Science > Abortion > Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
18 Jun 2007 09:42:56 PM |
| Object: |
Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the four
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
The bishops made their statement shortly after the General Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as the Legislature is formally
called, voted 151-45 to reject a proposed constitutional amendment
defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
At least one-fourth - or 50 - of the legislators had to affirm the
proposed amendment for it to be placed before voters on the 2008
ballot. But only 45 legislators voted in favor, 17 fewer than the 62
who had supported it on Jan. 2, 2007, the final day of the 2005-06
session of the Legislature.
"Today, the common good has been sacrificed by the extreme
individualism that subordinates what is best for children, families
and society," said Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston and Bishops
George W. Coleman of Fall River, Timothy A. McDonnell of Springfield
and Robert J. McManus of Worcester.
The bishops noted that more than 170,000 Massachusetts citizens had
signed petitions urging that the matter be placed on the ballot.
"Our state laws provide for the process whereby the citizens have a
right to vote on a constitutional amendment," they said. "However, the
leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to allow citizens and
elected officials to vote their conscience on social issues."
The Legislature's vote, which took place with no debate or discussion,
reaffirmed a 2003 decision of the Supreme Judicial Court that said
same-sex couples cannot be denied a right to marry. More than 9,000
same-sex couples have married since then in Massachusetts, the only
U.S. state to permit the practice.
The bishops said the "unprecedented amount of pressure that was put on
elected officials" by opponents of the amendment showed that they felt
same-sex marriage would be banned in a popular vote.
"The pressure tactics were engineered to ensure that the will of the
people would not prevail," they said.
They urged opponents of the amendment to ask themselves: "Do we live
in a country where people are free to vote their conscience or are we
controlled by what is viewed as politically correct and by powerful
special-interest groups?"
The June 14 vote virtually guaranteed that the issue of same-sex
marriage could not be brought to the voters before November 2012,
because of the complicated procedures required for popular initiatives
in Massachusetts.
Members of both the House and Senate must meet together as a
constitutional convention to consider amendments, and at least one-
quarter of legislators must support the amendment in two consecutive
constitutional conventions.
The Massachusetts bishops say they hoped that "perhaps in the future
legislators will have the courage to let the people vote on an issue
so important to the future of families."
But Gov. Deval Patrick said after the vote, "Today in Massachusetts,
the freedom to marry is secure."
According to a report in The Boston Globe, Senate President Therese
Murray, who supports same-sex marriage, said she would push for
passage of a bill sponsored by Republican Rep. Paul J. Loscocco that
would guarantee the right of religious institutions to refuse to
recognize same-sex marriages.
.
|
|
| User: "RamRod Sword of Baal" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
19 Jun 2007 10:03:31 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182220976.955110.268620@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the four
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
That is rich, when the Catholic church keeps meddling in politics, it seems
this time they were told to take a running jump at themselves, and rightly
so too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
19 Jun 2007 05:27:58 AM |
|
|
In News 1182220976.955110.268620@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,, J Young at
youngopinions@aol.com, typed this:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the four
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Did they pause from fucking their altar boys long enough to issue that
statement, or did they just play through? Your problem here is that A.
Civil Rights are not supposed to be left to the "will of the people". B. >
50% of the voting population of Massachusetts supports same sex marriage in
every poll taken to date, and C. Since we live in a representational
democracy, a vote of the Massachusetts Legislature is an expression of the
will of the people.
Get over it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, pedophile bishops say |
19 Jun 2007 12:09:15 AM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens
No it doesn't, nazi turd. It reaffirms the will of the people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishopssay |
18 Jun 2007 09:55:39 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the four
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Yeah....it's becoming more and more obvious that the
'will of the people' is to allow people to marry the
consenting adult of their choice, rather than needing
the government to check inside their pants first.
The bishops made their statement shortly after the General Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as the Legislature is formally
called, voted 151-45 to reject a proposed constitutional amendment
defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
At least one-fourth - or 50 - of the legislators had to affirm the
proposed amendment for it to be placed before voters on the 2008
ballot. But only 45 legislators voted in favor, 17 fewer than the 62
who had supported it on Jan. 2, 2007, the final day of the 2005-06
session of the Legislature.
"Today, the common good has been sacrificed by the extreme
individualism that subordinates what is best for children, families
and society," said Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston and Bishops
George W. Coleman of Fall River, Timothy A. McDonnell of Springfield
and Robert J. McManus of Worcester.
The bishops noted that more than 170,000 Massachusetts citizens had
signed petitions urging that the matter be placed on the ballot.
"Our state laws provide for the process whereby the citizens have a
right to vote on a constitutional amendment," they said. "However, the
leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to allow citizens and
elected officials to vote their conscience on social issues."
The Legislature's vote, which took place with no debate or discussion,
reaffirmed a 2003 decision of the Supreme Judicial Court that said
same-sex couples cannot be denied a right to marry. More than 9,000
same-sex couples have married since then in Massachusetts, the only
U.S. state to permit the practice.
The bishops said the "unprecedented amount of pressure that was put on
elected officials" by opponents of the amendment showed that they felt
same-sex marriage would be banned in a popular vote.
"The pressure tactics were engineered to ensure that the will of the
people would not prevail," they said.
They urged opponents of the amendment to ask themselves: "Do we live
in a country where people are free to vote their conscience or are we
controlled by what is viewed as politically correct and by powerful
special-interest groups?"
The June 14 vote virtually guaranteed that the issue of same-sex
marriage could not be brought to the voters before November 2012,
because of the complicated procedures required for popular initiatives
in Massachusetts.
Members of both the House and Senate must meet together as a
constitutional convention to consider amendments, and at least one-
quarter of legislators must support the amendment in two consecutive
constitutional conventions.
The Massachusetts bishops say they hoped that "perhaps in the future
legislators will have the courage to let the people vote on an issue
so important to the future of families."
But Gov. Deval Patrick said after the vote, "Today in Massachusetts,
the freedom to marry is secure."
According to a report in The Boston Globe, Senate President Therese
Murray, who supports same-sex marriage, said she would push for
passage of a bill sponsored by Republican Rep. Paul J. Loscocco that
would guarantee the right of religious institutions to refuse to
recognize same-sex marriages.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
18 Jun 2007 10:47:57 PM |
|
|
Notice:
I am posting this one message to the groups listed.
Any failure to allow this message to be posted to all of those groups will
be considered an act of treason.
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:I82dnXlQTOYz2OrbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com...
J Young wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the four
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Yeah....it's becoming more and more obvious that the 'will of the people'
is to allow people to marry the consenting adult of their choice, rather
than needing the government to check inside their pants first.
That isn't an accurate statement.
The people of South Carolina voted 80 percent against same-sex marriages.
And, you are *REQUIRED* to honor that because of the Xth Amendment and
because of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina.
The Constitutions, both state and federal, do not allow disrespecting the
will of the people of South Carolina in this matter.
"Our state laws provide for the process whereby the citizens have a
right to vote on a constitutional amendment," they said. "However, the
leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to allow citizens and
elected officials to vote their conscience on social issues."
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
19 Jun 2007 12:23:01 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:I82dnXlQTOYz2OrbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com...
