Religions > Atheism > Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2006 08:58:48 PM |
| Object: |
Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/18432.html
by Jerry Falwell
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help. In a moment, I'll
tell you how you can help, but first, please allow me to explain the
situation in the state.
Abortion-rights advocates have gotten a measure on the November ballot that,
if passed, would repeal the state law (HB 1215) forbidding all abortions,
except those that would save the life of a mother. The ban, which hasn't yet
taken effect, will be activated if it passes the ballot initiative (even
though it would likely would be challenged in the courts). The law states
that individuals performing abortions would be fined $5,000 and be jailed
for five years.
Here's the key problem: Planned Parenthood is now pouring money into the
state, in hopes of killing this legislation without having to go to court.
Dr. Allen Unruh, of the South Dakota pro-life organization Vote Yes for
Life, tells me that Planned Parenthood panicked after HB 1215 was passed in
both state houses and Gov. Mike Rounds signed it into law. The state house
voted 50 to 18 in favor of the bill, while the state senate passed it 23 to
12.
Dr. Unruh says the organization is mounting an $8 million media blitz over
the next two months. He tells me this is a major propaganda campaign to
demonize and distort the language on the ban on abortion in South Dakota.
Pro-life leaders in the state are now trying to raise funds to counter
Planned Parenthood's campaign to defeat the law. They are now attempting to
raise $4 million to offset Planned Parenthood's campaign to radical
political agenda.
That's where I hope you will step in. I have told Dr. Unruh and his team
that I will do my best to deliver thousands of people who will financially
help to win this historic battle. We have to raise $4 million dollars --
very quickly -- in South Dakota to counter the propaganda Planned Parenthood
will be putting on the airwaves prior to the November election.
Dr. Unruh and I believe that if there were ever a time when Christians need
to invest in a pro-life effort, the time is now and the place is South
Dakota. If the state wins this battle, other states could follow South
Dakota's lead in the future, also determining to outlaw abortion.
I am urging my friends across the country to give generously to this vital
campaign.
What happens in South Dakota will literally affect the future of America.
Make all checks out to: voteyesforlife.com
Donations may be sent to:
Vote Yes for Life
600 N. Western Ave.
Sioux Falls, SD 57104
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
16 Sep 2006 09:23:34 PM |
|
|
In article <LaydnZ8hnqWoMZHYnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@giganews.com>, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/18432.html
by Jerry Falwell
• Jerry Falwell, the man who said that God created HIV because He hates
homos.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help. In a moment, I'll
tell you how you can help, but first, please allow me to explain the
situation in the state.
Abortion-rights advocates have gotten a measure on the November ballot that,
if passed, would repeal the state law (HB 1215) forbidding all abortions,
except those that would save the life of a mother. The ban, which hasn't yet
taken effect, will be activated if it passes the ballot initiative (even
though it would likely would be challenged in the courts). The law states
that individuals performing abortions would be fined $5,000 and be jailed
for five years.
Here's the key problem: Planned Parenthood is now pouring money into the
state, in hopes of killing this legislation without having to go to court.
Dr. Allen Unruh, of the South Dakota pro-life organization Vote Yes for
Life, tells me that Planned Parenthood panicked after HB 1215 was passed in
both state houses and Gov. Mike Rounds signed it into law. The state house
voted 50 to 18 in favor of the bill, while the state senate passed it 23 to
12.
Dr. Unruh says the organization is mounting an $8 million media blitz over
the next two months. He tells me this is a major propaganda campaign to
demonize and distort the language on the ban on abortion in South Dakota.
Pro-life leaders in the state are now trying to raise funds to counter
Planned Parenthood's campaign to defeat the law. They are now attempting to
raise $4 million to offset Planned Parenthood's campaign to radical
political agenda.
That's where I hope you will step in. I have told Dr. Unruh and his team
that I will do my best to deliver thousands of people who will financially
help to win this historic battle. We have to raise $4 million dollars --
very quickly -- in South Dakota to counter the propaganda Planned Parenthood
will be putting on the airwaves prior to the November election.
Dr. Unruh and I believe that if there were ever a time when Christians need
to invest in a pro-life effort, the time is now and the place is South
Dakota. If the state wins this battle, other states could follow South
Dakota's lead in the future, also determining to outlaw abortion.
I am urging my friends across the country to give generously to this vital
campaign.
What happens in South Dakota will literally affect the future of America.
Make all checks out to: voteyesforlife.com
Donations may be sent to:
Vote Yes for Life
600 N. Western Ave.
Sioux Falls, SD 57104
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
16 Sep 2006 10:42:59 PM |
|
|
".R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-1609061923340001@192.168.1.102...
In article <LaydnZ8hnqWoMZHYnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@giganews.com>, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/18432.html
by Jerry Falwell
. Jerry Falwell, the man who said that God created HIV because He hates
homos.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help. In a moment, I'll
tell you how you can help, but first, please allow me to explain the
situation in the state.
Abortion-rights advocates have gotten a measure on the November ballot
that,
if passed, would repeal the state law (HB 1215) forbidding all
abortions,
except those that would save the life of a mother. The ban, which hasn't
yet
taken effect, will be activated if it passes the ballot initiative (even
though it would likely would be challenged in the courts). The law
states
that individuals performing abortions would be fined $5,000 and be
jailed
for five years.
