Science > Abortion > Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
13 Feb 2005 02:50:55 PM |
| Object: |
Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1302050808530001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns95FB761BDB272keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a
chance be imposed. certainly no state housing companies employing
educated women could afford to continue doing business in a locale so
hostile to women.
Nota bene: Laws are passed, but anti-abortion laws are "imposed".
do you want to argue that the law will pass? or that business will not
suffer if it does?
.
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
13 Feb 2005 02:59:21 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
tagutcow@earthlink.net (The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1302050808530001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns95FB761BDB272keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a
chance be imposed. certainly no state housing companies employing
educated women could afford to continue doing business in a locale so
hostile to women.
Nota bene: Laws are passed, but anti-abortion laws are "imposed".
do you want to argue that the law will pass? or that business will not
suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither. I was simply commenting on silly pro-choice code
language.
--
----> 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: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
13 Feb 2005 03:09:52 PM |
|
|
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in news:tagutcow-
1302050836430001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1302050808530001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns95FB761BDB272keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a
chance be imposed. certainly no state housing companies employing
educated women could afford to continue doing business in a locale so
hostile to women.
Nota bene: Laws are passed, but anti-abortion laws are "imposed".
do you want to argue that the law will pass? or that business will not
suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither. I was simply commenting on silly pro-choice code
language.
try to express yourself with more clarity in the future, particularly if
you are writing of your paranoia or misrepresenting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
14 Feb 2005 06:26:50 AM |
|
|
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
tagutcow@earthlink.net (The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1302050808530001@user-0c 992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns95FB761BDB272keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james
g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a
chance be imp osed. certainly no state housing companies
employing
educated women could afford to continue doing business in a
locale so
hostile to women.
Nota bene: Laws are passed, but anti-abortion laws are
"imposed".
do yo u want to argue that the law will pass? or that business will
not
suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither.
You weren't arguing, period and he didn't accuse you of
offering an argument. He was inviting you to do so.
He's obviously an optimist.
I was simply commenting on silly pro-choice code
language.
And it is enough that you pin the label (silly pro-choice)
"code language" to automagically make it true. How
convenient for you!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
15 Feb 2005 10:37:41 AM |
|
|
In article <1108384010.166233.84510@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
do yo u want to argue that the law will pass? or that business will
not
suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither.
You weren't arguing, period and he didn't accuse you of
offering an argument. He was inviting you to do so.
He's obviously an optimist.
Yeouch! You aim this invective at me knowing nothing else but that I'm
pro-life! You're rarin' for a fight and I'm not gonna give it to you!
Let me let you in on a little secret: Keegan is a fucking autistic retard
who composes sentences like "just go back in tghis thread to the first
post where you lied you can tell which one that was by my response which
commented on your lie." Whenever I back him into a corner, he just quotes
the top line and pretends like he addressed my point, or starts playing
his favorite retard-o game-- "you deleted the relevant text. restore the
text and I will comment on your misrepresentations."
I was simply commenting on silly pro-choice code
language.
And it is enough that you pin the label (silly pro-choice)
"code language" to automagically make it true. How
convenient for you!
Okay, give me a rational reason why gun laws are passed, budgets are
passed, environmental regulations are passed, but abortion laws are
"imposed."
Do you think it can be because they don't want to abandon the language of
"force, control, coercion, imposition, &c." that is obligatory in
describing pro-lifers? And is it possible they do this because they're
trying to carve out a moral niche for abortion- to give it a special,
privileged position- realizing that the "choice" to kill another human
being is the operative principle of no other law?
--
----> 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: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
15 Feb 2005 10:43:09 AM |
|
|
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1502050415000001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <1108384010.166233.84510@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james
g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
do yo u want to argue that the law will pass? or that business
will not suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither.
You weren't arguing, period and he didn't accuse you of
offering an argument. He was inviting you to do so.
He's obviously an optimist.
Yeouch! You aim this invective at me knowing nothing else but that
I'm pro-life! You're rarin' for a fight and I'm not gonna give it to
you!
Let me let you in on a little secret: Keegan is a fucking autistic
retard
my questions really unsettled you, eh?
hey, maybe if you call me names, you can distract some of the less acute
readers from the substance of the conversation.
have a nice day.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
16 Feb 2005 03:02:52 AM |
|
|
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <1108384010.166233.84510@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james
g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
do yo u want to argue that the law will pass? or that business
will not
suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither.
You weren't arguing, period and he didn't accuse you of
offering an argument. He was inviting you to do so.