J Young wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the four
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Yeah....it's becoming more and more obvious that the 'will of the people'
is to allow people to marry the consenting adult of their choice, rather
than needing the government to check inside their pants first.
That isn't an accurate statement.
The people of South Carolina voted 80 percent against same-sex marriages.
That's definitely not an accurate statement - since 80 percent of the
qualified voters who decided to bother to vote on that measure is not 80
percent of the people of South Carolina.
And, you are *REQUIRED* to honor that because of the Xth Amendment and
because of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina.
The Constitutions, both state and federal, do not allow disrespecting the
will of the people of South Carolina in this matter.
The Constitution allows ignoring the will of one screeching chimp in Anderson
County who has delusions of authority over anything.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
19 Jun 2007 10:48:30 AM |
|
|
Notice:
I am posting this one message to the groups listed.
Any failure to allow this message to be posted to all of those groups will
be considered an act of treason.
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7ig4ix6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:I82dnXlQTOYz2OrbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com...
J Young wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the four
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Yeah....it's becoming more and more obvious that the 'will of the
people'
is to allow people to marry the consenting adult of their choice, rather
than needing the government to check inside their pants first.
That isn't an accurate statement.
The people of South Carolina voted 80 percent against same-sex marriages.
That's definitely not an accurate statement - since 80 percent of the
qualified voters who decided to bother to vote on that measure is not 80
percent of the people of South Carolina.
80 percent of the vote tally is all that matters in Constitutional law in
this matter.
You have nothing with legal authority to support your rebellion with.
And, you are *REQUIRED* to honor that because of the Xth Amendment and
because of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina.
The Constitutions, both state and federal, do not allow disrespecting the
will of the people of South Carolina in this matter.
The Constitution allows ignoring the will of one screeching chimp in
Anderson
County who has delusions of authority over anything.
EIGHTY PERCENT, you screaming rebellious anti-constitution treason
proponent.
The Constitution is the Sovereign and your treason against it is very
noticeable.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
19 Jun 2007 11:05:49 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Notice:
Anyone can laugh at John D. Wentzky's delusions of sanity.
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7ig4ix6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:I82dnXlQTOYz2OrbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com...
J Young wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the four
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Yeah....it's becoming more and more obvious that the 'will of the people'
is to allow people to marry the consenting adult of their choice, rather
than needing the government to check inside their pants first.
That isn't an accurate statement.
The people of South Carolina voted 80 percent against same-sex marriages.
That's definitely not an accurate statement - since 80 percent of the
qualified voters who decided to bother to vote on that measure is not 80
percent of the people of South Carolina.
80 percent of the vote tally is all that matters in Constitutional law in
this matter. You have nothing with legal authority to support your rebellion
with.
You have no rebellion to deal with, because you don't decide anything for
anyone else.
And, you are *REQUIRED* to honor that because of the Xth Amendment and
because of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina.
The Constitutions, both state and federal, do not allow disrespecting the
will of the people of South Carolina in this matter.
The Constitution allows ignoring the will of one screeching chimp in
Anderson County who has delusions of authority over anything.
EIGHTY PERCENT, you screaming rebellious anti-constitution treason
proponent.
The Constitution is the Sovereign and your treason against it is very
noticeable.
So shut up and get to work on charging me with an actual crime. (Free clue:
"the people of South Carolina" includes everyone. Those who are qualified to
be part of the electorate aren't all the people of the state. I'm not
surprised you can't even grasp that elementary concept.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
19 Jun 2007 11:44:26 AM |
|
|
Notice:
I am posting this one message to the groups listed.
Any failure to allow this message to be posted to all of those groups will
be considered an act of treason.
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk645kaq02.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Notice:
Anyone can laugh at John D. Wentzky's delusions of sanity.
Anyone can laugh at the laughingstock self-described "instigator" schmuck
who calls himself Patrick L Humphrey.
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7ig4ix6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:I82dnXlQTOYz2OrbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com...
J Young wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the
four
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Yeah....it's becoming more and more obvious that the 'will of the
people'
is to allow people to marry the consenting adult of their choice,
rather
than needing the government to check inside their pants first.
That isn't an accurate statement.
The people of South Carolina voted 80 percent against same-sex
marriages.
That's definitely not an accurate statement - since 80 percent of the
qualified voters who decided to bother to vote on that measure is not 80
percent of the people of South Carolina.
80 percent of the vote tally is all that matters in Constitutional law in
this matter. You have nothing with legal authority to support your
rebellion
with.
You have no rebellion to deal with, because you don't decide anything for
anyone else.
The law itself determines that you are rebelling against the Constitution
which means you are a traitor to the Sovereign will of the nation which
makes you party to treason.
And, you are *REQUIRED* to honor that because of the Xth Amendment and
because of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina.
The Constitutions, both state and federal, do not allow disrespecting
the
will of the people of South Carolina in this matter.
The Constitution allows ignoring the will of one screeching chimp in
Anderson County who has delusions of authority over anything.
EIGHTY PERCENT, you screaming rebellious anti-constitution treason
proponent.
The Constitution is the Sovereign and your treason against it is very
noticeable.
So shut up and get to work on charging me with an actual crime.
Me?
Now you think I am in the FBI or CIA or other branch of the government?
(Free clue: "the people of South Carolina" includes everyone.
The Constitutional mandates tell you that 80 percent is as good as
acclamation.
Why do you insist on rebelling against such overwhelming authority?
Those who are qualified to be part of the electorate aren't all the people
of the state.
Since when did you think that residency requirements aren't written in law,
you outsider?
Get your illegitimate texas via kentucky ***** outa SC politics.
The people of SC hate you interferring with their activities.
I'm not surprised you can't even grasp that elementary concept.)
What you fail to grasp is that you are an outside agency, a disqualfied
party to any matters that involve SC politics.
You have absolutely no legal standing or authority whatsoever in SC affairs.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
19 Jun 2007 12:15:06 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk645kaq02.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Notice:
Anyone can laugh at John D. Wentzky's delusions of sanity.
Anyone can laugh at the laughingstock self-described "instigator" schmuck
who calls himself Patrick L Humphrey.
*yawn* Thank whoever told you that...I've known it since I first got online,
nearly a quarter-century ago. (That *is* my legal name, like it or not.
Don't like it? Argue with the Commonwealth of Kentucky.)
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7ig4ix6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:I82dnXlQTOYz2OrbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com...
J Young wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the four
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Yeah....it's becoming more and more obvious that the 'will of the
people' is to allow people to marry the consenting adult of their
choice, rather than needing the government to check inside their pants
first.
That isn't an accurate statement. The people of South Carolina voted 80
percent against same-sex marriages.
That's definitely not an accurate statement - since 80 percent of the
qualified voters who decided to bother to vote on that measure is not 80
percent of the people of South Carolina.
80 percent of the vote tally is all that matters in Constitutional law in
this matter. You have nothing with legal authority to support your
rebellion with.
You have no rebellion to deal with, because you don't decide anything for
anyone else.
The law itself determines that you are rebelling against the Constitution
which means you are a traitor to the Sovereign will of the nation which
makes you party to treason.