Here's the key problem: Planned Parenthood is now pouring money into the
state, in hopes of killing this legislation without having to go to
court.
I like it. Aren't these guys the ones that squawk about "activist judges"?
Wonder why he doesn't want to let the voters decide.
Curt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 02:08:48 AM |
|
|
"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote in message
".R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help. In a moment, I'll
tell you how you can help, but first, please allow me to explain the
situation in the state.
Abortion-rights advocates have gotten a measure on the November ballot
that, if passed, would repeal the state law (HB 1215) forbidding all
abortions, except those that would save the life of a mother. The ban,
which hasn't
yet taken effect, will be activated if it passes the ballot initiative
(even
though it would likely would be challenged in the courts). The law
states
that individuals performing abortions would be fined $5,000 and be
jailed
for five years.
Here's the key problem: Planned Parenthood is now pouring money into the
state, in hopes of killing this legislation without having to go to
court.
I like it. Aren't these guys the ones that squawk about "activist judges"?
Wonder why he doesn't want to let the voters decide.
During the Second World War a diplomat gave Swedish passports to hundreds of
Eastern European Jews, allowing them to escape from Europe.
Now as a general rule I oppose nationality fictions. For instance I don't
like it when a British ferry plying the Channel between Dover and Calais is
supposedly a Panamanian ship so that taxes are lower, or when London pubs
are dressed up as Irish despite having no Irishmen on the management.
However to criticise this diplomat on the grounds that the passports were a
legal fiction would be absurd.
Similarly, it is telling that the price the American people paid for free
abortion was the end of their constitution. But British abortion was brought
about in a legally proper manner. Ultimately it does not matter whether this
degenerate practise represents popular will or not, it must be stopped, or
the Muslim charge that we are an evil and corrupt society will be seen to
have credibility, we will be driven from the Middle East, and Americans will
have to learn to live without cars, cheap electricity, and all the other
things they regard as their birthright.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 11:20:35 AM |
|
|
In article <_Mednd06pofM7pDYRVnyvg@bt.com>, Malcolm
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
Similarly, it is telling that the price the American people paid for free
abortion was the end of their constitution.
It is comments like this that shoot your credibility to hell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 04:19:54 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:170920060920350677%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <_Mednd06pofM7pDYRVnyvg@bt.com>, Malcolm
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
Similarly, it is telling that the price the American people paid for free
abortion was the end of their constitution.
It is comments like this that shoot your credibility to hell.
Not really. Once you accept penumbrae of meaning, the constitution is dead.
Americans just haven't admitted the fact yet.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 06:15:14 PM |
|
|
In article <J9qdnUvj2sccIJDYRVnyqA@bt.com>, Malcolm
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:170920060920350677%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <_Mednd06pofM7pDYRVnyvg@bt.com>, Malcolm
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
Similarly, it is telling that the price the American people paid for free
abortion was the end of their constitution.
It is comments like this that shoot your credibility to hell.
Not really. Once you accept penumbrae of meaning, the constitution is dead.
Americans just haven't admitted the fact yet.
Why do you suppose it is that so many Right Wingers think they know
more about the law than the United States Supreme Court?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 04:41:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:19:54 +0100, in alt.atheism
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
<J9qdnUvj2sccIJDYRVnyqA@bt.com>:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:170920060920350677%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <_Mednd06pofM7pDYRVnyvg@bt.com>, Malcolm
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
Similarly, it is telling that the price the American people paid for free
abortion was the end of their constitution.
It is comments like this that shoot your credibility to hell.
Not really. Once you accept penumbrae of meaning, the constitution is dead.
You might as well say that the Constitution died when the Marshall Court
decided Marbury v. Madison in 1803. There have been two ways to develop
a constitution. One is elegently short, but leaves a great deal to the
understanding of those controlled by it. The other is extremely
detailed, but unable to deal with new problems. The US Constitution was
quite short (of course the British, seeing no need to write theirs down,
have an even shorter one), but that does mean that everyone has to make
their best effort to follow the intent and describe the best possible
way to deal with a question that was not a part of the original
discussion.
Americans just haven't admitted the fact yet.
Americans fought a civil war because the constitution didn't address
every possible problem. I personally think that, though I agree with the
result, the decision in Roe v. Wade was very bad for moderates and
liberals in the long run.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 11:12:42 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:08:48 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
Similarly, it is telling that the price the American people paid for free
abortion was the end of their constitution....
Apparently a phenomenon only you can see.
The Constitution remains in good shape.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
16 Sep 2006 10:43:49 PM |
|
|
Curt wrote:
Here's the key problem: Planned Parenthood is now pouring money into the
state, in hopes of killing this legislation without having to go to
court.
I like it. Aren't these guys the ones that squawk about "activist judges"?
Yeah...the ones who won't act the way the Party tells them to act.
That's why they got all up in arms over Alfred Goodwin, the 9th CC
judge who wrote the decision in the Newdow case. He was a Presbyterian
Elder, Nixon appointee and a lifelong Republican...which is why the
pseudo-conservatives went apeshit when he ruled in Newdow's favor
against big-government.
Wonder why he doesn't want to let the voters decide.