He's obviously an optimist.
Yeouch! You aim this invective
LOL! "Invective?" My goodness, what in the above
do you consider "invective?"
at me knowing nothing else but that I'm
pro-life! You're rarin' for a fight and I'm not gonna give it to you!
Suddenly this is about me and not what you said, huh.
Fancy that.
Let me let you in on a little secret: Keegan is a fucking autistic
retard
who composes sentences like "just go back in tghis thread to the
first
post where you lied you can tell which one that was by my response
which
commented on your lie." Whenever I back him in to a corner, he just
quotes
the top line and pretends like he addressed my point, or starts
playing
his favorite retard-o game-- "you deleted the relevant text. restore
the
text and I will comment on your misrepresentations."
I was simply commenting on silly pro-choice code
language.
And it is enough that you pin the label (silly pro-choice)
"code language" to automagically make it true. How
convenient for you!
Okay, give me a rational reason why gun laws are passed, budgets are
passed, environmental regulations are passed, but abortion laws are
"imposed."
This is called "shifting the burden of proof." But I am
curious how you get all this out of one use of the word
"imposed" by someone you call a "fucking autistic retard."
Do you think it can be because they don't want to abandon the
language of
"force, control, coercion, imposition, &c."
"They"? Frankly, I think anti-abortionists are in no
position to decry the use of words for their connotative
power: In this regard, abortion as "murder" comes to
mind, as does "partial birth abortion."
that is obligatory in describing pro-lifers?
So you took the word "imposed" personally then?
And is it possible they do this because they're
trying to carve out a moral niche for abortion- to give it a special,
privileged position- realizing that the "choice" to kill another
human
being is the operative principle of no other law?
No it isn't. I know of no law that offers any such choice.
Probably because there isn't one (in the US anyway).
y
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
16 Feb 2005 11:59:07 AM |
|
|
In article <1108544572.754938.243550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
Okay, give me a rational reason why gun laws are passed, budgets are
passed, environmental regulations are passed, but abortion laws are
"imposed."
This is called "shifting the burden of proof." But I am
curious how you get all this out of one use of the word
"imposed" by someone you call a "fucking autistic retard."
I don't even know what you're talking about. I make no statement
requiring proof. I asked a question and then I clarified my question.
And, yes, fucking autistic retards can internalize the verbal obsessions
of political movements without understanding the intentions behind them.
In fact, they're usually especially good at internalizing this code
language.
Do you think it can be because they don't want to abandon the
language of
"force, control, coercion, imposition, &c."
"They"? Frankly, I think anti-abortionists are in no
position to decry the use of words for their connotative
power: In this regard, abortion as "murder" comes to
mind, as does "partial birth abortion."
We use the word "murder" to describe abortion because that's what we
believe abortion is. You make it sound like we're getting some implication
in sideways when in fact that is THE singular thrust of the argument.
There's a t.aer who claims he's personally opposed to abortion because
it's "inefficient"-- yet he is not a pro-lifer.
trying to carve out a moral niche for abortion- to give it a special,
privileged position- realizing that the "choice" to kill another
human
being is the operative principle of no other law?
No it isn't. I know of no law that offers any such choice.
Probably because there isn't one (in the US anyway).
y
Well then perhaps you can imagine the consternation of people who
consider abortion murder. Stop with the feminist code-speak and discuss
what abortion *is*- the active killing of a living, complete, human
organism.
--
----> 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: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 01:32:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:59:07 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) in alt.abortion with message-id
<tagutcow-1602050536250001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com> wrote:
We use the word "murder" to describe abortion because that's what we
believe abortion is. You make it sound like we're getting some implication
in sideways when in fact that is THE singular thrust of the argument.
Sorry. Just because you disagree with something does not give you the
right to call it something is clearly is not.
Murder is a specific term with a specific meaning, and requires an
illegal act. Since abortion is legal it clearly cannot be murder.
You can call a duck a horse but that does not mean you can expect
anyone to pay much attention when you swear you shot a flying horse.
There's a t.aer who claims he's personally opposed to abortion because
it's "inefficient"-- yet he is not a pro-lifer.
So? Perhaps he knows a more efficient way to accomplish whatever he
wishes to accomplish.
Nothing in the term 'inefficient' would preclude it from being used
properly and correctly in just about any descriptive context.
trying to carve out a moral niche for abortion- to give it a special,
privileged position- realizing that the "choice" to kill another
human
being is the operative principle of no other law?
