| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sports Pants" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2004 01:39:10 PM |
| Object: |
Open letter to Chilton |
(God forgive me, but imagining Chilton's crushed spirit has made me
relish in the Bush victory.)
For as long as I've known you, Chilton, you've assured your imaginary
audience in rapt attention of a day when the pro-life movement will be
"laughed into nonexistance" as an extension of some historical
metanarrative. It was propaganda plain and simple, delivered in the same
triumphalist spirit as anything from Pravda. Then a few months ago, you
performed an about-face; you said eventual victory was *not* certain, and
that the victory of Kerry required the active participation of your
readers-- "If Bush wins, then tyranny such as America hasn't experienced
in its worst nightmares is likely inevitable, and inexorably right around
the corner. If there EVER were a time *not* to take freedom for granted,
THIS is that time." Well, looks like the "nonexistance" of pro-lifers
isn't so inevitable, and that all panicked "calls-to-arms" have been in
vain. A Republican president, with a Republican House and Senate, will
appoint a few pro-life Supreme Court judges, and we'll have a pro-life
Supreme Court long past the time you're buried and rotting. Please exit to
your right, and ***** YOU OLD MAN!
*sigh*. And to think if the democrats had abondoned their bullheaded
insistence on hard-lining pro-choice, they probably would have won the
last two elections.
http://www.populist.com/04.14.crossed.html
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
05 Nov 2004 01:57:02 PM |
|
|
(Sports Pants) wrote in
news:tagutcow-0211040718030001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
(God forgive me, but imagining Chilton's crushed spirit has made me
relish in the Bush victory.)
For as long as I've known you, Chilton, you've assured your imaginary
audience in rapt attention of a day when the pro-life movement will be
"laughed into nonexistance" as an extension of some historical
metanarrative. It was propaganda plain and simple, delivered in the same
triumphalist spirit as anything from Pravda. Then a few months ago, you
performed an about-face; you said eventual victory was *not* certain,
and that the victory of Kerry required the active participation of your
readers-- "If Bush wins, then tyranny such as America hasn't experienced
in its worst nightmares is likely inevitable, and inexorably right
around the corner. If there EVER were a time *not* to take freedom for
granted, THIS is that time." Well, looks like the "nonexistance" of
pro-lifers isn't so inevitable, and that all panicked "calls-to-arms"
have been in vain. A Republican president, with a Republican House and
Senate, will appoint a few pro-life Supreme Court judges, and we'll have
a pro-life Supreme Court long past the time you're buried and rotting.
Please exit to your right, and ***** YOU OLD MAN!
*sigh*. And to think if the democrats had abondoned their bullheaded
insistence on hard-lining pro-choice, they probably would have won the
last two elections.
http://www.populist.com/04.14.crossed.html
I always loved that kooky way that Chilton wrote certain words in all caps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
05 Nov 2004 02:05:49 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
I always loved that kooky way that Chilton wrote certain words in all caps.
Don't you **KNOW** that writing in CAPS makes a load of ++PRO-ABORTION
PROPAGANDA++ more ^^BELIEVABLE^^ to IDIOTS??????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sports Pants" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
05 Nov 2004 03:37:38 PM |
|
|
In article <418bdf1e$0$27546$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Gactimus wrote:
I always loved that kooky way that Chilton wrote certain words in all caps.
Don't you **KNOW** that writing in CAPS makes a load of ++PRO-ABORTION
PROPAGANDA++ more ^^BELIEVABLE^^ to IDIOTS??????
Here's something I wrote about Craig's writing style...