Well, to quote Falwell's mentor, RJ Rushdoony, "The Church today has
fallen prey to the heresy of democracy." Christianity will always be
democracy's greatest enemy.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Usage
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 08:43:00 AM |
|
|
In article <12gpgdonjhg4j4b@corp.supernews.com>, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
".R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-1609061923340001@192.168.1.102...
In article <LaydnZ8hnqWoMZHYnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@giganews.com>, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/18432.html
by Jerry Falwell
. Jerry Falwell, the man who said that God created HIV because He hates
homos.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help. In a moment, I'll
tell you how you can help, but first, please allow me to explain the
situation in the state.
Abortion-rights advocates have gotten a measure on the November ballot
that,
if passed, would repeal the state law (HB 1215) forbidding all
abortions,
except those that would save the life of a mother. The ban, which hasn't
yet
taken effect, will be activated if it passes the ballot initiative (even
though it would likely would be challenged in the courts). The law
states
that individuals performing abortions would be fined $5,000 and be
jailed
for five years.
Here's the key problem: Planned Parenthood is now pouring money into the
state, in hopes of killing this legislation without having to go to court.
I like it. Aren't these guys the ones that squawk about "activist judges"?
Wonder why he doesn't want to let the voters decide.
*** Because he can't control voters ?
cheers, Curt
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 12:29:33 AM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
by Jerry Falwell
An immoral *****.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help.
Tell them to go to hell.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 06:52:22 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450cdd3d$0$34546$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
by Jerry Falwell
An immoral *****.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help.
Tell them to go to hell.
Why, wimpboy?
Why child hater?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 01:28:45 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
by Jerry Falwell
An immoral *****.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help.
Tell them to go to hell.
Why, wimpboy?
Because they're immoral, murderous control freaks.
Why child hater?
YOU are the one defending pedophiles, idiot. Not me.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 07:57:58 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450d93dd$0$34490$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
by Jerry Falwell
An immoral *****.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help.
Tell them to go to hell.
Why, wimpboy?
Because they're immoral, murderous control freaks.
Calling your 'enemies' that which you actually are makes you think people
will believe you?
Why child hater?
YOU are the one defending pedophiles, idiot.
Where?
Not me.
Why you are for protecting the evidence of sex crimes in the abortion
industry?
Because you are an accessory, right?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 11:44:09 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450d93dd$0$34490$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
by Jerry Falwell
An immoral *****.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help.
Tell them to go to hell.
Why, wimpboy?
Because they're immoral, murderous control freaks.
Calling your 'enemies' that which you actually are makes you think people
will believe you?
You're still an idiot, loser.
Why child hater?
YOU are the one defending pedophiles, idiot.
Where?
Don't play stupid, moron.
Not me.
Why you are for protecting the evidence of sex crimes in the abortion
industry?
Why are you a pervert, loser?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 04:45:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:52:22 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450cdd3d$0$34546$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
by Jerry Falwell
An immoral *****.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help.
Tell them to go to hell.
Why, wimpboy?
Why child hater?
Because what a woman does with her body is none of your or Falwell's
fucking business, John-boy.
Shove your anti-choice ***** up your *****. Sideways.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 07:59:33 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:v6grg2pfne916to73a0b38kp73pilkof4d@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:52:22 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450cdd3d$0$34546$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
by Jerry Falwell
An immoral *****.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help.
Tell them to go to hell.
Why, wimpboy?
Why child hater?
Because what a woman does with her body is none of your or Falwell's
fucking business, John-boy.
"A woman."
Got any names, idiot?
Too bad your pro-choice dogshit for brains idiocy always goes to "a woman"
for your coward's defense.
Who is this woman, charlatan?
Shove your anti-choice ***** up your *****. Sideways.
What anti-choice *****, wicked fool?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 10:07:46 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:v6grg2pfne916to73a0b38kp73pilkof4d@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:52:22 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450cdd3d$0$34546$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
by Jerry Falwell
An immoral *****.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help.
Tell them to go to hell.
Why, wimpboy?
Why child hater?
Because what a woman does with her body is none of your or Falwell's
fucking business, John-boy.
"A woman." Got any names, idiot?
You'll have to do your own detective work, Sherlock.
Too bad your pro-choice dogshit for brains idiocy always goes to "a woman"
for your coward's defense. Who is this woman, charlatan?
How many times do you have to be told it's none of your business - with an
explanation that you refuse to understand - before you bother to get a grip on
reality?
Shove your anti-choice ***** up your *****. Sideways.
What anti-choice *****, wicked fool?
The usual crap you spout. Women will continue making their own choices, and
you will continue to be powerless to make them choose what you want.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
17 Sep 2006 11:22:02 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szku035swhp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:v6grg2pfne916to73a0b38kp73pilkof4d@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:52:22 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450cdd3d$0$34546$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
by Jerry Falwell
An immoral *****.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help.
Tell them to go to hell.
Why, wimpboy?
Why child hater?
Because what a woman does with her body is none of your or Falwell's
fucking business, John-boy.
"A woman." Got any names, idiot?
You'll have to do your own detective work, Sherlock.
Too bad your pro-choice dogshit for brains idiocy always goes to "a woman"
for your coward's defense. Who is this woman, charlatan?
How many times do you have to be told it's none of your business
None.
- with an explanation that you refuse to understand - before you bother to
get a grip on
reality?
Shove your anti-choice ***** up your *****. Sideways.
