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some
ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his
program of weapons of mass destruction ... he will then conclude that he can
go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction ...
Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." - Bill Clinton,
Feb. 18 1998
That was an opinion. What Bush did was lie.
What hypocrites Republicans are. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II
all lied about things that got Americans killed in war, Clinton lied
about sex, and Republicans just can't forget, as though lying about sex
is really serious, but lying about war is no big deal. That should
tell you where the "pro-life" Republicans are coming from. All you
care about is your sexual hang-ups. And you don't care about the men
and women who die because of your lies to support war.
You are Pro-Terrorism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Signorelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
06 Aug 2003 10:36:40 PM |
|
|
In article <3f2eedb1.380360249@news.la.sbcglobal.net>, Paul Anderson
<elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2003 14:58:42 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
On July 31, 2003, the Committee for Justice released a
statement titled: "Many See the Anti-Religious Implications
of Dem Questions on Pryor." Go to:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030731/dcth036_1.html
...
What Papa Jack failed to include:
** Press Release Source: Committee for Justice **
This is not a factual news item, it is a press release (read as
self-serving proproganda) by the "Committee for Justice" which was
formed to "defend and promote President Bush's judicial nominees by
highlighting and countering the partisan warfare that has emerged in
the judicial selection process."
Papa Jack always does this. He is great at putting out pro-life
***** as news. It is kind of like when Bush lies about his
information. Truth is not a strong point with the Right. Only the
pro-lifers are dumb enough to buy it, so what is the point?
Isn't it ironic that Catholics are whining about how they can't take
office due to religion? This is the same group that has systematically
purchased hospitals and then refused women their constitutional rights
to an abortion.
"Live by the sword, die by the sword."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Me" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
10 Aug 2003 07:26:53 AM |
|
|
In article <xIuYa.63346$zy.45606@fed1read06>, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
"John Signorelli" <john@amelgmm.com> wrote in message
news:060820032036407935%john@amelgmm.com...
In article <3f2eedb1.380360249@news.la.sbcglobal.net>, Paul Anderson
<elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2003 14:58:42 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
On July 31, 2003, the Committee for Justice released a
statement titled: "Many See the Anti-Religious Implications
of Dem Questions on Pryor." Go to:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030731/dcth036_1.html
...
What Papa Jack failed to include:
** Press Release Source: Committee for Justice **
This is not a factual news item, it is a press release (read as
self-serving proproganda) by the "Committee for Justice" which was
formed to "defend and promote President Bush's judicial nominees by
highlighting and countering the partisan warfare that has emerged in
the judicial selection process."
Papa Jack always does this. He is great at putting out pro-life
***** as news. It is kind of like when Bush lies about his
information. Truth is not a strong point with the Right. Only the
pro-lifers are dumb enough to buy it, so what is the point?
Isn't it ironic that Catholics are whining about how they can't take
office due to religion? This is the same group that has systematically
purchased hospitals and then refused women their constitutional rights
to an abortion.
Where/how does the Constitution provide women the right to an abortion?
Rights are naturally occuring. No piece of paper can give rights or take
them away. The Constitution's purpose is not to grant rights to anyone,
but to establish firm limits on the authority of government to intrude
on our natural rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
11 Aug 2003 12:35:41 PM |
|
|
"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-F4560B.08265310082003@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <xIuYa.63346$zy.45606@fed1read06>, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
"John Signorelli" <john@amelgmm.com> wrote in message
news:060820032036407935%john@amelgmm.com...
In article <3f2eedb1.380360249@news.la.sbcglobal.net>, Paul Anderson
<elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2003 14:58:42 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
On July 31, 2003, the Committee for Justice released a
statement titled: "Many See the Anti-Religious Implications
of Dem Questions on Pryor." Go to:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030731/dcth036_1.html
...
What Papa Jack failed to include:
** Press Release Source: Committee for Justice **
This is not a factual news item, it is a press release (read as
self-serving proproganda) by the "Committee for Justice" which was
formed to "defend and promote President Bush's judicial nominees by
highlighting and countering the partisan warfare that has emerged in
the judicial selection process."
Papa Jack always does this. He is great at putting out pro-life
***** as news. It is kind of like when Bush lies about his
information. Truth is not a strong point with the Right. Only the
pro-lifers are dumb enough to buy it, so what is the point?
Isn't it ironic that Catholics are whining about how they can't take
office due to religion? This is the same group that has
systematically
purchased hospitals and then refused women their constitutional rights
to an abortion.
Where/how does the Constitution provide women the right to an abortion?
Rights are naturally occuring. No piece of paper can give rights or take
them away. The Constitution's purpose is not to grant rights to anyone,
but to establish firm limits on the authority of government to intrude
on our natural rights.