You will never be regarded as a legal expert by normal people.
And, you are *REQUIRED* to honor that because of the Xth Amendment and
because of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina. The
Constitutions, both state and federal, do not allow disrespecting the
will of the people of South Carolina in this matter.
The Constitution allows ignoring the will of one screeching chimp in
Anderson County who has delusions of authority over anything.
EIGHTY PERCENT, you screaming rebellious anti-constitution treason
proponent. The Constitution is the Sovereign and your treason against it
is very noticeable.
So shut up and get to work on charging me with an actual crime.
Me? Now you think I am in the FBI or CIA or other branch of the government?
You're the one proclaiming I'm a criminal...get off your fat ***** and press
charges against me.
(Free clue: "the people of South Carolina" includes everyone.
The Constitutional mandates tell you that 80 percent is as good as
acclamation. Why do you insist on rebelling against such overwhelming
authority?
I have no argument with the state, just one psychotic "citizen" who abuses it
as his residence.
Those who are qualified to be part of the electorate aren't all the people
of the state.
Since when did you think that residency requirements aren't written in law,
you outsider?
Never, unlike you. (You're definitely not part of the electorate in Texas,
for which I'm duly thankful.)
Get your illegitimate texas via kentucky ***** outa SC politics.
Since I haven't gotten into them yet, I can ignore your latest demand in
impunity.
The people of SC hate you interferring with their activities.
Correction: one whackjob named John D. Wentzky.
I'm not surprised you can't even grasp that elementary concept.)
What you fail to grasp is that you are an outside agency, a disqualfied
party to any matters that involve SC politics.
....which I haven't interfered in in the least, despite your fantasy.
You have absolutely no legal standing or authority whatsoever in SC affairs.
That means I won't have to appear at your trial.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
19 Jun 2007 09:22:52 PM |
|
|
Notice:
I am posting this one message to the groups listed.
Any failure to allow this message to be posted to all of those groups will
be considered an act of treason.
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szktzt39885.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk645kaq02.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Notice:
Anyone can laugh at John D. Wentzky's delusions of sanity.
Anyone can laugh at the laughingstock self-described "instigator" schmuck
who calls himself Patrick L Humphrey.
*yawn* Thank whoever told you that...I've known it since I first got
online,
nearly a quarter-century ago. (That *is* my legal name, like it or not.
Don't like it? Argue with the Commonwealth of Kentucky.)
Argue?
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7ig4ix6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:I82dnXlQTOYz2OrbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com...
J Young wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote
to
reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the
four
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Yeah....it's becoming more and more obvious that the 'will of the
people' is to allow people to marry the consenting adult of their
choice, rather than needing the government to check inside their
pants
first.
That isn't an accurate statement. The people of South Carolina voted
80
percent against same-sex marriages.
That's definitely not an accurate statement - since 80 percent of the
qualified voters who decided to bother to vote on that measure is not
80
percent of the people of South Carolina.
80 percent of the vote tally is all that matters in Constitutional law
in
this matter. You have nothing with legal authority to support your
rebellion with.
You have no rebellion to deal with, because you don't decide anything
for
anyone else.
The law itself determines that you are rebelling against the Constitution
which means you are a traitor to the Sovereign will of the nation which
makes you party to treason.
You will never be regarded as a legal expert by normal people.
Normal people to you are those who attribute titles such as "Chief
Instigator" to themeselves, huh?
And, you are *REQUIRED* to honor that because of the Xth Amendment and
because of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina. The
Constitutions, both state and federal, do not allow disrespecting the
will of the people of South Carolina in this matter.
The Constitution allows ignoring the will of one screeching chimp in
Anderson County who has delusions of authority over anything.
EIGHTY PERCENT, you screaming rebellious anti-constitution treason
proponent. The Constitution is the Sovereign and your treason against
it
is very noticeable.
So shut up and get to work on charging me with an actual crime.
Me? Now you think I am in the FBI or CIA or other branch of the
government?
You're the one proclaiming I'm a criminal...get off your fat ***** and press
charges against me.
Because you say so?
(Free clue: "the people of South Carolina" includes everyone.
The Constitutional mandates tell you that 80 percent is as good as
acclamation. Why do you insist on rebelling against such overwhelming
authority?
I have no argument with the state, just one psychotic "citizen" who abuses
it
as his residence.
Your argument is repudiated by 80 percent of the voters of South Carolina.
LOL!
All they need to know is that you are trying to start another Civil War in
the USA.
Too bad against you that your "the usa will fall from within" agenda is not
based on diplomacy.
Those who are qualified to be part of the electorate aren't all the
people
of the state.
Since when did you think that residency requirements aren't written in
law,
you outsider?
Never, unlike you. (You're definitely not part of the electorate in
Texas,
for which I'm duly thankful.)
Because you think I would trounce your propagandist agenda in Texas?
Get your illegitimate texas via kentucky ***** outa SC politics.
Since I haven't gotten into them yet,
A lie, you out of your jurisdiction intruder.
I can ignore your latest demand in
impunity.
Your impunity is damned to hell, you traitorous liar.
The people of SC hate you interferring with their activities.
Correction: one whackjob named John D. Wentzky.
One United States Citizen who trounces your criminal propagandist
intimidation persona into the mire of antiquiity.
LOL!
You are a peon unintellectual charlatan to me.
Chew om those words and swallow them.
You will NEVER be able to coerce me into allegiance to your criminal will.
I'm not surprised you can't even grasp that elementary concept.)
What you fail to grasp is that you are an outside agency, a disqualfied
party to any matters that involve SC politics.
...which I haven't interfered in in the least, despite your fantasy.
Contradiction in your proclamation there secrecy loon.
I enjoy trouncing your falsehood lying ***** in these newsgroups.
You have absolutely no legal standing or authority whatsoever in SC
affairs.
That means I won't have to appear at your trial.
It means that your communications yo SC authorities are automatically
rendered moot by SC and US law.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
19 Jun 2007 10:42:23 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
[standard Wentzky boilerplate deleted in complete impunity]
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szktzt39885.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk645kaq02.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Notice:
Anyone can laugh at John D. Wentzky's delusions of sanity.
Anyone can laugh at the laughingstock self-described "instigator" schmuck
who calls himself Patrick L Humphrey.
*yawn* Thank whoever told you that...I've known it since I first got
online, nearly a quarter-century ago. (That *is* my legal name, like it or
not. Don't like it? Argue with the Commonwealth of Kentucky.)
Argue?
You're trying to insinuate that that isn't my real name. I just pointed out
that the Commonwealth's records disagree with your delusion. (You know, like
a birth certificate?)
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7ig4ix6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:I82dnXlQTOYz2OrbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com...
J Young wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote
to reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the
four Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Yeah....it's becoming more and more obvious that the 'will of the
people' is to allow people to marry the consenting adult of their
choice, rather than needing the government to check inside their
pants first.
That isn't an accurate statement. The people of South Carolina voted
80 percent against same-sex marriages.
That's definitely not an accurate statement - since 80 percent of the
qualified voters who decided to bother to vote on that measure is not
80 percent of the people of South Carolina.