No it isn't. I know of no law that offers any such choice.
Probably because there isn't one (in the US anyway).
y
Well then perhaps you can imagine the consternation of people who
consider abortion murder.
No, personally I have no consideration for anyone who wishes to use a
term incorrectly and to describe something it's basic definition
precludes it from being simply because someone wished to wring some
propaganda value from it or create guilt by association through it's
improper use.
Stop with the feminist code-speak and discuss
what abortion *is*- the active killing of a living, complete, human
organism.
No, it is the termination of a pregnancy. The effect on the fetus is
an irrelevant and unimportant side effect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 01:56:42 PM |
|
|
In article <58dk11himh81rqklc2f170akf41tvnsc1n@4ax.com>, Attila
<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:59:07 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) in alt.abortion with message-id
<tagutcow-1602050536250001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com> wrote:
We use the word "murder" to describe abortion because that's what we
believe abortion is. You make it sound like we're getting some implication
in sideways when in fact that is THE singular thrust of the argument.
Sorry. Just because you disagree with something does not give you the
right to call it something is clearly is not.
Murder is a specific term with a specific meaning, and requires an
illegal act. Since abortion is legal it clearly cannot be murder.
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed. Anytime using
commonly accepted definitions weakens your argument, it is time to
wonder if your argument makes any sense.
You can call a duck a horse but that does not mean you can expect
anyone to pay much attention when you swear you shot a flying horse.
There's a t.aer who claims he's personally opposed to abortion because
it's "inefficient"-- yet he is not a pro-lifer.
So? Perhaps he knows a more efficient way to accomplish whatever he
wishes to accomplish.
Nothing in the term 'inefficient' would preclude it from being used
properly and correctly in just about any descriptive context.
trying to carve out a moral niche for abortion- to give it a special,
privileged position- realizing that the "choice" to kill another
human
being is the operative principle of no other law?
No it isn't. I know of no law that offers any such choice.
Probably because there isn't one (in the US anyway).
y
Well then perhaps you can imagine the consternation of people who
consider abortion murder.
No, personally I have no consideration for anyone who wishes to use a
term incorrectly and to describe something it's basic definition
precludes it from being simply because someone wished to wring some
propaganda value from it or create guilt by association through it's
improper use.
Stop with the feminist code-speak and discuss
what abortion *is*- the active killing of a living, complete, human
organism.
No, it is the termination of a pregnancy. The effect on the fetus is
an irrelevant and unimportant side effect.
The word "feminist" is another word they view as derogatory so they use
it even where it doesn't fit. It is like calling liberals
"socialists." When the truth doesn't work for you - change the
"truth."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 04:24:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 08:48:13 PM |
|
|
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 10:44:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 11:09:25 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 09:26:33 AM |
|
|
In article <D4SdnRR7aIsMIIffRVn-gA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Are the lies getting to the point where you can't remember them?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 11:14:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
---
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 07:55:25 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:srfl11hmodjjj8696alepsj70a5eboaka5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the
pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they
could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
Where in that post did I say Clinton killed those people? Those people's
death's are questionable, which was the point of the posting. Nowhere did I
say Clinton himself murdered those people. He may have had something to do
with their deaths, he may not have. Their deaths are questionable and all
have one thing in common. They were all closely related to Clinton.
But getting back to the issue..nowhere did I say Bill Clinton himself
murdered anyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 09:26:34 AM |
|
|
In article <_c2dnc_jI6ucpIbfRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:srfl11hmodjjj8696alepsj70a5eboaka5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the
pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they
could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
Where in that post did I say Clinton killed those people? Those people's
death's are questionable, which was the point of the posting. Nowhere did I
say Clinton himself murdered those people. He may have had something to do
with their deaths, he may not have. Their deaths are questionable and all
have one thing in common. They were all closely related to Clinton.
But getting back to the issue..nowhere did I say Bill Clinton himself
murdered anyone.
LOL!!!!!! Now you are running from this one! Your lying is so old hat
no one even cares anymore. What did you mean by, "Why don't they ask
about Bill Clinton's body count?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 09:36:19 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050726340129%spam@aol.com...
In article <_c2dnc_jI6ucpIbfRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:srfl11hmodjjj8696alepsj70a5eboaka5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the
pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they
could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that
_The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
Where in that post did I say Clinton killed those people? Those people's
death's are questionable, which was the point of the posting. Nowhere
did I
say Clinton himself murdered those people. He may have had something to
do
with their deaths, he may not have. Their deaths are questionable and all
have one thing in common. They were all closely related to Clinton.