[...] Craig Chilton; a published author, maker of rounds on the affiliate
news circuit, a man not modest about his experiences as a civil rights
worker in the South of the early '60s, and- nowadays- a self-appointed
"messenger," presenting us with all the "relevant facts" (some of great
"factual relevance") that support the "highly beneficial remedy of
abortion" (fittingly, the gee-whiz loquaciousness of his presentation
uncannily resembles that of a ninteenth-century cure-all peddler.) The
definitive text here is "Abortion is your Time Machine," aimed at
teenagers, and beginning and ending with an invitation to print the
article out, photocopy it, and distribute it to all their friends at
school; quite frankly, it has to be read to be believed. Abortion, the
article maintains, is the closest thing to a time machine we will perhaps
ever know of, undoing all the damage of an unplanned pregnancy. But beware
the hateful, bigoted, mindless, busybody, control-freakish (an adjective
train Craig is especially fond of) Religious Right that does not want YOU
to know of the HIGHLY beneficial REMEDY that is ABORTION. Craig tends to
capitalize words at random with no regards to relative weight or
grammatical function; the reason given is that we don't speak in monotone,
so there is no reason we should write in monotone. This in spite of the
fact- perhaps even because of the fact- that Craig's prose has a certain
weightlessness, a certain tonedeafness that I can only chalk up to an
aphasia of sorts,-- aphasia being a somewhat antiquated way of saying that
a person is incapable to some degree of interpreting and communicating
meaning; ranging in extremes from complete dissociativism to a
slipperiness with words or a deafness to their nuance. And perhaps it is
because of this that Craig didn't understand why the authors of a website
housing kook texts found "Abortion is your Time Machine" so morbidly,
unintentionally humorous-- ascribing its inclusion to some likely
conspiracy on the part of the site's maintainers with the religious right.
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
05 Nov 2004 04:55:00 PM |
|
|
"Sports Pants" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tagutcow-0411040916250001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com...
In article <418bdf1e$0$27546$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Gactimus wrote:
I always loved that kooky way that Chilton wrote certain words in all
caps.
Don't you **KNOW** that writing in CAPS makes a load of ++PRO-ABORTION
PROPAGANDA++ more ^^BELIEVABLE^^ to IDIOTS??????
Here's something I wrote about Craig's writing style...
<psuedo- psychological analysis kicked off the sofa>
Err, you were saying something about an "imaginary audience"?
LC~ Leaving Snupid and Virgin Rob to stroke themselves.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity."~Frank Leahy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
19 Nov 2004 12:01:49 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:39:10 GMT,
Gutless Wonder,"Sports Pants" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> spewed
the following while cravenly cowering behind his alias... NOT remotely
having the courage of his convictions that the person he's criticizing
has ---
(God forgive me, but imagining Chilton's crushed spirit has made
me relish in the Bush victory.)
TYPICAL mean-spirited and hateful attitude on the part of a
neocon/RRRcult sociopath.
But tough luck for you, my spirit is anything BUT crushed, as
I now will be working harder than ever to sabotage and wreak as
much havoc as I legally can upon the hateful agendas against
human rights that ignorant loons like you espouse. All you and your
ilk have accomplished was to give egalitarians everywhere a loud
wake-up call to the fact that freedom is NOT free. and that morons
like you need to be opposed constantly, openly, and vigorously.
For as long as I've known you, Chilton,...
You don't know me AT ALL, or you couldn't possibly have made
the inane assumprion that you just did, about me.
... you've assured [people that the day will come] when the
[Anti-Choice] movement will be "laughed into nonexistance" [and
will join other movements of intolerance in extinction.]
<mindless hate-tripe flushed>
(Almost lost in that now-flushed hate-tripe was an assumption
that I was no longer as sure that extinction was inevitable for
Anti-Choice. Wrong. It may take LONGER, but the **ultimate**
demise of Anti-Choice, homophobia, censorship, and any other
mindless agaenda against human rights that the RRR cultists may
come up with as long as that hate-cult exists WILL come about.
Hopefully, sooner, rather than later. And now that Arlen Specter
has just UNANIMOUSLY been elected the Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, there is renewed hope that the U.S. Supreme
Court will have NO neocon appointees during Ignorant-Warmonger
Bush's lame duck term.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "IBen Getiner" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
20 Nov 2004 03:01:16 AM |
|
|
(Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<419e88ae.4078576@netnews.mchsi.com>...
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:39:10 GMT,
Gutless Wonder,"Sports Pants" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> spewed
the following while cravenly cowering behind his alias... NOT remotely
having the courage of his convictions that the person he's criticizing
has ---
So... The LOZER has come crawling back out from under hiz toliet seat.