80 percent of the vote tally is all that matters in Constitutional law in
this matter. You have nothing with legal authority to support your
rebellion with.
You have no rebellion to deal with, because you don't decide anything for
anyone else.
The law itself determines that you are rebelling against the Constitution
which means you are a traitor to the Sovereign will of the nation which
makes you party to treason.
You will never be regarded as a legal expert by normal people.
Normal people to you are those who attribute titles such as "Chief
Instigator" to themeselves, huh?
Normal people are those who are sane, unlike you. (You chose to be insane, so
you get to deal with the consequences of your choice.)
And, you are *REQUIRED* to honor that because of the Xth Amendment and
because of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina. The
Constitutions, both state and federal, do not allow disrespecting the
will of the people of South Carolina in this matter.
The Constitution allows ignoring the will of one screeching chimp in
Anderson County who has delusions of authority over anything.
EIGHTY PERCENT, you screaming rebellious anti-constitution treason
proponent. The Constitution is the Sovereign and your treason against it
is very noticeable.
So shut up and get to work on charging me with an actual crime.
Me? Now you think I am in the FBI or CIA or other branch of the
government?
You're the one proclaiming I'm a criminal...get off your fat ***** and press
charges against me.
Because you say so?
You're the yammering circus freak who bellows about what the law says - so if
you're going to impersonate a lawyer or a judge, you might as well go all the
way.
(Free clue: "the people of South Carolina" includes everyone.
The Constitutional mandates tell you that 80 percent is as good as
acclamation. Why do you insist on rebelling against such overwhelming
authority?
I have no argument with the state, just one psychotic "citizen" who abuses
it as his residence.
Your argument is repudiated by 80 percent of the voters of South Carolina.
LOL!
I can ignore their vote quite easily.
All they need to know is that you are trying to start another Civil War in
the USA.
It would help if you'd provide conclusive proof of that assertion.
(Unfortunately, that conclusive proof doesn't exist. That seems to be a habit
with you.)
Too bad against you that your "the usa will fall from within" agenda is not
based on diplomacy.
Too bad that I can laugh at you whenever I choose to, and know that you are in
no way an authority on anything legal (though you may well get a harsh lesson
in that once your trial starts).
Those who are qualified to be part of the electorate aren't all the
people of the state.
Since when did you think that residency requirements aren't written in law,
you outsider?
Never, unlike you. (You're definitely not part of the electorate in Texas,
for which I'm duly thankful.)
Because you think I would trounce your propagandist agenda in Texas?
Because I wouldn't appreciate this state having to foot the bill for having to
lock you up in the state hospital at Rusk.
Get your illegitimate texas via kentucky ***** outa SC politics.
Since I haven't gotten into them yet,
A lie, you out of your jurisdiction intruder.
I haven't interfered in the least with South Carolina politics - because (1)
I'm not a politician, and (2) I am not introducing testimony that will be
presented in your trial, or any other case pending in South Carolina courts.
I can ignore your latest demand in impunity.
Your impunity is damned to hell, you traitorous liar.
Damn me all you want, as it will have precisely zero effect on anyone -
including me.
The people of SC hate you interferring with their activities.
Correction: one whackjob named John D. Wentzky.
One United States Citizen who trounces your criminal propagandist
intimidation persona into the mire of antiquiity.
You're a citizen who's quite likely going to be imprisoned, or hospitalized in
a state facility for the long term.
LOL!
You are a peon unintellectual charlatan to me.
Chew om those words and swallow them.
You will NEVER be able to coerce me into allegiance to your criminal will.
Why would you swear allegiance to a figment of _your_ imagination?
I'm not surprised you can't even grasp that elementary concept.)
What you fail to grasp is that you are an outside agency, a disqualfied
party to any matters that involve SC politics.
...which I haven't interfered in in the least, despite your fantasy.
Contradiction in your proclamation there secrecy loon.
I enjoy trouncing your falsehood lying ***** in these newsgroups.
Idiot. I've told you what I communicated to the 10th Circuit Solicitor.
(She's free to ignore my observations, if she so chooses.)
You have absolutely no legal standing or authority whatsoever in SC
affairs.
That means I won't have to appear at your trial.
It means that your communications yo SC authorities are automatically
rendered moot by SC and US law.
Sorry, but you still don't decide that. You'd need to contact Solicitor Adams
and convince her of your delusion du jour. (Let's just say it's even less
likely than a blizzard in June in South Carolina.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
20 Jun 2007 08:07:25 AM |
|
|
Notice:
I am posting this one message to the groups listed.
Any failure to allow this message to be posted to all of those groups will
be considered an act of treason.
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szksl8ni95s.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
[standard Wentzky boilerplate deleted in complete impunity]
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szktzt39885.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk645kaq02.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Notice:
Anyone can laugh at John D. Wentzky's delusions of sanity.
Anyone can laugh at the laughingstock self-described "instigator"
schmuck
who calls himself Patrick L Humphrey.
*yawn* Thank whoever told you that...I've known it since I first got
online, nearly a quarter-century ago. (That *is* my legal name, like it
or
not. Don't like it? Argue with the Commonwealth of Kentucky.)
Argue?
You're trying to insinuate that that isn't my real name.
Does that cause you paranoia?
I just pointed out that the Commonwealth's records disagree with your
delusion. (You know, like
a birth certificate?)
Hmm.
You mean a piece of paper is absolute proof?
I'm not saying it isn't your real name.
I'm just not crazy enough to ignore the fact that sometimes people acquire a
new identity for whatever purpose at times.
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7ig4ix6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:I82dnXlQTOYz2OrbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com...
J Young wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14
vote
to reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens
and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the
four Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Yeah....it's becoming more and more obvious that the 'will of the
people' is to allow people to marry the consenting adult of their
choice, rather than needing the government to check inside their
pants first.
That isn't an accurate statement. The people of South Carolina
voted
80 percent against same-sex marriages.
That's definitely not an accurate statement - since 80 percent of
the
qualified voters who decided to bother to vote on that measure is
not
80 percent of the people of South Carolina.
80 percent of the vote tally is all that matters in Constitutional law
in
this matter. You have nothing with legal authority to support your
rebellion with.
You have no rebellion to deal with, because you don't decide anything
for
anyone else.
The law itself determines that you are rebelling against the
Constitution
which means you are a traitor to the Sovereign will of the nation which
makes you party to treason.
You will never be regarded as a legal expert by normal people.
Normal people to you are those who attribute titles such as "Chief
Instigator" to themeselves, huh?
Normal people are those who are sane, unlike you.
Still trying to act as if everyone who isn't swayed by your comments has to
be insane?
(You chose to be insane,
Your psychology text tells you that people choose insanity?
Wouldn't it be more a 'legal' text that uses insanity as a defense in some
cases?
so you get to deal with the consequences of your choice.)
What consequences?
Most people don't assert that persons who are not pro-choice are insane.
And, you are *REQUIRED* to honor that because of the Xth Amendment
and
because of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina. The
Constitutions, both state and federal, do not allow disrespecting
the
will of the people of South Carolina in this matter.