But getting back to the issue..nowhere did I say Bill Clinton himself
murdered anyone.
LOL!!!!!! Now you are running from this one! Your lying is so old hat
no one even cares anymore. What did you mean by, "Why don't they ask
about Bill Clinton's body count?"
I am not going to deny that post, but it wasn't put in the way you are
trying to spin it.
Yes, I made that post and yes, those people's deaths are questionable.
But since you are talking about lies and trying to bring Al into
this...let's cover your lies first.
When you can apologize for the MANY lies you have told about me, then and
only then can we discuss any issue.
Let's start with your lies about my employment with the state.
Then we can go to your lies about my career in the Air Force.
Are you going to deny that you can't provide anything to support your lies?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 10:00:26 AM |
|
|
In article <BJadnVUuudQWzYbfRVn-rw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050726340129%spam@aol.com...
In article <_c2dnc_jI6ucpIbfRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:srfl11hmodjjj8696alepsj70a5eboaka5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the
pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they
could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that
_The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
Where in that post did I say Clinton killed those people? Those people's
death's are questionable, which was the point of the posting. Nowhere
did I
say Clinton himself murdered those people. He may have had something to
do
with their deaths, he may not have. Their deaths are questionable and all
have one thing in common. They were all closely related to Clinton.
But getting back to the issue..nowhere did I say Bill Clinton himself
murdered anyone.
LOL!!!!!! Now you are running from this one! Your lying is so old hat
no one even cares anymore. What did you mean by, "Why don't they ask
about Bill Clinton's body count?"
I am not going to deny that post, but it wasn't put in the way you are
trying to spin it.
You said, "Why don't they ask about Bill Clinton's body count?
Yes, I made that post and yes, those people's deaths are questionable.
No they aren't. They were investigated. Foster, for example,
committed suicide. You Republicans just want to dig up more garbage
because the whole Monica thing didn't work out for you. You were just
trying to smear President Clinton the way you have me, Patrick, Adam,
James, Ray, and so many others. We expect as much.
But since you are talking about lies and trying to bring Al into
this...let's cover your lies first.
When you can apologize for the MANY lies you have told about me, then and
only then can we discuss any issue.
Drop dead.
Let's start with your lies about my employment with the state.
You aren't employed by the state?
Then we can go to your lies about my career in the Air Force.
Career?
Are you going to deny that you can't provide anything to support your lies?
Whatever you say - it is your fantasy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 10:30:33 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050800262038%spam@aol.com...
In article <BJadnVUuudQWzYbfRVn-rw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050726340129%spam@aol.com...
In article <_c2dnc_jI6ucpIbfRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:srfl11hmodjjj8696alepsj70a5eboaka5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the
pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure -
they
could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think
that
_The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is
a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
Where in that post did I say Clinton killed those people? Those
people's
death's are questionable, which was the point of the posting. Nowhere
did I
say Clinton himself murdered those people. He may have had something
to
do
with their deaths, he may not have. Their deaths are questionable and
all
have one thing in common. They were all closely related to Clinton.
But getting back to the issue..nowhere did I say Bill Clinton himself
murdered anyone.
LOL!!!!!! Now you are running from this one! Your lying is so old hat
no one even cares anymore. What did you mean by, "Why don't they ask
about Bill Clinton's body count?"
I am not going to deny that post, but it wasn't put in the way you are
trying to spin it.
You said, "Why don't they ask about Bill Clinton's body count?
Yea and? Where are you questioning those who claim Bush murdered thousands
of innocent civilians?
Yes, I made that post and yes, those people's deaths are questionable.
No they aren't.
Yes they are/
They were investigated. Foster, for example,
committed suicide.
Oh yea, the park rangers investigation...Great example!!!
You Republicans just want to dig up more garbage
because the whole Monica thing didn't work out for you.
You are just that clueless.
You were just
trying to smear President Clinton the way you have me, Patrick, Adam,
James, Ray, and so many others. We expect as much.
And I expect you to keep on lying too.
But since you are talking about lies and trying to bring Al into
this...let's cover your lies first.
When you can apologize for the MANY lies you have told about me, then and
only then can we discuss any issue.
Drop dead.
Where is that "mature" attitude you claim to have?
Let's start with your lies about my employment with the state.
You aren't employed by the state?
Shall we begin with the lies you have told?
Which ones are you prepared to show any evidence for?
Then we can go to your lies about my career in the Air Force.
Career?