KOOL!!
(God forgive me, but imagining Chilton's crushed spirit has made
me relish in the Bush victory.)
TYPICAL mean-spirited and hateful attitude on the part of a
neocon/RRRcult sociopath.
But tough luck for you, my spirit is anything BUT crushed, as
I now will be working harder than ever to sabotage and wreak as
much havoc as I legally can upon the hateful agendas against
human rights that ignorant loons like you espouse.
<snip dead repulsive democrat *****>
Yadda-yadda-yadda. You claim you'll work "even harder", as you have
always said in the past.
It won't matter. You'll lose again anyway.
The average person is finally starting to wise up to you people and
your warped burned-out no-count DRECK. And you know what's even
better...? We don't have to work any harder than we already have!
That's because YOU do the work for us, Xraig Chitlenz..! You and your
Godless socialist seculare mentalities. YOU advertise our more sane
alternative better than we could ever do ourselves! And do you know
how you do it...? BY YOUR FAILURES.
Nobody... I mean NOBODY wants to see two men kissing in public, Xraig
Chitlenz. Nobody normal anyway. And this election gave me great reason
to hope for the return to normalcy. Most people who voted did so for
MORAL reasons. Of them, over 70 percent voted Republican. So you see,
Xraig Chitlenz... You've got your work cut out for you! It's going to
take a lot of shape-shifting, lying and outright deceit to make people
swallow things like ***** marriage. But pray continue.... Please..
"working harder". You make me smile real big sometimes! And now is one
of those times, Bubba...!
YEZZ MA'AM...!
IBen Getiner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kristian" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
20 Nov 2004 06:37:42 PM |
|
|
In article <41b3adaf.82368906@netnews.mchsi.com>
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton -- Society OUTGROWS petty bigotries. Egalitarians assist it!) wrote:
Boring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
20 Nov 2004 06:51:16 PM |
|
|
"Kristian" <KristianMersonde@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:19JZ36U438311.7761805556@anonymous.poster...
In article <41b3adaf.82368906@netnews.mchsi.com>
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton -- Society OUTGROWS petty bigotries.
Egalitarians assist it!) wrote:
Boring.
When that wet spot behind your ears dries up, you'll find life outside of
high school and the mall to be rather interesting.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kristian" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
20 Nov 2004 07:12:41 PM |
|
|
In article <8ERnd.14429$jq5.336@fe2.texas.rr.com>
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw2.com> wrote:
"Kristian" <KristianMersonde@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:19JZ36U438311.7761805556@anonymous.poster...
In article <41b3adaf.82368906@netnews.mchsi.com>
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton -- Society OUTGROWS petty bigotries.
Egalitarians assist it!) wrote:
Boring.
When that wet spot behind your ears dries up, you'll find life outside of
high school and the mall to be rather interesting.
Yawn.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
20 Nov 2004 08:17:58 PM |
|
|
"Kristian" <KristianMersonde@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0LUAL0CR38311.800474537@anonymous.poster...
In article <8ERnd.14429$jq5.336@fe2.texas.rr.com>
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw2.com> wrote:
"Kristian" <KristianMersonde@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:19JZ36U438311.7761805556@anonymous.poster...
In article <41b3adaf.82368906@netnews.mchsi.com>
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton -- Society OUTGROWS petty
bigotries.
Egalitarians assist it!) wrote:
Boring.
When that wet spot behind your ears dries up, you'll find life outside
of
high school and the mall to be rather interesting.
Yawn.
Typical juvenile response.
<plonk> dumbass.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Plonk" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
20 Nov 2004 09:09:26 PM |
|
|
In article <qVSnd.21411$g21.13292@fe1.texas.rr.com>
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw2.com> wrote:
"Kristian" <KristianMersonde@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0LUAL0CR38311.800474537@anonymous.poster...
In article <8ERnd.14429$jq5.336@fe2.texas.rr.com>
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw2.com> wrote:
"Kristian" <KristianMersonde@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:19JZ36U438311.7761805556@anonymous.poster...