The Constitution allows ignoring the will of one screeching chimp in
Anderson County who has delusions of authority over anything.
EIGHTY PERCENT, you screaming rebellious anti-constitution treason
proponent. The Constitution is the Sovereign and your treason against
it
is very noticeable.
So shut up and get to work on charging me with an actual crime.
Me? Now you think I am in the FBI or CIA or other branch of the
government?
You're the one proclaiming I'm a criminal...get off your fat ***** and
press
charges against me.
Because you say so?
You're the yammering circus freak who bellows about what the law says - so
if
you're going to impersonate a lawyer or a judge, you might as well go all
the
way.
What charge do you think must be filed on you?
(Free clue: "the people of South Carolina" includes everyone.
The Constitutional mandates tell you that 80 percent is as good as
acclamation. Why do you insist on rebelling against such overwhelming
authority?
I have no argument with the state, just one psychotic "citizen" who
abuses
it as his residence.
Your argument is repudiated by 80 percent of the voters of South
Carolina.
LOL!
I can ignore their vote quite easily.
The SC legislature doesn't have that luxury.
All they need to know is that you are trying to start another Civil War in
the USA.
It would help if you'd provide conclusive proof of that assertion.
Would you be willing to drop your 'make the USA fall' agenda if the missiles
in Germany were removed from US control?
Why does the USA need to spend its peoples' money to defend Europe so long
after WWII?
(Unfortunately, that conclusive proof doesn't exist. That seems to be a
habit
with you.)
There are matters bigger than wasting time on providing 'conclusive' proof
of anti-USA activities.
All we need to do is talk to Putin and the Germans to see how they feel
about demilitarization in Germany.
The DoD guys don't have much of a say if they want to sustain the cold war.
People pay taxes not only for warheads, you know?
Too bad against you that your "the usa will fall from within" agenda is
not
based on diplomacy.
Too bad that I can laugh at you whenever I choose to, and know that you
are in
no way an authority on anything legal (though you may well get a harsh
lesson
in that once your trial starts).
But, if you think the USA wants the USSR mad at us so long after the Bay of
Pigs Invasion, I guess it goes with your "Instigator' persona.
Those who are qualified to be part of the electorate aren't all the
people of the state.
Since when did you think that residency requirements aren't written in
law,
you outsider?
Never, unlike you. (You're definitely not part of the electorate in
Texas,
for which I'm duly thankful.)
Because you think I would trounce your propagandist agenda in Texas?
Because I wouldn't appreciate this state having to foot the bill for
having to
lock you up in the state hospital at Rusk.
Which means you are contradicting yourself by thinking the people of SC need
to foot a bill to deprive me of liberty.
Why are you so unequivocal in that?
Get your illegitimate texas via kentucky ***** outa SC politics.
Since I haven't gotten into them yet,
A lie, you out of your jurisdiction intruder.
I haven't interfered in the least with South Carolina politics - because
(1)
I'm not a politician, and (2) I am not introducing testimony that will be
presented in your trial, or any other case pending in South Carolina
courts.
Meaning you stopped trying to misinfluence the SC courts with regard to my
liberty because you no longer think the USSR is concerned about the missiles
in Germany?
I can ignore your latest demand in impunity.
Your impunity is damned to hell, you traitorous liar.
Damn me all you want, as it will have precisely zero effect on anyone -
including me.
Your stated impunity isn't something that I regard as supportable.
The people of SC hate you interferring with their activities.
Correction: one whackjob named John D. Wentzky.
One United States Citizen who trounces your criminal propagandist
intimidation persona into the mire of antiquiity.
You're a citizen who's quite likely going to be imprisoned,
You wish, huh?
Next time you want missles in Germany or to propagandize the USA because of
their presence, think about footing the bills yourself.
You subterfuge freaks sure do like to think the people of the USA are
idiots.
or hospitalized in
a state facility for the long term.
You mean you aren't for nuclear disarmament?
LOL!
You are a peon unintellectual charlatan to me.
Chew on those words and swallow them.
You will NEVER be able to coerce me into allegiance to your criminal will.
Why would you swear allegiance to a figment of _your_ imagination?
So, what is your main agenda then?
People probably can tell that I am not for increasing tensions between super
powers.
The EU is a big one now.
Can't they defend themselves without the people of the USA holding their
hands all day long now?
I'm not surprised you can't even grasp that elementary concept.)
What you fail to grasp is that you are an outside agency, a disqualfied
party to any matters that involve SC politics.
...which I haven't interfered in in the least, despite your fantasy.
Contradiction in your proclamation there secrecy loon.
I enjoy trouncing your falsehood lying ***** in these newsgroups.
Idiot. I've told you what I communicated to the 10th Circuit Solicitor.
(She's free to ignore my observations, if she so chooses.)
She can.
She also has the right to see what a paranoid anti-liberty loon such as
yourself is doing meddling with her stated job duties.
She really isn't authorized to defend state control freaks who commit crimes
against the people with the peoples' money.
You have absolutely no legal standing or authority whatsoever in SC
affairs.
That means I won't have to appear at your trial.
It means that your communications to SC authorities are automatically
rendered moot by SC and US law.
Sorry, but you still don't decide that.
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah", the little propagandist anti-liberty loon says.
How about reading some more of the laws that tell you you are relying on a
vain imagination there.
You'd need to contact Solicitor Adams
and convince her of your delusion du jour.
I didn't see her email address online anywhere.
I did contact them a long time ago for the video evidence.
But, someone on the phone acted like a paranoid state control freak with
crimes to hide who said I had been 'red flagged'.
LOL!
What a joke.
Since when is the judiciary supposed to be using some military lingo against
people of the USA who government employees committed multiple felonies
against?
It isn't my fault they committed treasonous acts against me to the point
that they can be determined to be acts of war againt the Sovereign will of
the Constitution of the United States of America.
Your 'deepthroat took down the president' treason game is kaput.
The Constitution itself destroys it.
The more you resist the foundation of the USA itself the more likely it is
that your propagandist agenda will be eliminated.
(Let's just say it's even less likely than a blizzard in June in South
Carolina.)
Why do you think it is always the responsibility of the people to conduct
the duties of the paid persons who are assigned those tasks?
If they want to be upright with regard to these matters they can contact me
personally in a peaceful manner without resorting to sending any armed
control forces to visit me.
Your reliance on strong-armed, anti-liberty tactics isn't a respectable,
diplomatic method.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
20 Jun 2007 09:16:13 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
[Wentzkyspam tossed in the trash, as always]
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szksl8ni95s.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szktzt39885.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk645kaq02.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Notice:
Anyone can laugh at John D. Wentzky's delusions of sanity.
Anyone can laugh at the laughingstock self-described "instigator" schmuck
who calls himself Patrick L Humphrey.
*yawn* Thank whoever told you that...I've known it since I first got
online, nearly a quarter-century ago. (That *is* my legal name, like it
or not. Don't like it? Argue with the Commonwealth of Kentucky.)
Argue?
You're trying to insinuate that that isn't my real name.
Does that cause you paranoia?