What anti-choice *****, wicked fool?
The usual crap you spout. Women will continue making their own choices,
and
you will continue to be powerless to make them choose what you want.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
18 Sep 2006 12:53:09 AM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szku035swhp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:v6grg2pfne916to73a0b38kp73pilkof4d@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:52:22 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450cdd3d$0$34546$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
by Jerry Falwell
An immoral *****.
September 16, 2006 12:00 PM EST
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help.
Tell them to go to hell.
Why, wimpboy?
Why child hater?
Because what a woman does with her body is none of your or Falwell's
fucking business, John-boy.
"A woman." Got any names, idiot?
You'll have to do your own detective work, Sherlock.
Too bad your pro-choice dogshit for brains idiocy always goes to "a woman"
for your coward's defense. Who is this woman, charlatan?
How many times do you have to be told it's none of your business - with an
explanation that you refuse to understand - before you bother to get a grip
on reality?
None.
You obviously need to be informed of it frequently, given your statements.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ockhams Razor" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
18 Sep 2006 10:55:15 AM |
|
|
In article <acmPg.187$KR1.2@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"A woman."
Got any names, idiot?
Too bad your pro-choice dogshit for brains idiocy always goes to "a woman"
for your coward's defense.
Who is this woman, charlatan?
Anyone who can get pregnant. Then she has a "choice," keep it or dump
it.
Shove your anti-choice ***** up your *****. Sideways.
What anti-choice *****, wicked fool?
Jeeeezzzzus. You don't even read your own posts.
To call your posts scatologic is to give a bad name to *****.
--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
18 Sep 2006 03:09:55 PM |
|
|
"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-34161A.08551018092006@nntp0.pdx.net...
In article <acmPg.187$KR1.2@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"A woman."
Got any names, idiot?
Too bad your pro-choice dogshit for brains idiocy always goes to "a
woman"
for your coward's defense.
Who is this woman, charlatan?
Anyone who can get pregnant.
How is 'a woman' anyone who can get pregnant, and why is it that 'anyone who
can get pregnant' isn't agreeing with you or the 'right to choose'.
Why is it I or anyone can ask any woman and they won't always say, I am
Pro-Choice."?
Where is the name, numbskull?
Why is it that all women who hate you bearing false witness about them hate
you?
Then she has a "choice," keep it or dump
it.
She who, idiot?
Not all women are pro-Choice, idiot.
Why do you act as if they are?
Not all men are pro-choice, idiot.
How about that democracy, representative government MANDATE that Roe V Wade
didn't rely upon to become law, you ingrate.
Shove your anti-choice ***** up your *****. Sideways.
What anti-choice *****, wicked fool?
Jeeeezzzzus. You don't even read your own posts.
To call your posts scatologic is to give a bad name to *****.
--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
18 Sep 2006 04:29:39 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-34161A.08551018092006@nntp0.pdx.net...
In article <acmPg.187$KR1.2@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"A woman."
Got any names, idiot?
Too bad your pro-choice dogshit for brains idiocy always goes to "a
woman"
for your coward's defense.
Who is this woman, charlatan?
Anyone who can get pregnant.
How is 'a woman' anyone who can get pregnant, and why is it that 'anyone who
can get pregnant' isn't agreeing with you or the 'right to choose'.
How do YOU know they aren't? You're still too insane to understand what you
read, as usual.
Why is it I or anyone can ask any woman and they won't always say, I am
Pro-Choice."?
Because...some of them might not be pro-choice?
Where is the name, numbskull?
Why is it that all women who hate you bearing false witness about them hate
you?
Why is it that you're a delusional idiot? (Never mind - you chose to be that
way.)
Then she has a "choice," keep it or dump it.
She who, idiot?
She who is pregnant, and might not want to be.
Not all women are pro-Choice, idiot.
Are you just figuring that out now?
Why do you act as if they are?
Why do you act as if you have authority over anything?
Not all men are pro-choice, idiot.
You aren't, indeed. So?
How about that democracy, representative government MANDATE that Roe V Wade
didn't rely upon to become law, you ingrate.
How about you being returned to the state funny farm so you can get the help
you obviously need?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
18 Sep 2006 04:49:12 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodtcrhh8.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-34161A.08551018092006@nntp0.pdx.net...
In article <acmPg.187$KR1.2@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"A woman."
Got any names, idiot?
Too bad your pro-choice dogshit for brains idiocy always goes to "a
woman"
for your coward's defense.
Who is this woman, charlatan?
Anyone who can get pregnant.
How is 'a woman' anyone who can get pregnant, and why is it that 'anyone
who
can get pregnant' isn't agreeing with you or the 'right to choose'.
How do YOU know they aren't? You're still too insane to understand what
you
read, as usual.
Why is it I or anyone can ask any woman and they won't always say, I am
Pro-Choice."?
Because...some of them might not be pro-choice?
Where is the name, numbskull?
Why is it that all women who hate you bearing false witness about them
hate
you?
Why is it that you're a delusional idiot? (Never mind - you chose to be
that
way.)
Then she has a "choice," keep it or dump it.
She who, idiot?
She who is pregnant, and might not want to be.
Why is it you don;t elaborate about such an instance instead of playing that
dumb 'em down card which tells no one anything about why any woman shouldn't
be pregnant if she had consensual sex with any man in the USA?