In article <41b3adaf.82368906@netnews.mchsi.com>
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton -- Society OUTGROWS petty
bigotries.
Egalitarians assist it!) wrote:
Boring.
When that wet spot behind your ears dries up, you'll find life outside
of
high school and the mall to be rather interesting.
Yawn.
Typical juvenile response.
<plonk> dumbass.
Why do losers always need to announce their plonk?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
21 Nov 2004 11:13:33 PM |
|
|
Plonk <KristianMersonde@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<LAZYJ0UD38311.8815509259@anonymous.poster>...
In article <qVSnd.21411$g21.13292@fe1.texas.rr.com>
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw2.com> wrote:
"Kristian" <KristianMersonde@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0LUAL0CR38311.800474537@anonymous.poster...
In article <8ERnd.14429$jq5.336@fe2.texas.rr.com>
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw2.com> wrote:
"Kristian" <KristianMersonde@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:19JZ36U438311.7761805556@anonymous.poster...
In article <41b3adaf.82368906@netnews.mchsi.com>
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton -- Society OUTGROWS petty
bigotries.
Egalitarians assist it!) wrote:
Boring.
When that wet spot behind your ears dries up, you'll find life outside
of
high school and the mall to be rather interesting.
Yawn.
Typical juvenile response.
<plonk> dumbass.
Why do losers always need to announce their plonk?
Because they aren't just losers, they're drama queens too.
--S
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
04 Nov 2004 10:38:46 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:39:10 GMT, (Sports Pants)
wrote, in part:
quoting Craig Chilton:
"If Bush wins, then tyranny such as America hasn't experienced
in its worst nightmares is likely inevitable, and inexorably right around
the corner. If there EVER were a time *not* to take freedom for granted,
THIS is that time."
There is still hope. The Supreme Court may rule that for Bush to appoint
Supreme Court Justices when Congress isn't around to advise and consent
to their appointment is unconstitutional.
This is particularly possible if the existing Justices so appointed
disqualify themselves from ruling on the question.
Of course, the reason there _are_ nine Supreme Court spots is thanks to
FDR, so manipulating the Supreme Court appears to be an old and
honorable bipartisan tradition.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
03 Nov 2004 02:35:39 PM |
|
|
Sports Pants wrote:
*sigh*. And to think if the democrats had abondoned their bullheaded
insistence on hard-lining pro-choice, they probably would have won the
last two elections.
Yep. Sad. They both agree on the war on terror, why can't they unite on
the fight for life.
And let me tell you this, as long as the Democrats cling to the
pro-abortion agenda, they will never, ever be electable in a country
growing belatedly in its recognition of the horror of abortion.
I. personally am elated that this issue has divided the world. It is
high time that pro-lifers were heard, and the infanticidic sociopaths
got their come-uppance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn Hearn" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
03 Nov 2004 06:51:17 PM |
|
|
In article <41894314$0$1158$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Sports Pants wrote:
*sigh*. And to think if the democrats had abondoned their bullheaded
insistence on hard-lining pro-choice, they probably would have won the
last two elections.
Yep. Sad. They both agree on the war on terror, why can't they unite on
the fight for life.
And let me tell you this, as long as the Democrats cling to the
pro-abortion agenda, they will never, ever be electable in a country
growing belatedly in its recognition of the horror of abortion.
Strange how Clinton managed to get into office twice with a
pro-choice stance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
05 Nov 2004 02:57:32 PM |
|
|
Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> spoke thus:
Strange how Clinton managed to get into office twice with a
pro-choice stance.
Simple - evangelical Christians weren't mobilized against him.
Clinton would have done substantially worse than Kerry in the latter's
place, because of that stance and because he is a despicable human
being on a number of basic levels; at least Bush is evil according to
his principles.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
03 Nov 2004 07:59:06 PM |
|
|
Shawn Hearn wrote:
In article <41894314$0$1158$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Sports Pants wrote:
*sigh*. And to think if the democrats had abondoned their bullheaded
insistence on hard-lining pro-choice, they probably would have won the
last two elections.
Yep. Sad. They both agree on the war on terror, why can't they unite on
the fight for life.