Obviously not, since I know better than you. Feel free to uncover any
evidence that I've ever represented myself as anyone but me. (Keep in mind
there are a number of people who also share my first and last names. One of
them is a teacher in Florida.)
I just pointed out that the Commonwealth's records disagree with your
delusion. (You know, like a birth certificate?)
Hmm.
You mean a piece of paper is absolute proof?
I'm not saying it isn't your real name.
I'm just not crazy enough to ignore the fact that sometimes people acquire a
new identity for whatever purpose at times.
Since I've never done that, you can find something else to be obsessed with.
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7ig4ix6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:I82dnXlQTOYz2OrbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com...
J Young wrote:
BOSTON, Mass. (CNS) - The Massachusetts Legislature's June 14 vote
to reaffirm same-sex marriage thwarts the will of the citizens and
undermines efforts to protect children, families and society, the
four Catholic bishops of Massachusetts said.
Yeah....it's becoming more and more obvious that the 'will of the
people' is to allow people to marry the consenting adult of their
choice, rather than needing the government to check inside their
pants first.
That isn't an accurate statement. The people of South Carolina voted
80 percent against same-sex marriages.
That's definitely not an accurate statement - since 80 percent of the
qualified voters who decided to bother to vote on that measure is not
80 percent of the people of South Carolina.
80 percent of the vote tally is all that matters in Constitutional law
in this matter. You have nothing with legal authority to support your
rebellion with.
You have no rebellion to deal with, because you don't decide anything
for anyone else.
The law itself determines that you are rebelling against the Constitution
which means you are a traitor to the Sovereign will of the nation which
makes you party to treason.
You will never be regarded as a legal expert by normal people.
Normal people to you are those who attribute titles such as "Chief
Instigator" to themeselves, huh?
Normal people are those who are sane, unlike you.
Still trying to act as if everyone who isn't swayed by your comments has to
be insane?
Since I don't act like that, your fantasy remains as it is.
(You chose to be insane, so you get to deal with the consequences of your
choice.)
What consequences? Most people don't assert that persons who are not
pro-choice are insane.
....and neither do I. You'd be better off if you refused to answer until such
time as you can actually read _and_ understand.
Your psychology text tells you that people choose insanity?
You're doing a good job of convincing readers that you did.
Wouldn't it be more a 'legal' text that uses insanity as a defense in some
cases?
Why should I care? You're the one who needs a defense of almost any kind,
given the predicament you've put yourself into.
And, you are *REQUIRED* to honor that because of the Xth Amendment
and because of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina. The
Constitutions, both state and federal, do not allow disrespecting the
will of the people of South Carolina in this matter.
The Constitution allows ignoring the will of one screeching chimp in
Anderson County who has delusions of authority over anything.
EIGHTY PERCENT, you screaming rebellious anti-constitution treason
proponent. The Constitution is the Sovereign and your treason against
it is very noticeable.
So shut up and get to work on charging me with an actual crime.
Me? Now you think I am in the FBI or CIA or other branch of the
government?
You're the one proclaiming I'm a criminal...get off your fat ***** and
press charges against me.
Because you say so?
You're the yammering circus freak who bellows about what the law says - so
if you're going to impersonate a lawyer or a judge, you might as well go
all the way.
What charge do you think must be filed on you?
How should I know? I don't live in South Carolina...remember?
(Free clue: "the people of South Carolina" includes everyone.
The Constitutional mandates tell you that 80 percent is as good as
acclamation. Why do you insist on rebelling against such overwhelming
authority?
I have no argument with the state, just one psychotic "citizen" who
abuses it as his residence.
Your argument is repudiated by 80 percent of the voters of South Carolina.
LOL!
I can ignore their vote quite easily.
The SC legislature doesn't have that luxury.
If they moved out of state, they would. ;-)
All they need to know is that you are trying to start another Civil War in
the USA.
It would help if you'd provide conclusive proof of that assertion.
Would you be willing to drop your 'make the USA fall' agenda if the missiles
in Germany were removed from US control?
You'd have to prove that I had such an agenda, for a start...and your
attention span is getting shorter than ever.
Why does the USA need to spend its peoples' money to defend Europe so long
after WWII?
Could you stay on one obsession for more than one statement?
(Unfortunately, that conclusive proof doesn't exist. That seems to be a
habit with you.)
There are matters bigger than wasting time on providing 'conclusive' proof
of anti-USA activities.
All we need to do is talk to Putin and the Germans to see how they feel
about demilitarization in Germany.
The DoD guys don't have much of a say if they want to sustain the cold war.
People pay taxes not only for warheads, you know?
People pay taxes to put certified psychotics like you into treatment.
Too bad against you that your "the usa will fall from within" agenda is not
based on diplomacy.
Too bad that I can laugh at you whenever I choose to, and know that you are
in no way an authority on anything legal (though you may well get a harsh
lesson in that once your trial starts).
But, if you think the USA wants the USSR mad at us so long after the Bay of
Pigs Invasion, I guess it goes with your "Instigator' persona.
Since I don't think that, and laugh at your delusions, I guess you're right
out of luck, as always.
Those who are qualified to be part of the electorate aren't all the
people of the state.
Since when did you think that residency requirements aren't written in
law, you outsider?
Never, unlike you. (You're definitely not part of the electorate in
Texas, for which I'm duly thankful.)
Because you think I would trounce your propagandist agenda in Texas?
Because I wouldn't appreciate this state having to foot the bill for having
to lock you up in the state hospital at Rusk.
Which means you are contradicting yourself by thinking the people of SC need
to foot a bill to deprive me of liberty.
More correctly, it means that you have no understanding of written English.
Why are you so unequivocal in that?
Because I stand my ground, and you don't have any say in my thought process.
Get your illegitimate texas via kentucky ***** outa SC politics.
Since I haven't gotten into them yet,
A lie, you out of your jurisdiction intruder.
I haven't interfered in the least with South Carolina politics - because
(1) I'm not a politician, and (2) I am not introducing testimony that will
be presented in your trial, or any other case pending in South Carolina
courts.
Meaning you stopped trying to misinfluence the SC courts with regard to my
liberty because you no longer think the USSR is concerned about the missiles
in Germany?
I can't stop what I never started.
I can ignore your latest demand in impunity.
Your impunity is damned to hell, you traitorous liar.
Damn me all you want, as it will have precisely zero effect on anyone -
including me.
Your stated impunity isn't something that I regard as supportable.
Ask me if I care about your delusion of the day.
The people of SC hate you interferring with their activities.
Correction: one whackjob named John D. Wentzky.
One United States Citizen who trounces your criminal propagandist
intimidation persona into the mire of antiquiity.
You're a citizen who's quite likely going to be imprisoned,
You wish, huh?
I won't lose any sleep if you are.
Next time you want missles in Germany or to propagandize the USA because of
their presence, think about footing the bills yourself.
You subterfuge freaks sure do like to think the people of the USA are
idiots.
You really need to be in a room with rubber walls, as your sanity has left the building.
or hospitalized in a state facility for the long term.
You mean you aren't for nuclear disarmament?
Get your fat ***** back to the Home, son.
LOL!
You are a peon unintellectual charlatan to me.
Chew on those words and swallow them.