Are you prepared to defend your lies or not? There will be no discussion on
any issues until you can either
a) back up your statements you have made in the past or
b) openly acknowledge you made them up and apologize.
Then, maybe, we can consider starting a civil attempt to discuss the issues.
Are you going to deny that you can't provide anything to support your
lies?
Whatever you say - it is your fantasy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 08:56:42 PM |
|
|
In article <qcSdnc-t3o7lwIbfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050800262038%spam@aol.com...
In article <BJadnVUuudQWzYbfRVn-rw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050726340129%spam@aol.com...
In article <_c2dnc_jI6ucpIbfRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:srfl11hmodjjj8696alepsj70a5eboaka5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the
pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure -
they
could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think
that
_The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is
a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
Where in that post did I say Clinton killed those people? Those
people's
death's are questionable, which was the point of the posting. Nowhere
did I
say Clinton himself murdered those people. He may have had something
to
do
with their deaths, he may not have. Their deaths are questionable and
all
have one thing in common. They were all closely related to Clinton.
But getting back to the issue..nowhere did I say Bill Clinton himself
murdered anyone.
LOL!!!!!! Now you are running from this one! Your lying is so old hat
no one even cares anymore. What did you mean by, "Why don't they ask
about Bill Clinton's body count?"
I am not going to deny that post, but it wasn't put in the way you are
trying to spin it.
You said, "Why don't they ask about Bill Clinton's body count?
Yea and? Where are you questioning those who claim Bush murdered thousands
of innocent civilians?
I'm one of the thousands, spud.
Yes, I made that post and yes, those people's deaths are questionable.
No they aren't.
Yes they are/
No they aren't. It was SUICIDE.
They were investigated. Foster, for example,
committed suicide.
Oh yea, the park rangers investigation...Great example!!!
LOL!!!!!! Not like you guards would do, eh?
Investigations by Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Independent Counsel
Kenneth Starr have concluded that Foster, deeply depressed, took his
own life. (Of course, we all know what big fans Robert Fiske and
Kenneth Starr are of Bill Cinton.)
Do you like it when I mash your face in the mud?
You Republicans just want to dig up more garbage
because the whole Monica thing didn't work out for you.
You are just that clueless.
Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr were
"clueless" too. But not the prison guard! He knows what happened!
You were just
trying to smear President Clinton the way you have me, Patrick, Adam,
James, Ray, and so many others. We expect as much.
But since you are talking about lies and trying to bring Al into
this...let's cover your lies first.
When you can apologize for the MANY lies you have told about me, then and
only then can we discuss any issue.
Drop dead.
Where is that "mature" attitude you claim to have?
LOL! OK. Drop dead, please.
Let's start with your lies about my employment with the state.
You aren't employed by the state?
Shall we begin with the lies you have told?
Which ones are you prepared to show any evidence for?
Already done.
Then we can go to your lies about my career in the Air Force.
Career?
Are you prepared to defend your lies or not? There will be no discussion on
any issues until you can either
a) back up your statements you have made in the past or
b) openly acknowledge you made them up and apologize.
Then, maybe, we can consider starting a civil attempt to discuss the issues.
You aren't able to do that. I gave you a chance - you blew it.
Are you going to deny that you can't provide anything to support your
lies?
Whatever you say - it is your fantasy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 09:25:48 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051856423380%spam@aol.com...
In article <qcSdnc-t3o7lwIbfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050800262038%spam@aol.com...
In article <BJadnVUuudQWzYbfRVn-rw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050726340129%spam@aol.com...
In article <_c2dnc_jI6ucpIbfRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:srfl11hmodjjj8696alepsj70a5eboaka5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al
Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which
the
pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure -
they
could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think
that
_The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton
is
a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
Where in that post did I say Clinton killed those people? Those
people's
death's are questionable, which was the point of the posting.
Nowhere
did I
say Clinton himself murdered those people. He may have had
something
to
do
with their deaths, he may not have. Their deaths are questionable
and
all
have one thing in common. They were all closely related to
Clinton.
But getting back to the issue..nowhere did I say Bill Clinton
himself
murdered anyone.
LOL!!!!!! Now you are running from this one! Your lying is so old
hat
no one even cares anymore. What did you mean by, "Why don't they
ask
about Bill Clinton's body count?"
I am not going to deny that post, but it wasn't put in the way you are
trying to spin it.
You said, "Why don't they ask about Bill Clinton's body count?
Yea and? Where are you questioning those who claim Bush murdered
thousands
of innocent civilians?