And let me tell you this, as long as the Democrats cling to the
pro-abortion agenda, they will never, ever be electable in a country
growing belatedly in its recognition of the horror of abortion.
Strange how Clinton managed to get into office twice with a
pro-choice stance.
Yup. And with Bush now being elected twice with a pro-life stance, it
reveals just how much of an impact the abortion issue doesn't have on
election day.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
03 Nov 2004 06:30:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 20:35:39 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Sports Pants wrote:
*sigh*. And to think if the democrats had abondoned their bullheaded
insistence on hard-lining pro-choice, they probably would have won the
last two elections.
Yep. Sad. They both agree on the war on terror, why can't they unite on
the fight for life.
And let me tell you this, as long as the Democrats cling to the
pro-abortion agenda,....
http://www.christianpost.com/dbase/society/1096/section/1.htm
"...during the 1990s, there was a decline in abortion rates with an
average of 17.4 percent compared to previous decades. However, the
trend began to change its direction starting in 2000.
....
While analyzing the other 13 states with data runnning through 2002,
most showed a net increase in the abortion rate with a 14.6 percent on
average...."
It is the REPUBLICANS who promote the Culture of Death. With the
Democrats guiding the country the abortion rate dropped. Under
Republican control the abortion rate rose.
Tell me -- given the FACT that abortions have increases under Geroge
W. Bush WHO is it that really has the Pro-Abortion agenda?
Who is Pro-Abortion? Those who decrease the abortion rate, or those
who increase the abortion rate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cleopatra" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
08 Nov 2004 03:51:27 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<4189761f.842441917@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 20:35:39 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Sports Pants wrote:
*sigh*. And to think if the democrats had abondoned their bullheaded
insistence on hard-lining pro-choice, they probably would have won the
last two elections.
Yep. Sad. They both agree on the war on terror, why can't they unite on
the fight for life.
And let me tell you this, as long as the Democrats cling to the
pro-abortion agenda,....
http://www.christianpost.com/dbase/society/1096/section/1.htm
"...during the 1990s, there was a decline in abortion rates with an
average of 17.4 percent compared to previous decades. However, the
trend began to change its direction starting in 2000.
...
While analyzing the other 13 states with data runnning through 2002,
most showed a net increase in the abortion rate with a 14.6 percent on
average...."
It is the REPUBLICANS who promote the Culture of Death. With the
Democrats guiding the country the abortion rate dropped. Under
Republican control the abortion rate rose.
Tell me -- given the FACT that abortions have increases under Geroge
W. Bush WHO is it that really has the Pro-Abortion agenda?
Hurricanes also increased under George Bush. And he's never been seen
with Pee Wee Herman, either. Does that mean they're both the same
person? What's your point?
Who is Pro-Abortion? Those who decrease the abortion rate, or those
who increase the abortion rate?
Twinky, does this mean if tomorrow George Bush proposed a
Constitutional Amendment outlawing most abortions liberal democrats
would be hailing him as a saviour? Hardly! It would be your gang
screaming at the top of thier lungs about it while Republicans for the
most part would accept some curbs on the practice. Abortion in this
country proceeds merrily along because liberal democrats resist reform
at every step, even when it comes to partial birth abortions, so don't
start in blaming Republican presidents for something your crowd
started and refuses to stop. It sure in hell isn't Republican
candidates who pander to the abortion crowd when they're running for
office.
Cleopatra
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
08 Nov 2004 04:07:37 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2004 13:51:27 -0800,
Bolsheviks_Beaten_Back_Again@linkedto.privacyport.com (Cleopatra)
wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<4189761f.842441917@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 20:35:39 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Sports Pants wrote:
*sigh*. And to think if the democrats had abondoned their bullheaded
insistence on hard-lining pro-choice, they probably would have won the
last two elections.
Yep. Sad. They both agree on the war on terror, why can't they unite on
the fight for life.
And let me tell you this, as long as the Democrats cling to the
pro-abortion agenda,....
http://www.christianpost.com/dbase/society/1096/section/1.htm
"...during the 1990s, there was a decline in abortion rates with an
average of 17.4 percent compared to previous decades. However, the
trend began to change its direction starting in 2000.