Not all women are pro-Choice, idiot.
Are you just figuring that out now?
Been knowing it.
When will you and all other Pro-Choicers realize it and stop acting as if
the entire USA is supposed to be operated for Pro-Choicers only?
Why do you act as if they are?
Why do you act as if you have authority over anything?
Care to guess?
Not all men are pro-choice, idiot.
You aren't, indeed. So?
How about that democracy, representative government MANDATE that Roe V
Wade
didn't rely upon to become law, you ingrate.
How about you being returned to the state funny farm so you can get the
help
you obviously need?
How about recognizing the reality and stop acting as if Constitutional
government isn't proper in the USA?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
18 Sep 2006 05:07:28 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodtcrhh8.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-34161A.08551018092006@nntp0.pdx.net...
In article <acmPg.187$KR1.2@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"A woman." Got any names, idiot? Too bad your pro-choice dogshit for
brains idiocy always goes to "a woman" for your coward's defense. Who
is this woman, charlatan?
Anyone who can get pregnant.
How is 'a woman' anyone who can get pregnant, and why is it that 'anyone
who can get pregnant' isn't agreeing with you or the 'right to choose'.
How do YOU know they aren't? You're still too insane to understand what
you read, as usual.
Why is it I or anyone can ask any woman and they won't always say, I am
Pro-Choice."?
Because...some of them might not be pro-choice?
Where is the name, numbskull? Why is it that all women who hate you
bearing false witness about them hate you?
Why is it that you're a delusional idiot? (Never mind - you chose to be
that way.)
Then she has a "choice," keep it or dump it.
She who, idiot?
She who is pregnant, and might not want to be.
Why is it you don;t elaborate about such an instance instead of playing that
dumb 'em down card which tells no one anything about why any woman shouldn't
be pregnant if she had consensual sex with any man in the USA?
That's because, your delusions aside, any woman can choose to abort if she
doesn't choose to be pregnant (at least in the first two trimesters). No
matter how much you whine, consent to sex still doesn't automatically
translate to consent to pregnancy.
Not all women are pro-Choice, idiot.
Are you just figuring that out now?
Been knowing it.
You've been doing a good job of hiding it, so far.
When will you and all other Pro-Choicers realize it and stop acting as if
the entire USA is supposed to be operated for Pro-Choicers only?
When will you quit making up these fantasies and accusing everyone else of
believing in them?
Why do you act as if they are?
Why do you act as if you have authority over anything?
Care to guess?
It's already widely agreed that you're insane.
How about that democracy, representative government MANDATE that Roe V Wade
didn't rely upon to become law, you ingrate.
How about you being returned to the state funny farm so you can get the
help you obviously need?
How about recognizing the reality and stop acting as if Constitutional
government isn't proper in the USA?
I'll consult with Constitutional scholars - which you will never be.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
18 Sep 2006 06:05:16 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7sgq15r.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodtcrhh8.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-34161A.08551018092006@nntp0.pdx.net...
In article <acmPg.187$KR1.2@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"A woman." Got any names, idiot? Too bad your pro-choice dogshit
for
brains idiocy always goes to "a woman" for your coward's defense.
Who
is this woman, charlatan?
Anyone who can get pregnant.
How is 'a woman' anyone who can get pregnant, and why is it that 'anyone
who can get pregnant' isn't agreeing with you or the 'right to choose'.
How do YOU know they aren't? You're still too insane to understand what
you read, as usual.
Why is it I or anyone can ask any woman and they won't always say, I am
Pro-Choice."?
Because...some of them might not be pro-choice?
Where is the name, numbskull? Why is it that all women who hate you
bearing false witness about them hate you?
Why is it that you're a delusional idiot? (Never mind - you chose to be
that way.)
Then she has a "choice," keep it or dump it.
She who, idiot?
She who is pregnant, and might not want to be.
Why is it you don;t elaborate about such an instance instead of playing
that
dumb 'em down card which tells no one anything about why any woman
shouldn't
be pregnant if she had consensual sex with any man in the USA?
That's because, your delusions aside, any woman can choose to abort if she
doesn't choose to be pregnant (at least in the first two trimesters).
How am I deluded when I KNOW what creates pregnancies?
No matter how much you whine, consent to sex still doesn't automatically
translate to consent to pregnancy.
What an idiot I see there; and, I am not looking in a mirror.
I guess you "kill 'em before they're born" freaks forgot what it is like to
love people other than yourselves even when they are ALIVE!
Not all women are pro-Choice, idiot.
Are you just figuring that out now?
Been knowing it.
You've been doing a good job of hiding it, so far.
When will you and all other Pro-Choicers realize it and stop acting as if
the entire USA is supposed to be operated for Pro-Choicers only?
When will you quit making up these fantasies and accusing everyone else of
believing in them?
Roe V Wade is Pro-Choice in law.
There is no pro-life law via Roe V Wade.
There are no exceptions for the conceived living human in utero via Roe V
Wade.
When will you understand that part of it?
There is no such thing as any conceived living human being in utero that can
escape being aborted in Roe V Wadeland.
There is no law to protect it from being aborted.
Why can't you see the sexism in it?
Why can't you raise your consciousness above 'a woman's right to choose.'?