Then HOW do you get this "constitutional RIGHTS to an abortion"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob SD" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
11 Aug 2003 01:28:02 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in news:OtQZa.75507$zy.7803@fed1read06:
"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-F4560B.08265310082003@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <xIuYa.63346$zy.45606@fed1read06>, "Chris"
<reddd@juno.com> wrote:
"John Signorelli" <john@amelgmm.com> wrote in message
news:060820032036407935%john@amelgmm.com...
In article <3f2eedb1.380360249@news.la.sbcglobal.net>, Paul
Anderson <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2003 14:58:42 -0700, (Papa Jack)
wrote:
On July 31, 2003, the Committee for Justice released a
statement titled: "Many See the Anti-Religious Implications
of Dem Questions on Pryor." Go to:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030731/dcth036_1.html
...
What Papa Jack failed to include:
** Press Release Source: Committee for Justice **
This is not a factual news item, it is a press release (read as
self-serving proproganda) by the "Committee for Justice" which
was formed to "defend and promote President Bush's judicial
nominees by highlighting and countering the partisan warfare
that has emerged in the judicial selection process."
Papa Jack always does this. He is great at putting out pro-life
***** as news. It is kind of like when Bush lies about his
information. Truth is not a strong point with the Right. Only
the pro-lifers are dumb enough to buy it, so what is the point?
Isn't it ironic that Catholics are whining about how they can't
take office due to religion? This is the same group that has
systematically
purchased hospitals and then refused women their constitutional
rights to an abortion.
Where/how does the Constitution provide women the right to an
abortion?
Rights are naturally occuring. No piece of paper can give rights or
take them away. The Constitution's purpose is not to grant rights to
anyone, but to establish firm limits on the authority of government
to intrude on our natural rights.
Then HOW do you get this "constitutional RIGHTS to an abortion"?
Does the idea of "bodily autonomy" mean anything to you? Not the
brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
13 Aug 2003 05:08:09 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <SD> wrote in message news:Xns93D474BF38CCSD@153.80.109.11...
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in news:OtQZa.75507$zy.7803@fed1read06:
"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-F4560B.08265310082003@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <xIuYa.63346$zy.45606@fed1read06>, "Chris"
<reddd@juno.com> wrote:
"John Signorelli" <john@amelgmm.com> wrote in message
news:060820032036407935%john@amelgmm.com...
In article <3f2eedb1.380360249@news.la.sbcglobal.net>, Paul
Anderson <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2003 14:58:42 -0700, (Papa Jack)
wrote:
On July 31, 2003, the Committee for Justice released a
statement titled: "Many See the Anti-Religious Implications
of Dem Questions on Pryor." Go to:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030731/dcth036_1.html
...
What Papa Jack failed to include:
** Press Release Source: Committee for Justice **
This is not a factual news item, it is a press release (read as
self-serving proproganda) by the "Committee for Justice" which
was formed to "defend and promote President Bush's judicial
nominees by highlighting and countering the partisan warfare
that has emerged in the judicial selection process."
Papa Jack always does this. He is great at putting out pro-life
***** as news. It is kind of like when Bush lies about his
information. Truth is not a strong point with the Right. Only
the pro-lifers are dumb enough to buy it, so what is the point?
Isn't it ironic that Catholics are whining about how they can't
take office due to religion? This is the same group that has
systematically
purchased hospitals and then refused women their constitutional
rights to an abortion.
Where/how does the Constitution provide women the right to an
abortion?
Rights are naturally occuring. No piece of paper can give rights or
take them away. The Constitution's purpose is not to grant rights to
anyone, but to establish firm limits on the authority of government
to intrude on our natural rights.
Then HOW do you get this "constitutional RIGHTS to an abortion"?
Does the idea of "bodily autonomy" mean anything to you? Not the
brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you?
HOW do you get this "constitutional RIGHTS to an abortion"? How does the
Constitution grant the right to abort?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob SD" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
13 Aug 2003 11:44:58 AM |
|
|
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in news:f6o_a.78163$zy.1655@fed1read06:
"Bob" <SD> wrote in message news:Xns93D474BF38CCSD@153.80.109.11...
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in news:OtQZa.75507$zy.7803@fed1read06:
"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-F4560B.08265310082003@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <xIuYa.63346$zy.45606@fed1read06>, "Chris"
<reddd@juno.com> wrote:
"John Signorelli" <john@amelgmm.com> wrote in message
news:060820032036407935%john@amelgmm.com...