...
While analyzing the other 13 states with data runnning through 2002,
most showed a net increase in the abortion rate with a 14.6 percent on
average...."
It is the REPUBLICANS who promote the Culture of Death. With the
Democrats guiding the country the abortion rate dropped. Under
Republican control the abortion rate rose.
Tell me -- given the FACT that abortions have increases under Geroge
W. Bush WHO is it that really has the Pro-Abortion agenda?
Hurricanes also increased under George Bush. And he's never been seen
with Pee Wee Herman, either. Does that mean they're both the same
person? What's your point?
Who is Pro-Abortion? Those who decrease the abortion rate, or those
who increase the abortion rate?
Twinky, does this mean if tomorrow George Bush proposed a
Constitutional Amendment outlawing most abortions....
Outlawing abortions would not affect the actual abortion rate -- it
would only drive abortions back to being illegal. Abortions dropped
steadily until G.W.B. took office and then rose dramatically.
WHO has the Pro-Abortion aganda? Those under whom the abortion rate
dropped, or those under whom the abortion rate rose?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
08 Nov 2004 11:32:05 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<418fed31.260939320@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
Outlawing abortions would not affect the actual abortion rate --
Yes it would.
it
would only drive abortions back to being illegal.
And things that are illegal tend to happen less or more? That's
right--less. Drugs are a good example, see heroin usage compared to
alcohol consumption.
WHO has the Pro-Abortion aganda?
Whomever thinks abortion is a good idea.
Talk about figures lie, liars figure, sheesh.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
09 Nov 2004 12:06:10 PM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<418fed31.260939320@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
Outlawing abortions would not affect the actual abortion rate --
Yes it would.
It might make it go up.
it
would only drive abortions back to being illegal.
And things that are illegal tend to happen less or more?
I don't see any reduction in the drug trade. In fact, thanks to Bush,
it may even be going up now that Afghanistan is producing opium again.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
10 Nov 2004 11:07:31 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cmr0ui$aob$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<418fed31.260939320@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
Outlawing abortions would not affect the actual abortion rate --
Yes it would.
It might make it go up.
Social issues, like economics, is something leftist morons have no
hope of ever understanding. If illegalizing something made it happen
more, the government would make murder and theft legal to make them
happen less.
it
would only drive abortions back to being illegal.
And things that are illegal tend to happen less or more?
I don't see any reduction in the drug trade.
If drugs were legal, you'd see them competing in grocery stores.
Like I said, compare the usage rates between illegal drugs and
alcohol, my point is proven.
Now, get back in your garbage can.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cleopatra" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
10 Nov 2004 07:49:31 PM |
|
|
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0411100907.d227a69@posting.google.com>...
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cmr0ui$aob$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Sneechres < > wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<418fed31.260939320@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
Outlawing abortions would not affect the actual abortion rate --
Yes it would.
It might make it go up.
Social issues, like economics, is something leftist morons have no
hope of ever understanding. If illegalizing something made it happen
more, the government would make murder and theft legal to make them
happen less.
it
would only drive abortions back to being illegal.
And things that are illegal tend to happen less or more?
I don't see any reduction in the drug trade.
If drugs were legal, you'd see them competing in grocery stores.
Like I said, compare the usage rates between illegal drugs and
alcohol, my point is proven.
Now, get back in your garbage can.
--S
Your point is further buttressed by the fact that for the last twenty
years the government, in concert with hysterical liberals, has waged
an on-going campaign to marginalize and make social pariahs of
smokers. They've near taxed them into oblivion and have received a
non-stop message to flat out stop the practice. It's had the effect of
drastically reducing smokers and shaming those few who do remain.
Can you even begin to imagine the dramatic reduction in abortions if
this same approach were used here? But, no, we can't preach total
abstinence here as we do with smokers. Here we advise condoms which
fail over 20% of the time, worse odds than playing Russian Roulette.