You will NEVER be able to coerce me into allegiance to your criminal will.
Why would you swear allegiance to a figment of _your_ imagination?
So, what is your main agenda then? People probably can tell that I am not
for increasing tensions between super powers. The EU is a big one now.
Can't they defend themselves without the people of the USA holding their
hands all day long now?
Could you get back to talking about abortion, mumbling bum Wentzky?
I'm not surprised you can't even grasp that elementary concept.)
What you fail to grasp is that you are an outside agency, a disqualfied
party to any matters that involve SC politics.
...which I haven't interfered in in the least, despite your fantasy.
Contradiction in your proclamation there secrecy loon.
I enjoy trouncing your falsehood lying ***** in these newsgroups.
Idiot. I've told you what I communicated to the 10th Circuit Solicitor.
(She's free to ignore my observations, if she so chooses.)
She can. She also has the right to see what a paranoid anti-liberty loon
such as yourself is doing meddling with her stated job duties. She really
isn't authorized to defend state control freaks who commit crimes against the
people with the peoples' money.
You don't decide anything for her, either.
You have absolutely no legal standing or authority whatsoever in SC
affairs.
That means I won't have to appear at your trial.
It means that your communications to SC authorities are automatically
rendered moot by SC and US law.
Sorry, but you still don't decide that.
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah", the little propagandist anti-liberty loon says.
How about reading some more of the laws that tell you you are relying on a
vain imagination there.
How about you getting fixed so you can understand what you read?
You'd need to contact Solicitor Adams and convince her of your delusion du
jour.
I didn't see her email address online anywhere.
I did contact them a long time ago for the video evidence.
But, someone on the phone acted like a paranoid state control freak with
crimes to hide who said I had been 'red flagged'.
LOL!
What a joke.
That's pretty damned funny, because it indicates the state is on to your
charade, and you're going to get royally reamed at your trial - and you'll
have asked for it.
Since when is the judiciary supposed to be using some military lingo against
people of the USA who government employees committed multiple felonies
against?
Since when are you sane?
It isn't my fault they committed treasonous acts against me to the point
that they can be determined to be acts of war againt the Sovereign will of
the Constitution of the United States of America.
Fortunately, state law will put you in prison, if not a permanent room in a
state hospital.
Your 'deepthroat took down the president' treason game is kaput.
The Constitution itself destroys it.
The more you resist the foundation of the USA itself the more likely it is
that your propagandist agenda will be eliminated.
The more you act like you're divorced from reality, the longer you'll be
segregated from society.
(Let's just say it's even less likely than a blizzard in June in South
Carolina.)
Why do you think it is always the responsibility of the people to conduct
the duties of the paid persons who are assigned those tasks?
Why do you assume you know what anyone else thinks, when you can't even get a
grasp on what you think, the majority of the time?
If they want to be upright with regard to these matters they can contact me
personally in a peaceful manner without resorting to sending any armed
control forces to visit me.
Your reliance on strong-armed, anti-liberty tactics isn't a respectable,
diplomatic method.
I'll look forward to your removal from Usenet at some date in the near to
mid-range future. You're Just Plain NutsŪ, as far as I'm concerned.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
20 Jun 2007 09:53:21 PM |
|
|
Notice:
I am posting this one message to the groups listed.
Any failure to allow this message to be posted to all of those groups will
be considered an act of treason.
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7ieww2a.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
[Wentzkyspam tossed in the trash, as always]
Constitutional law is spam to you.
[snip]
There are matters bigger than wasting time on providing 'conclusive' proof
of anti-USA activities.
All we need to do is talk to Putin and the Germans to see how they feel
about demilitarization in Germany.
The DoD guys don't have much of a say if they want to sustain the cold
war.
People pay taxes not only for warheads, you know?
People pay taxes to put certified psychotics like you into treatment.
What a joke.
People aren't into nuclear proliferation much nowadays.
Next time you want missles in Germany or to propagandize the USA because
of
their presence, think about footing the bills yourself.
You subterfuge freaks sure do like to think the people of the USA are
idiots.
You really need to be in a room with rubber walls, as your sanity has left
the building.
Because representing the people of the USA is illegal in your mind?
or hospitalized in a state facility for the long term.
You mean you aren't for nuclear disarmament?
Get your fat ***** back to the Home, son.
Another nuclear proliferation sentence?
LOL!
You are a peon unintellectual charlatan to me.
Chew on those words and swallow them.
You will NEVER be able to coerce me into allegiance to your criminal
will.
Why would you swear allegiance to a figment of _your_ imagination?
So, what is your main agenda then? People probably can tell that I am not
for increasing tensions between super powers. The EU is a big one now.
Can't they defend themselves without the people of the USA holding their
hands all day long now?
Could you get back to talking about abortion, mumbling bum Wentzky?
Why?
You think nuclear disrmament isn't important enough to discuss?
Or, do you think that I am making so many points with these statements that
you know anti-liberty crusades against me won't stand?
I'm not surprised you can't even grasp that elementary concept.)
What you fail to grasp is that you are an outside agency, a
disqualfied
party to any matters that involve SC politics.
...which I haven't interfered in in the least, despite your fantasy.
Contradiction in your proclamation there secrecy loon.
I enjoy trouncing your falsehood lying ***** in these newsgroups.
Idiot. I've told you what I communicated to the 10th Circuit Solicitor.
(She's free to ignore my observations, if she so chooses.)
She can. She also has the right to see what a paranoid anti-liberty loon
such as yourself is doing meddling with her stated job duties. She really
isn't authorized to defend state control freaks who commit crimes against
the
people with the peoples' money.
You don't decide anything for her, either.
So, you mean to say that she can't read the law as it is written and make a
conscious decision on her own?
Too bad all your insults aren't winning you many friends or influencing as
many people as you thought they would.
Still being drowned out by people who don't bow to your madness?
Maybe this is the day where you realize that compliance will help you more
than resistance.
You have absolutely no legal standing or authority whatsoever in SC
affairs.
That means I won't have to appear at your trial.
It means that your communications to SC authorities are automatically
rendered moot by SC and US law.
Sorry, but you still don't decide that.
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah", the little propagandist anti-liberty loon says.
How about reading some more of the laws that tell you you are relying on a
vain imagination there.
How about you getting fixed so you can understand what you read?
You'd need to contact Solicitor Adams and convince her of your delusion
du
jour.
I didn't see her email address online anywhere.
I did contact them a long time ago for the video evidence.
But, someone on the phone acted like a paranoid state control freak with
crimes to hide who said I had been 'red flagged'.
LOL!
What a joke.
That's pretty damned funny, because it indicates the state is on to your
charade,
Charade?
Again, you resort to insinuating that I am running some concocted scheme to
take down the president, 'deepthroat took down the president' anti-USA
propagandist.
and you're going to get royally reamed at your trial - and you'll
have asked for it.
Royally reamed?
What King is ashamed to reveal his name after he asks someone for theirs?
The paranoia of you idiot pro-choicers and gay censorship advocates is so
obvious.
When will you learn how NOT to commit crimes against the people and the
Constitution?