I'm one of the thousands, spud.
You are claiming Bush murdered you?
Yes, I made that post and yes, those people's deaths are questionable.
No they aren't.
Yes they are/
No they aren't. It was SUICIDE.
Sorry but way too many unanswered questions on just his alone. And as you
can see with the list, there are DOZENS more.
They were investigated. Foster, for example,
committed suicide.
Oh yea, the park rangers investigation...Great example!!!
LOL!!!!!! Not like you guards would do, eh?
Investigations by Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Independent Counsel
Kenneth Starr have concluded that Foster, deeply depressed, took his
own life. (Of course, we all know what big fans Robert Fiske and
Kenneth Starr are of Bill Cinton.)
Do you like it when I mash your face in the mud?
Still waiting for you to do it, you haven't yet.
You Republicans just want to dig up more garbage
because the whole Monica thing didn't work out for you.
You are just that clueless.
Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr were
"clueless" too. But not the prison guard! He knows what happened!
You were just
trying to smear President Clinton the way you have me, Patrick, Adam,
James, Ray, and so many others. We expect as much.
But since you are talking about lies and trying to bring Al into
this...let's cover your lies first.
When you can apologize for the MANY lies you have told about me, then
and
only then can we discuss any issue.
Drop dead.
Where is that "mature" attitude you claim to have?
LOL! OK. Drop dead, please.
Let's start with your lies about my employment with the state.
You aren't employed by the state?
Shall we begin with the lies you have told?
Which ones are you prepared to show any evidence for?
Already done.
And yet you can't provide one single post to support it.
Do you like mud being thrown in your face?
LOL
Then we can go to your lies about my career in the Air Force.
Career?
Are you prepared to defend your lies or not? There will be no discussion
on
any issues until you can either
a) back up your statements you have made in the past or
b) openly acknowledge you made them up and apologize.
Then, maybe, we can consider starting a civil attempt to discuss the
issues.
You aren't able to do that. I gave you a chance - you blew it.
I am most certainly able to do that and defeat you on almost any issue as
well. But that will not happen until you can back up your statements or
apologize for lying.
Which you are too much of a coward to do so BECAUSE you know that once I get
into an issue I can defeat you.
Are you going to deny that you can't provide anything to support your
lies?
Whatever you say - it is your fantasy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 09:54:11 PM |
|
|
In article <vp-dnZLc564_aobfRVn-qg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051856423380%spam@aol.com...
In article <qcSdnc-t3o7lwIbfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050800262038%spam@aol.com...
In article <BJadnVUuudQWzYbfRVn-rw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050726340129%spam@aol.com...
In article <_c2dnc_jI6ucpIbfRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:srfl11hmodjjj8696alepsj70a5eboaka5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al
Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which
the
pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure -
they
could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think
that
_The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton
is
a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
Where in that post did I say Clinton killed those people? Those
people's
death's are questionable, which was the point of the posting.
Nowhere
did I
say Clinton himself murdered those people. He may have had
something
to
do
with their deaths, he may not have. Their deaths are questionable
and
all
have one thing in common. They were all closely related to
Clinton.
But getting back to the issue..nowhere did I say Bill Clinton
himself
murdered anyone.
LOL!!!!!! Now you are running from this one! Your lying is so old
hat
no one even cares anymore. What did you mean by, "Why don't they
ask
about Bill Clinton's body count?"
I am not going to deny that post, but it wasn't put in the way you are
trying to spin it.
You said, "Why don't they ask about Bill Clinton's body count?
Yea and? Where are you questioning those who claim Bush murdered
thousands
of innocent civilians?
I'm one of the thousands, spud.
You are claiming Bush murdered you?
Are you on drugs?
Yes, I made that post and yes, those people's deaths are questionable.
No they aren't.
Yes they are/
No they aren't. It was SUICIDE.
Sorry but way too many unanswered questions on just his alone. And as you
can see with the list, there are DOZENS more.
None of which are "answered." But you keep pushing that idea. The
goose steppers may as well have one last hold out.
They were investigated. Foster, for example,
committed suicide.
Oh yea, the park rangers investigation...Great example!!!
LOL!!!!!! Not like you guards would do, eh?
Investigations by Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Independent Counsel
Kenneth Starr have concluded that Foster, deeply depressed, took his
own life. (Of course, we all know what big fans Robert Fiske and
Kenneth Starr are of Bill Cinton.)
Do you like it when I mash your face in the mud?
Still waiting for you to do it, you haven't yet.