They take the same approach with AIDS. Nope, no message here to quit
doing what you're doing. Ever hear anyone advising smokers to use
filtered cigarettes? Yep, they don't work but condoms are foolproof,
right? One doesn't have to be a smoker to grasp the monumental
hypocrisy at operation here.
As for booze, it's infinitely more destructive than cigarettes could
ever be, both socially and medically, but don't expect this same crowd
to go after these people anytime soon.
Cleopatra
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
11 Nov 2004 12:21:20 PM |
|
|
(Cleopatra) wrote in message news:<4c65347b.0411101749.2f7ad692@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0411100907.d227a69@posting.google.com>...
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cmr0ui$aob$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<418fed31.260939320@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
Outlawing abortions would not affect the actual abortion rate --
Yes it would.
It might make it go up.
Social issues, like economics, is something leftist morons have no
hope of ever understanding. If illegalizing something made it happen
more, the government would make murder and theft legal to make them
happen less.
it
would only drive abortions back to being illegal.
And things that are illegal tend to happen less or more?
I don't see any reduction in the drug trade.
If drugs were legal, you'd see them competing in grocery stores.
Like I said, compare the usage rates between illegal drugs and
alcohol, my point is proven.
Now, get back in your garbage can.
--S
Your point is further buttressed by the fact that for the last twenty
years the government, in concert with hysterical liberals, has waged
an on-going campaign to marginalize and make social pariahs of
smokers. They've near taxed them into oblivion and have received a
non-stop message to flat out stop the practice. It's had the effect of
drastically reducing smokers and shaming those few who do remain.
Can you even begin to imagine the dramatic reduction in abortions if
this same approach were used here? But, no, we can't preach total
abstinence here as we do with smokers. Here we advise condoms which
fail over 20% of the time, worse odds than playing Russian Roulette.
They take the same approach with AIDS. Nope, no message here to quit
doing what you're doing. Ever hear anyone advising smokers to use
filtered cigarettes? Yep, they don't work but condoms are foolproof,
right? One doesn't have to be a smoker to grasp the monumental
hypocrisy at operation here.
As for booze, it's infinitely more destructive than cigarettes could
ever be, both socially and medically, but don't expect this same crowd
to go after these people anytime soon.
All valid points.
Don't expect Ray or Adam to understand, though. If it makes sense,
they automatically shut down.
--S
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
11 Nov 2004 04:30:15 PM |
|
|
(Cleopatra) wrote...
Your point is further buttressed by the fact that for the last twenty
years the government, in concert with hysterical liberals, has waged
an on-going campaign to marginalize and make social pariahs of
smokers. They've near taxed them into oblivion and have received a
non-stop message to flat out stop the practice. It's had the effect
of drastically reducing smokers and shaming those few who do remain.
That's because smoking is clearly, unambiguously dangerous to the
smoker's health, and also to people who are exposed to 2nd-hand smoke.
Can you even begin to imagine the dramatic reduction in abortions if
this same approach were used here?
Funny thing - abortion is safe; far safer than continuing a pregnancy
to term and childbirth. What's your point?
But, no, we can't preach total abstinence here as we do with smokers.
Well, there you go - according to Turd Queen, women never become
pregnant as a result of rape, and never experience life- or
health-threatening complications during their pregnancies.
And anyway, how many sane, healthy people want to be totally
abstinent?
Here we advise condoms which fail over 20% of the time, worse odds
than playing Russian Roulette.
More Fascinating Turd Queen Facts...
They take the same approach with AIDS. Nope, no message here to quit
doing what you're doing. Ever hear anyone advising smokers to use
filtered cigarettes? Yep, they don't work but condoms are foolproof,
right? One doesn't have to be a smoker to grasp the monumental
hypocrisy at operation here.
Except that condoms DO work.
As for booze, it's infinitely more destructive than cigarettes could
ever be, both socially and medically, but don't expect this same crowd
to go after these people anytime soon.
More Fascinating Turd Queen Facts...
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
11 Nov 2004 06:06:35 PM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0411111430.56269c86@posting.google.com...
Adios_Lurch@linkedto.myprivatehideout.com (Cleopatra) wrote...