Since when is the judiciary supposed to be using some military lingo
against
people of the USA who government employees committed multiple felonies
against?
Since when are you sane?
Why aren't you asking the paranoid criminal state control freaks that
question?
Still allied with the "gellin' like a felon' criminals?
LOL!
The law itself is your enemy if so.
It isn't my fault they committed treasonous acts against me to the point
that they can be determined to be acts of war againt the Sovereign will of
the Constitution of the United States of America.
Fortunately, state law will put you in prison, if not a permanent room in
a
state hospital.
I guess you people who don't know that 'money answers all thing' think you
must practice treason to sustain your counterproductive grip in this nation.
Your 'deepthroat took down the president' treason game is kaput.
The Constitution itself destroys it.
The more you resist the foundation of the USA itself the more likely it is
that your propagandist agenda will be eliminated.
The more you act like you're divorced from reality, the longer you'll be
segregated from society.
What reality are you trying to present that is different from what I am
telling you?
(Let's just say it's even less likely than a blizzard in June in South
Carolina.)
Why do you think it is always the responsibility of the people to conduct
the duties of the paid persons who are assigned those tasks?
Why do you assume you know what anyone else thinks,
You haven't learned it yet?
when you can't even get a grasp on what you think, the majority of the
time?
More vain attempts at your anti-liberty game?
You really want the USA to fall while the people here are bound into serving
foreign nations so much?
If they want to be upright with regard to these matters they can contact
me
personally in a peaceful manner without resorting to sending any armed
control forces to visit me.
Your reliance on strong-armed, anti-liberty tactics isn't a respectable,
diplomatic method.
I'll look forward to your removal from Usenet at some date in the near to
mid-range future.
Why are you so uncomfortable with me posting to USENET?
You're Just Plain NutsŪ, as far as I'm concerned.
Meaning you do know that I am no risk to the people of this society.
Oh, yeah.
What are those messages you have been putting in the newgroup line called
again?
Engrams?
Dianetics.
How long will it take you to wean off of that ineffective power of
suggestion tactic?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
21 Jun 2007 02:37:30 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7ieww2a.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
[Wentzkyspam tossed in the trash, as always]
Constitutional law is spam to you.
You have no idea of what Constitutional law entails, Screaming Fruitcake of
Anderson County (and future convict).
There are matters bigger than wasting time on providing 'conclusive' proof
of anti-USA activities. All we need to do is talk to Putin and the Germans
to see how they feel about demilitarization in Germany. The DoD guys don't
have much of a say if they want to sustain the cold war. People pay taxes
not only for warheads, you know?
People pay taxes to put certified psychotics like you into treatment.
What a joke. People aren't into nuclear proliferation much nowadays.
You haven't been into sanity in fifteen years or so.
Next time you want missles in Germany or to propagandize the USA because of
their presence, think about footing the bills yourself. You subterfuge
freaks sure do like to think the people of the USA are idiots.
You really need to be in a room with rubber walls, as your sanity has left
the building.
Because representing the people of the USA is illegal in your mind?
Because your attention span is as miniscule as your sanity.
or hospitalized in a state facility for the long term.
You mean you aren't for nuclear disarmament?
Get your fat ***** back to the Home, son.
Another nuclear proliferation sentence?
I have more important things to do than deal with your proliferating
psychosis.
LOL!
You are a peon unintellectual charlatan to me.
Chew on those words and swallow them.
You will NEVER be able to coerce me into allegiance to your criminal
will.
Why would you swear allegiance to a figment of _your_ imagination?
So, what is your main agenda then? People probably can tell that I am not
for increasing tensions between super powers. The EU is a big one now.
Can't they defend themselves without the people of the USA holding their
hands all day long now?
Could you get back to talking about abortion, mumbling bum Wentzky?
Why?
You think nuclear disrmament isn't important enough to discuss?
Or, do you think that I am making so many points with these statements that
you know anti-liberty crusades against me won't stand?
I know you couldn't care less about posting your garbage in a newsgroup more
suited for it, like alt.astrology.
I'm not surprised you can't even grasp that elementary concept.)
What you fail to grasp is that you are an outside agency, a disqualfied
party to any matters that involve SC politics.
...which I haven't interfered in in the least, despite your fantasy.
Contradiction in your proclamation there secrecy loon.
I enjoy trouncing your falsehood lying ***** in these newsgroups.
Idiot. I've told you what I communicated to the 10th Circuit Solicitor.
(She's free to ignore my observations, if she so chooses.)
She can. She also has the right to see what a paranoid anti-liberty loon
such as yourself is doing meddling with her stated job duties. She really
isn't authorized to defend state control freaks who commit crimes against
the people with the peoples' money.
You don't decide anything for her, either.
So, you mean to say that she can't read the law as it is written and make a
conscious decision on her own? Too bad all your insults aren't winning you
many friends or influencing as many people as you thought they would. Still
being drowned out by people who don't bow to your madness? Maybe this is the
day where you realize that compliance will help you more than resistance.
I don't comply with psychotic fucknuts named John Darin Wentzky. That's all
you'll ever need to know.
(End Of Story, in other words.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bobandcarole.." |
|
| Title: Re: Vote to affirm same-sex marriage ignores will of people, bishops say |
21 Jun 2007 12:09:57 AM |
|
|
APPLAUSE!!
On Jun 20, 10:53?pm, "John D. Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Notice:
I am posting this one message to the groups listed.
Any failure to allow this message to be posted to all of those groups will
be considered an act of treason.
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote in messagenews:szky7ieww2a.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
[Wentzkyspam tossed in the trash, as always]
Constitutional law is spam to you.
[snip]
There are matters bigger than wasting time on providing 'conclusive' proof
of anti-USA activities.
All we need to do is talk to Putin and the Germans to see how they feel
about demilitarization in Germany.
The DoD guys don't have much of a say if they want to sustain the cold
war.
People pay taxes not only for warheads, you know?
People pay taxes to put certified psychotics like you into treatment.
What a joke.
People aren't into nuclear proliferation much nowadays.
Next time you want missles in Germany or to propagandize the USA because
of
their presence, think about footing the bills yourself.
You subterfuge freaks sure do like to think the people of the USA are
idiots.
You really need to be in a room with rubber walls, as your sanity has left
the building.
Because representing the people of the USA is illegal in your mind?
or hospitalized in a state facility for the long term.
You mean you aren't for nuclear disarmament?
Get your fat ***** back to the Home, son.
Another nuclear proliferation sentence?
LOL!
You are a peon unintellectual charlatan to me.
Chew on those words and swallow them.
You will NEVER be able to coerce me into allegiance to your criminal
will.
Why would you swear allegiance to a figment of _your_ imagination?
So, what is your main agenda then? People probably can tell that I am not
for increasing tensions between super powers. The EU is a big one now.
Can't they defend themselves without the people of the USA holding their
hands all day long now?
Could you get back to talking about abortion, mumbling bum Wentzky?
Why?
You think nuclear disrmament isn't important enough to discuss?
Or, do you think that I am making so many points with these statements that
you know anti-liberty crusades against me won't stand?
I'm not surprised you can't even grasp that elementary concept.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