Sure :-)
You Republicans just want to dig up more garbage
because the whole Monica thing didn't work out for you.
You are just that clueless.
Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr were
"clueless" too. But not the prison guard! He knows what happened!
You were just
trying to smear President Clinton the way you have me, Patrick, Adam,
James, Ray, and so many others. We expect as much.
But since you are talking about lies and trying to bring Al into
this...let's cover your lies first.
When you can apologize for the MANY lies you have told about me, then
and
only then can we discuss any issue.
Drop dead.
Where is that "mature" attitude you claim to have?
LOL! OK. Drop dead, please.
Let's start with your lies about my employment with the state.
You aren't employed by the state?
Shall we begin with the lies you have told?
Which ones are you prepared to show any evidence for?
Already done.
And yet you can't provide one single post to support it.
Do you like mud being thrown in your face?
LOL
Polly want a cracker?
Then we can go to your lies about my career in the Air Force.
Career?
Are you prepared to defend your lies or not? There will be no discussion
on
any issues until you can either
a) back up your statements you have made in the past or
b) openly acknowledge you made them up and apologize.
Then, maybe, we can consider starting a civil attempt to discuss the
issues.
You aren't able to do that. I gave you a chance - you blew it.
I am most certainly able to do that and defeat you on almost any issue as
well.
It has never happened and never will. That is why you lie so
desperately. That is why, for example, you now claim you never said
President Clinton murdered Foster and others.
But that will not happen until you can back up your statements or
apologize for lying.
I never lied/ <Yawn>
Which you are too much of a coward to do so BECAUSE you know that once I get
into an issue I can defeat you.
You are the one making excuses on how you need an apology first - not
me.
Are you going to deny that you can't provide anything to support your
lies?
Whatever you say - it is your fantasy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 10:00:50 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051954110322%spam@aol.com...
In article <vp-dnZLc564_aobfRVn-qg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051856423380%spam@aol.com...
In article <qcSdnc-t3o7lwIbfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050800262038%spam@aol.com...
In article <BJadnVUuudQWzYbfRVn-rw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050726340129%spam@aol.com...
In article <_c2dnc_jI6ucpIbfRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:srfl11hmodjjj8696alepsj70a5eboaka5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al
Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which
the
pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion."
Sure -
they
could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to
think
that
_The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President
Clinton
is
a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to
have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
Where in that post did I say Clinton killed those people? Those
people's
death's are questionable, which was the point of the posting.
Nowhere
did I
say Clinton himself murdered those people. He may have had
something
to
do
with their deaths, he may not have. Their deaths are
questionable
and
all
have one thing in common. They were all closely related to
Clinton.
But getting back to the issue..nowhere did I say Bill Clinton
himself
murdered anyone.
LOL!!!!!! Now you are running from this one! Your lying is so
old
hat
no one even cares anymore. What did you mean by, "Why don't they
ask
about Bill Clinton's body count?"
I am not going to deny that post, but it wasn't put in the way you
are
trying to spin it.
You said, "Why don't they ask about Bill Clinton's body count?
Yea and? Where are you questioning those who claim Bush murdered
thousands
of innocent civilians?
I'm one of the thousands, spud.
You are claiming Bush murdered you?
Are you on drugs?
Yes, I made that post and yes, those people's deaths are
questionable.
No they aren't.
Yes they are/
No they aren't. It was SUICIDE.
Sorry but way too many unanswered questions on just his alone. And as you
can see with the list, there are DOZENS more.
None of which are "answered." But you keep pushing that idea. The
goose steppers may as well have one last hold out.
They were investigated. Foster, for example,
committed suicide.
Oh yea, the park rangers investigation...Great example!!!
LOL!!!!!! Not like you guards would do, eh?
Investigations by Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Independent Counsel
Kenneth Starr have concluded that Foster, deeply depressed, took his
own life. (Of course, we all know what big fans Robert Fiske and
Kenneth Starr are of Bill Cinton.)
Do you like it when I mash your face in the mud?
Still waiting for you to do it, you haven't yet.
Sure :-)
You Republicans just want to dig up more garbage
because the whole Monica thing didn't work out for you.
You are just that clueless.
Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr were
"clueless" too. But not the prison guard! He knows what happened!
You were just
trying to smear President Clinton the way you have me, Patrick,
Adam,
James, Ray, and so many others. We expect as much.
But since you are talking about lies and trying to bring Al into
this...let's cover your lies first.
When you can apologize for the MANY lies you have told about me,
then
and
only then can we discuss any issue.