Your point is further buttressed by the fact that for the last twenty
years the government, in concert with hysterical liberals, has waged
an on-going campaign to marginalize and make social pariahs of
smokers. They've near taxed them into oblivion and have received a
non-stop message to flat out stop the practice. It's had the effect
of drastically reducing smokers and shaming those few who do remain.
That's because smoking is clearly, unambiguously dangerous to the
smoker's health,
Not to go too far down a rabbit trail here, but what is the difference
between me making my own decisions in smoking, and a woman making hers with
regard to abortion?
and also to people who are exposed to 2nd-hand smoke.
The flu kills 12-times as many people as second-hand smoke, yet I don't see
a similar uproar.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
11 Nov 2004 12:29:30 PM |
|
|
Cleopatra <Adios_Lurch@linkedto.myprivatehideout.com> spoke thus:
Your point is further buttressed by the fact that for the last twenty
years the government, in concert with hysterical liberals, has waged
an on-going campaign to marginalize and make social pariahs of
smokers. They've near taxed them into oblivion and have received a
non-stop message to flat out stop the practice. It's had the effect of
drastically reducing smokers and shaming those few who do remain.
Actually, here in the Atlanta area it's been Republicans calling for
blanket smoking bans, and passing them in areas such as Gwinnett
county. In any case, I don't care whether people smoke, as long as I
don't have to pay their health insurance premiums. People have a
right to smoke, have sex, and have abortions - I oppose taking any of
those rights away, or using government-sponsored coercion to
discourage the exercise of those rights.
As for booze, it's infinitely more destructive than cigarettes could
ever be, both socially and medically, but don't expect this same crowd
to go after these people anytime soon.
If anyone's going after booze, it is, again, Republicans. Pick any
dry county you want, and dollars to donuts it's run by Republicans.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
11 Nov 2004 11:31:27 PM |
|
|
Cleopatra <Adios_Lurch@linkedto.myprivatehideout.com> wrote:
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0411100907.d227a69@posting.google.com>...
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cmr0ui$aob$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<418fed31.260939320@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
Outlawing abortions would not affect the actual abortion rate --
Yes it would.
It might make it go up.
Social issues, like economics, is something leftist morons have no
hope of ever understanding. If illegalizing something made it happen
more, the government would make murder and theft legal to make them
happen less.
it
would only drive abortions back to being illegal.
And things that are illegal tend to happen less or more?
I don't see any reduction in the drug trade.
If drugs were legal, you'd see them competing in grocery stores.
Like I said, compare the usage rates between illegal drugs and
alcohol, my point is proven.
Now, get back in your garbage can.
--S
Your point is further buttressed by the fact that for the last twenty
years the government, in concert with hysterical liberals,
As opposed to murderous conservatives?
has waged
an on-going campaign to marginalize and make social pariahs of
smokers.
Cigarette smoke kills people.
They've near taxed them into oblivion and have received a
non-stop message to flat out stop the practice. It's had the effect of
drastically reducing smokers and shaming those few who do remain.
And yet it's still legal.
Can you even begin to imagine the dramatic reduction in abortions if
this same approach were used here?
But your anti-sex perverts don't want to prevent abortion. You just
want to make women suffer, and most sane people realize that fact.
That's why you promote abortion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Open letter to Chilton |
10 Nov 2004 12:11:20 PM |
|
|
On 10 Nov 2004 09:07:31 -0800, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cmr0ui$aob$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Sneechres < > wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<418fed31.260939320@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
Outlawing abortions would not affect the actual abortion rate --
Yes it would.
It might make it go up.
Social issues, like economics, is something leftist morons have no
hope of ever understanding. If illegalizing something made it happen
more, the government would make murder and theft legal to make them
happen less.
it
would only drive abortions back to being illegal.
And things that are illegal tend to happen less or more?
I don't see any reduction in the drug trade.
If drugs were legal, you'd see them competing in grocery stores.
Like I said, compare the usage rates between illegal drugs and
alcohol, my point is proven.
No, it isn't. Compare alcohol and cigarettes, both legal. Are they
used at the same rate?
No?
Didn't think so. Your 'point' is crap.
--
The difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