In article <3f2eedb1.380360249@news.la.sbcglobal.net>, Paul
Anderson <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2003 14:58:42 -0700, (Papa Jack)
wrote:
On July 31, 2003, the Committee for Justice released a
statement titled: "Many See the Anti-Religious Implications
of Dem Questions on Pryor." Go to:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030731/dcth036_1.html
...
What Papa Jack failed to include:
** Press Release Source: Committee for Justice **
This is not a factual news item, it is a press release (read
as
self-serving proproganda) by the "Committee for Justice" which
was formed to "defend and promote President Bush's judicial
nominees by highlighting and countering the partisan warfare
that has emerged in the judicial selection process."
Papa Jack always does this. He is great at putting out pro-life
***** as news. It is kind of like when Bush lies about his
information. Truth is not a strong point with the Right. Only
the pro-lifers are dumb enough to buy it, so what is the point?
Isn't it ironic that Catholics are whining about how they can't
take office due to religion? This is the same group that has
systematically
purchased hospitals and then refused women their constitutional
rights to an abortion.
Where/how does the Constitution provide women the right to an
abortion?
Rights are naturally occuring. No piece of paper can give rights or
take them away. The Constitution's purpose is not to grant rights to
anyone, but to establish firm limits on the authority of government
to intrude on our natural rights.
Then HOW do you get this "constitutional RIGHTS to an abortion"?
Does the idea of "bodily autonomy" mean anything to you? Not the
brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you?
HOW do you get this "constitutional RIGHTS to an abortion"? How does the
Constitution grant the right to abort?
Are you really this obtuse?
Start with bodily autonomy and connect the dots.
Idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
13 Aug 2003 11:06:12 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <SD> wrote in message news:Xns93D6B20355467SD@153.80.109.11...
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in news:Plz_a.78659$zy.12691@fed1read06:
"Bob" <SD> wrote in message news:Xns93D6634699ACBSD@153.80.109.11...
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in
news:f6o_a.78163$zy.1655@fed1read06:
"Bob" <SD> wrote in message news:Xns93D474BF38CCSD@153.80.109.11...
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in
news:OtQZa.75507$zy.7803@fed1read06:
"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-F4560B.08265310082003@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <xIuYa.63346$zy.45606@fed1read06>, "Chris"
<reddd@juno.com> wrote:
"John Signorelli" <john@amelgmm.com> wrote in message
news:060820032036407935%john@amelgmm.com...
In article <3f2eedb1.380360249@news.la.sbcglobal.net>, Paul
Anderson <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2003 14:58:42 -0700, (Papa
Jack) wrote:
On July 31, 2003, the Committee for Justice released a
statement titled: "Many See the Anti-Religious
Implications of Dem Questions on Pryor." Go to:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030731/dcth036_1.html
...
What Papa Jack failed to include:
** Press Release Source: Committee for Justice **
This is not a factual news item, it is a press release
(read
as
self-serving proproganda) by the "Committee for Justice"
which was formed to "defend and promote President Bush's
judicial nominees by highlighting and countering the
partisan warfare that has emerged in the judicial
selection process."
Papa Jack always does this. He is great at putting out
pro-life ***** as news. It is kind of like when Bush
lies about his information. Truth is not a strong point
with the Right. Only the pro-lifers are dumb enough to buy
it, so what is the point?
Isn't it ironic that Catholics are whining about how they
can't take office due to religion? This is the same group
that has
systematically
purchased hospitals and then refused women their
constitutional rights to an abortion.
Where/how does the Constitution provide women the right to an
abortion?
Rights are naturally occuring. No piece of paper can give
rights or take them away. The Constitution's purpose is not to
grant rights to anyone, but to establish firm limits on the
authority of government to intrude on our natural rights.
Then HOW do you get this "constitutional RIGHTS to an abortion"?
Does the idea of "bodily autonomy" mean anything to you? Not the
brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you?
HOW do you get this "constitutional RIGHTS to an abortion"? How
does the Constitution grant the right to abort?
Are you really this obtuse?
Start with bodily autonomy and connect the dots.
Idiot.
Ad hominem. Still, no explanation on this "constitutional RIGHTS to an
abortion".
Apparently, you are too dense to catch-on or understand it on your own.
Apparently so.
Try having a grown up relative or friend explain it to you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Owens" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
15 Aug 2003 07:06:40 AM |
|
|
Chris wrote:
HOW do you get this "constitutional RIGHTS to an abortion"? How does the
Constitution grant the right to abort?
Are you really this obtuse?
Start with bodily autonomy and connect the dots.
Idiot.
Ad hominem. Still, no explanation on this "constitutional RIGHTS to an
abortion".