Drop dead.
Where is that "mature" attitude you claim to have?
LOL! OK. Drop dead, please.
Let's start with your lies about my employment with the state.
You aren't employed by the state?
Shall we begin with the lies you have told?
Which ones are you prepared to show any evidence for?
Already done.
And yet you can't provide one single post to support it.
Do you like mud being thrown in your face?
LOL
Polly want a cracker?
Then we can go to your lies about my career in the Air Force.
Career?
Are you prepared to defend your lies or not? There will be no
discussion
on
any issues until you can either
a) back up your statements you have made in the past or
b) openly acknowledge you made them up and apologize.
Then, maybe, we can consider starting a civil attempt to discuss the
issues.
You aren't able to do that. I gave you a chance - you blew it.
I am most certainly able to do that and defeat you on almost any issue as
well.
It has never happened and never will.
Own up to your lies and get it over with and bring it on.
That is why you lie so
desperately. That is why, for example, you now claim you never said
President Clinton murdered Foster and others.
I never did say that, and you nor anyone else can show one single quote I
ever made that says what you just claimed.
But that will not happen until you can back up your statements or
apologize for lying.
I never lied/ <Yawn>
Well, guess you will never have the opportunity to be defeated on an issue
because you will never own up to your lies. Oh, and still waiting on you to
take me to take legal action against me as you claimed you were going to do
almost 3 years ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 10:08:30 PM |
|
|
In article <7L2dnc-hz59KYobfRVn-jg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051954110322%spam@aol.com...
In article <vp-dnZLc564_aobfRVn-qg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051856423380%spam@aol.com...
In article <qcSdnc-t3o7lwIbfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050800262038%spam@aol.com...
In article <BJadnVUuudQWzYbfRVn-rw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220050726340129%spam@aol.com...
In article <_c2dnc_jI6ucpIbfRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:srfl11hmodjjj8696alepsj70a5eboaka5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al
Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which
the
pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion."
Sure -
they
could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to
think
that
_The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President
Clinton
is
a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to
have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
Where in that post did I say Clinton killed those people? Those
people's
death's are questionable, which was the point of the posting.
Nowhere
did I
say Clinton himself murdered those people. He may have had
something
to
do
with their deaths, he may not have. Their deaths are
questionable
and
all
have one thing in common. They were all closely related to
Clinton.
But getting back to the issue..nowhere did I say Bill Clinton
himself
murdered anyone.
LOL!!!!!! Now you are running from this one! Your lying is so
old
hat
no one even cares anymore. What did you mean by, "Why don't they
ask
about Bill Clinton's body count?"
I am not going to deny that post, but it wasn't put in the way you
are
trying to spin it.
You said, "Why don't they ask about Bill Clinton's body count?
Yea and? Where are you questioning those who claim Bush murdered
thousands
of innocent civilians?
I'm one of the thousands, spud.
You are claiming Bush murdered you?
Are you on drugs?
Yes, I made that post and yes, those people's deaths are
questionable.
No they aren't.
Yes they are/
No they aren't. It was SUICIDE.
Sorry but way too many unanswered questions on just his alone. And as you
can see with the list, there are DOZENS more.
None of which are "answered." But you keep pushing that idea. The
goose steppers may as well have one last hold out.
They were investigated. Foster, for example,
committed suicide.
Oh yea, the park rangers investigation...Great example!!!
LOL!!!!!! Not like you guards would do, eh?
Investigations by Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Independent Counsel
Kenneth Starr have concluded that Foster, deeply depressed, took his
own life. (Of course, we all know what big fans Robert Fiske and
Kenneth Starr are of Bill Cinton.)
Do you like it when I mash your face in the mud?
Still waiting for you to do it, you haven't yet.
Sure :-)
You Republicans just want to dig up more garbage
because the whole Monica thing didn't work out for you.
You are just that clueless.
Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr were
"clueless" too. But not the prison guard! He knows what happened!
You were just
trying to smear President Clinton the way you have me, Patrick,
Adam,
James, Ray, and so many others. We expect as much.
But since you are talking about lies and trying to bring Al into
this...let's cover your lies first.
When you can apologize for the MANY lies you have told about me,
then
and
only then can we discuss any issue.
Drop dead.
Where is that "mature" attitude you claim to have?
LOL! OK. Drop dead, please.
Let's start with your lies about my employment with the state.
You aren't employed by the state?
Shall we begin with the lies you have told?
Which ones are you prepared to show any evidence for?
Already done.
And yet you can't pro | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