And, to rely upon gender-specific charactersitics in your defense is
inadmissible because it shows sexism.
Why do you act as if they are?
Why do you act as if you have authority over anything?
Care to guess?
It's already widely agreed that you're insane.
Because all the lazy abortion freaks who want to dictate policy think so?
LOL!
How about that democracy, representative government MANDATE that Roe V
Wade
didn't rely upon to become law, you ingrate.
How about you being returned to the state funny farm so you can get the
help you obviously need?
How about recognizing the reality and stop acting as if Constitutional
government isn't proper in the USA?
I'll consult with Constitutional scholars - which you will never be.
Do you mean you prefer to consult with opinion rather than with the language
contained in the Constitution?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
18 Sep 2006 09:00:10 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7sgq15r.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodtcrhh8.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-34161A.08551018092006@nntp0.pdx.net...
In article <acmPg.187$KR1.2@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"A woman." Got any names, idiot? Too bad your pro-choice dogshit for
brains idiocy always goes to "a woman" for your coward's defense. Who
is this woman, charlatan?
Anyone who can get pregnant.
How is 'a woman' anyone who can get pregnant, and why is it that 'anyone
who can get pregnant' isn't agreeing with you or the 'right to choose'.
How do YOU know they aren't? You're still too insane to understand what
you read, as usual.
Why is it I or anyone can ask any woman and they won't always say, I am
Pro-Choice."?
Because...some of them might not be pro-choice?
Where is the name, numbskull? Why is it that all women who hate you
bearing false witness about them hate you?
Why is it that you're a delusional idiot? (Never mind - you chose to be
that way.)
Then she has a "choice," keep it or dump it.
She who, idiot?
She who is pregnant, and might not want to be.
Why is it you don;t elaborate about such an instance instead of playing
that dumb 'em down card which tells no one anything about why any woman
shouldn't be pregnant if she had consensual sex with any man in the USA?
That's because, your delusions aside, any woman can choose to abort if she
doesn't choose to be pregnant (at least in the first two trimesters).
How am I deluded when I KNOW what creates pregnancies?
Is this your incoherent way of claiming that you've actually caused a
pregnancy? The fact is, the woman gets the final say on what she does with a
pregnancy she didn't consent to - because it's her body.
No matter how much you whine, consent to sex still doesn't automatically
translate to consent to pregnancy.
What an idiot I see there; and, I am not looking in a mirror.
You're fantasizing again.
I guess you "kill 'em before they're born" freaks forgot what it is like to
love people other than yourselves even when they are ALIVE!
I guess you never have visited reality in the last fourteen years of your
insanity. (I'd appreciate it if you could point out precisely how many I've
killed before they were born. I know the answer, and it's a concise summation
of your understanding of anything outside your obsession.)
Not all women are pro-Choice, idiot.
Are you just figuring that out now?
Been knowing it.
You've been doing a good job of hiding it, so far.
When will you and all other Pro-Choicers realize it and stop acting as if
the entire USA is supposed to be operated for Pro-Choicers only?
When will you quit making up these fantasies and accusing everyone else of
believing in them?
Roe V Wade is Pro-Choice in law.
There is no pro-life law via Roe V Wade.
So? Women have the right to make their reproductive choices.
There are no exceptions for the conceived living human in utero via Roe V
Wade.
....because, until such time as it's born, it has no legal status. (That's
part of Amendment XIV, in case you've forgotten.)
When will you understand that part of it?
I have no obligation to understand your foaming insanity.
There is no such thing as any conceived living human being in utero that can
escape being aborted in Roe V Wadeland.
There is no law to protect it from being aborted.
Ignoring the woman carrying it is about all you're capable of - since my wife
was one of those who was pregnant, almost three years *after* RvW...yet she
chose to give birth, while she was (and still is) pro-choice. I don't expect
you to ever be able to understand that fact of life.
Why can't you see the sexism in it?
I can't see what doesn't exist.
Why can't you raise your consciousness above 'a woman's right to choose.'?
Because, unlike you, I pay attention to reality.
And, to rely upon gender-specific charactersitics in your defense is
inadmissible because it shows sexism.
When are you filing that challenge with SCOTUS, and are you going to do it pro
se? A lot of people would enjoy that laugh.
Why do you act as if they are?
Why do you act as if you have authority over anything?
Care to guess?
It's already widely agreed that you're insane.
Because all the lazy abortion freaks who want to dictate policy think so?
LOL!
Because you keep supporting the opinions of regular people who have had to
deal with you online and hold an opinion of you similar to mine: you need
help, badly.
How about that democracy, representative government MANDATE that Roe V
Wade didn't rely upon to become law, you ingrate.
How about you being returned to the state funny farm so you can get the
help you obviously need?
How about recognizing the reality and stop acting as if Constitutional
government isn't proper in the USA?
I'll consult with Constitutional scholars - which you will never be.
Do you mean you prefer to consult with opinion rather than with the language
contained in the Constitution?
I prefer actual scholars, who are far more aware of what's going on than you
will ever be.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
18 Sep 2006 09:14:47 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkzmcwboph.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7sgq15r.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodtcrhh8.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-34161A.08551018092006@nntp0.pdx.net...
In article <acmPg.187$KR1.2@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"A woman." Got any names, idiot? Too bad your pro-choice dogshit
for
brains idiocy always goes to "a woman" for your coward's defense.