Haven't ever read Roe vs. Wade? OK, then, I'll give you the
synopsis:
Over a long period of time, beginning back practically at the
start of our country, and in a wide variety of circumstances, the
Supreme Court has found in a long series of decisions that the
Fourth Amendment right to freedom from undue search and siezure
included a right to personal privacy. Additionally, after
passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, they have
consistently found, in a wide variety of circumstances, that the
right to freedom from involuntary servitude and the right to due
process included an absolute right to bodily autonomy. Further,
in combination, in a multiplicity of cases, they have found that
these rights combined require that reproductive choices be solely
that of the individual in question, barring issues of safe
medical practice [i.e., a State can require that hormonal
contraceptives be prescribed by a physician; but cannot limit the
circumstances, e.g., marital status, under which such
contraceptives are prescribed]. Finally, in the case of
abortion, the Supreme Court has consistently found that the
interests of the individual to privacy, autonomy, and due process
mean that the reproductive decision to abort or not is solely
that of the pregnant woman unless the State can demonstrate an
overriding interest. The only overriding interests they have
ever allowed are: 1] Safety of the procedure; 2] Protection of
minors; 3] Preservation of the life of the fetus -- barring any
threat to the life OR health of the pregnant woman, who's
interests predominate -- post-viability.
Chris Owens
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
16 Aug 2003 02:32:47 AM |
|
|
"Chris Owens" <caowens880@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F3CCCD0.3A921ABD@hotmail.com...
Chris wrote:
HOW do you get this "constitutional RIGHTS to an abortion"? How does
the
Constitution grant the right to abort?
Are you really this obtuse?
Start with bodily autonomy and connect the dots.
Idiot.
Ad hominem. Still, no explanation on this "constitutional RIGHTS to an
abortion".
Haven't ever read Roe vs. Wade? OK, then, I'll give you the
synopsis:
Over a long period of time, beginning back practically at the
start of our country, and in a wide variety of circumstances, the
Supreme Court has found in a long series of decisions that the
Fourth Amendment right to freedom from undue search and siezure
included a right to personal privacy. Additionally, after
passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, they have
consistently found, in a wide variety of circumstances, that the
right to freedom from involuntary servitude and the right to due
process included an absolute right to bodily autonomy. Further,
in combination, in a multiplicity of cases, they have found that
these rights combined require that reproductive choices be solely
that of the individual in question, barring issues of safe
medical practice [i.e., a State can require that hormonal
contraceptives be prescribed by a physician; but cannot limit the
circumstances, e.g., marital status, under which such
contraceptives are prescribed]. Finally, in the case of
abortion, the Supreme Court has consistently found that the
interests of the individual to privacy, autonomy, and due process
mean that the reproductive decision to abort or not is solely
that of the pregnant woman unless the State can demonstrate an
overriding interest. The only overriding interests they have
ever allowed are: 1] Safety of the procedure; 2] Protection of
minors; 3] Preservation of the life of the fetus -- barring any
threat to the life OR health of the pregnant woman, who's
interests predominate -- post-viability.
I see. The Supreme Court has consistently found that the right to abortion
not not a consistent right. Does this reflect an inconsistent Constitution?
Chris Owens
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Signorelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
17 Aug 2003 04:54:03 PM |
|
|
In article <TlG%a.3982$cj1.650@fed1read06>, Chris <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
Do you always duck things you don't understand by asking more unrelated
questions?
"Unrelated" is a matter of opinion.
More ducking.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
16 Aug 2003 10:18:47 AM |
|
|
John Signorelli wrote:
In article <O7l%a.2672$cj1.1994@fed1read06>, Chris <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
I see. The Supreme Court has consistently found that the right to abortion
not not a consistent right. Does this reflect an inconsistent Constitution?
Do you always duck things you don't understand by asking more unrelated
questions?
You have repeatedly avoided the question. Do you really think we
should read the Constitution strictly by it's black letter terms?
Better than reading it according to contemporay political biases of
leftwing judges.
(You might disagree of course...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Signorelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are Anti-Religious |
16 Aug 2003 06:25:38 PM |
|
|
In article <3F3E4B57.EFDCB357@spam.com>, <no@spam.com> wrote:
John Signorelli wrote:
In article <O7l%a.2672$cj1.1994@fed1read06>, Chris <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
I see. The Supreme Court has consistently found that the right to abortion
not not a consistent right. Does this reflect an inconsistent
Constitution?
Do you always duck things you don't understand by asking more unrelated
questions?
You have repeatedly avoided the question. Do you really think we
should read the Constitution strictly by it's black letter terms?
Better than reading it according to contemporay political biases of
leftwing judges.
(You might disagree of course...)
The Constitution was meant to be flexible. Further, Federal Justices
clearly lean to the conservative side.
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/esedl18_20010718.htm
I suppose you think the media is liberal, too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