Who
is this woman, charlatan?
Anyone who can get pregnant.
How is 'a woman' anyone who can get pregnant, and why is it that
'anyone
who can get pregnant' isn't agreeing with you or the 'right to
choose'.
How do YOU know they aren't? You're still too insane to understand
what
you read, as usual.
Why is it I or anyone can ask any woman and they won't always say, I
am
Pro-Choice."?
Because...some of them might not be pro-choice?
Where is the name, numbskull? Why is it that all women who hate you
bearing false witness about them hate you?
Why is it that you're a delusional idiot? (Never mind - you chose to
be
that way.)
Then she has a "choice," keep it or dump it.
She who, idiot?
She who is pregnant, and might not want to be.
Why is it you don;t elaborate about such an instance instead of playing
that dumb 'em down card which tells no one anything about why any woman
shouldn't be pregnant if she had consensual sex with any man in the USA?
That's because, your delusions aside, any woman can choose to abort if
she
doesn't choose to be pregnant (at least in the first two trimesters).
How am I deluded when I KNOW what creates pregnancies?
Is this your incoherent way of claiming that you've actually caused a
pregnancy? The fact is, the woman gets the final say on what she does
with a
pregnancy she didn't consent to - because it's her body.
No matter how much you whine, consent to sex still doesn't automatically
translate to consent to pregnancy.
What an idiot I see there; and, I am not looking in a mirror.
You're fantasizing again.
I guess you "kill 'em before they're born" freaks forgot what it is like
to
love people other than yourselves even when they are ALIVE!
I guess you never have visited reality in the last fourteen years of your
insanity. (I'd appreciate it if you could point out precisely how many
I've
killed before they were born. I know the answer, and it's a concise
summation
of your understanding of anything outside your obsession.)
Not all women are pro-Choice, idiot.
Are you just figuring that out now?
Been knowing it.
You've been doing a good job of hiding it, so far.
When will you and all other Pro-Choicers realize it and stop acting as
if
the entire USA is supposed to be operated for Pro-Choicers only?
When will you quit making up these fantasies and accusing everyone else
of
believing in them?
Roe V Wade is Pro-Choice in law.
There is no pro-life law via Roe V Wade.
So? Women have the right to make their reproductive choices.
There are no exceptions for the conceived living human in utero via Roe V
Wade.
...because, until such time as it's born, it has no legal status. (That's
part of Amendment XIV, in case you've forgotten.)
Amendment XIV does not deny personhood to conceived humans.
When will you understand that part of it?
I have no obligation to understand your foaming insanity.
There is no such thing as any conceived living human being in utero that
can
escape being aborted in Roe V Wadeland.
There is no law to protect it from being aborted.
Ignoring the woman carrying it is about all you're capable of
I am not ignoring that which exists as you pro-Choicers routinely do to
support your killing game.
- since my wife
was one of those who was pregnant, almost three years *after* RvW...yet
she
chose to give birth, while she was (and still is) pro-choice. I don't
expect
you to ever be able to understand that fact of life.
Why can't you see the sexism in it?
I can't see what doesn't exist.
Why can't you raise your consciousness above 'a woman's right to choose.'?
Because, unlike you, I pay attention to reality.
And, to rely upon gender-specific charactersitics in your defense is
inadmissible because it shows sexism.
When are you filing that challenge with SCOTUS, and are you going to do it
pro
se? A lot of people would enjoy that laugh.
Why do you act as if they are?
Why do you act as if you have authority over anything?
Care to guess?
It's already widely agreed that you're insane.
Because all the lazy abortion freaks who want to dictate policy think so?
LOL!
Because you keep supporting the opinions of regular people who have had to
deal with you online and hold an opinion of you similar to mine: you need
help, badly.
How about that democracy, representative government MANDATE that Roe V
Wade didn't rely upon to become law, you ingrate.
How about you being returned to the state funny farm so you can get
the
help you obviously need?
How about recognizing the reality and stop acting as if Constitutional
government isn't proper in the USA?
I'll consult with Constitutional scholars - which you will never be.
Do you mean you prefer to consult with opinion rather than with the
language
contained in the Constitution?
I prefer actual scholars, who are far more aware of what's going on than
you
will ever be.
More aware?
Don't you mean they are confronted by pro-Choicers more?
LOL!
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
19 Sep 2006 07:15:30 AM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkzmcwboph.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7sgq15r.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodtcrhh8.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-34161A.08551018092006@nntp0.pdx.net...
In article <acmPg.187$KR1.2@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"A woman." Got any names, idiot? Too bad your pro-choice dogshit
for brains idiocy always goes to "a woman" for your coward's
defense. Who is this woman, charlatan?
Anyone who can get pregnant.
How is 'a woman' anyone who can get pregnant, and why is it that
'anyone who can get pregnant' isn't agreeing with you or the 'right to
choose'.
How do YOU know they aren't? You're still too insane to understand
what you read, as usual.
Why is it I or anyone can ask any woman and they won't always say, I am
Pro-Choice."?
Because...some of them might not be pro-choice?
Where is the name, numbskull? Why is it that all women who hate you
bearing false witness about them hate you?
Why is it that you're a delusional idiot? (Never mind - you chose to
be that way.)
Then she has a "choice," keep it or dump it.
She who, idiot?
She who is pregnant, and might not want to be.
Why is it you don;t elaborate about such an instance instead of playing
that dumb 'em down card which tells no one anything about why any woman
shouldn't be pregnant if she had consensual sex with any man in the USA?
That's because, your delusions aside, any woman can choose to abort if
she doesn't choose to be pregnant (at least in the first two trimesters).
How am I deluded when I KNOW what creates pregnancies?
Is this your incoherent way of claiming that you've actually caused a
pregnancy? The fact is, the woman gets the final say on what she does with
a pregnancy she didn't consent to - because it's her body.
What a surprise...you couldn't answer that.
[...]
Not all women are pro-Choice, idiot.
Are you just figuring that out now?
Been knowing it.
You've been doing a good job of hiding it, so far.
When will you and all other Pro-Choicers realize it and stop acting as if
the entire USA is supposed to be operated for Pro-Choicers only?
When will you quit making up these fantasies and accusing everyone else
of believing in them?
Roe V Wade is Pro-Choice in law.
There is no pro-life law via Roe V Wade.
So? Women have the right to make their reproductive choices.
There are no exceptions for the conceived living human in utero via Roe V
Wade.
...because, until such time as it's born, it has no legal status. (That's
part of Amendment XIV, in case you've forgotten.)
Amendment XIV does not deny personhood to conceived humans.
It *does* set forth the requirements for being a citizen, though: human,
born, and alive. That's only worked for 217 years, so far...and if it ain't
broke, don't fix it.
When will you understand that part of it?
I have no obligation to understand your foaming insanity.
There is no such thing as any conceived living human being in utero that
can escape being aborted in Roe V Wadeland. There is no law to protect it
from being aborted.
Ignoring the woman carrying it is about all you're capable of
I am not ignoring that which exists as you pro-Choicers routinely do to
support your killing game.
You need to deal with your fantasy. I'm not responsible for it.
[...]
How about that democracy, representative government MANDATE that Roe V
Wade didn't rely upon to become law, you ingrate.
How about you being returned to the state funny farm so you can get the
help you obviously need?
How about recognizing the reality and stop acting as if Constitutional
government isn't proper in the USA?
I'll consult with Constitutional scholars - which you will never be.
Do you mean you prefer to consult with opinion rather than with the
language contained in the Constitution?
I prefer actual scholars, who are far more aware of what's going on than
you will ever be.
More aware?
Don't you mean they are confronted by pro-Choicers more?
LOL!
No, I speak English. You'll have to learn how to translate Wentzkybabble to
English.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Dakota Pro-Lifers vs. Planned Parenthood - by Jerry Falwell |
19 Sep 2006 08:50:55 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk3baom4rh.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkzmcwboph.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7sgq15r.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodtcrhh8.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-34161A.08551018092006@nntp0.pdx.net...
In article <acmPg.187$KR1.2@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"A woman." Got any names, idiot? Too bad your pro-choice
dogshit
for brains idiocy always goes to "a woman" for your coward's
defense. Who is this woman, charlatan?
Anyone who can get pregnant.
How is 'a woman' anyone who can get pregnant, and why is it that
'anyone who can get pregnant' isn't agreeing with you or the 'right
to
choose'.
How do YOU know they aren't? You're still too insane to understand
what you read, as usual.
Why is it I or anyone can ask any woman and they won't always say, I
am
Pro-Choice."?
Because...some of them might not be pro-choice?
Where is the name, numbskull? Why is it that all women who hate you
bearing false witness about them hate you?
Why is it that you're a delusional idiot? (Never mind - you chose
to
be that way.)
Then she has a "choice," keep it or dump it.
She who, idiot?
She who is pregnant, and might not want to be.
Why is it you don;t elaborate about such an instance instead of
playing
that dumb 'em down card which tells no one anything about why any
woman
shouldn't be pregnant if she had consensual sex with any man in the
USA?
That's because, your delusions aside, any woman can choose to abort if
she doesn't choose to be pregnant (at least in the first two
trimesters).
How am I deluded when I KNOW what creates pregnancies?
Is this your incoherent way of claiming that you've actually caused a
pregnancy? The fact is, the woman gets the final say on what she does
with
a pregnancy she didn't consent to - because it's her body.
What a surprise...you couldn't answer that.
[...]
Not all women are pro-Choice, idiot.
Are you just figuring that out now?
Been knowing it.
You've been doing a good job of hiding it, so far.
When will you and all other Pro-Choicers realize it and stop acting as
if
the entire USA is supposed to be operated for Pro-Choicers only?
When will you quit making up these fantasies and accusing everyone
else
of believing in them?
Roe V Wade is Pro-Choice in law.
There is no pro-life law via Roe V Wade.
So? Women have the right to make their reproductive choices.
There are no exceptions for the conceived living human in utero via Roe
V
Wade.
...because, until such time as it's born, it has no legal status.
(That's
part of Amendment XIV, in case you've forgotten.)
Amendment XIV does not deny personhood to conceived humans.
It *does* set forth the requirements for being a citizen, though: human,
born, and alive.
"Citizen"
That isn't a personhood definition.
That's only worked for 217 years, so far...and if it ain't
broke, don't fix it.
Why was abortion on demand illegal for so many years then if you think
fetuses are not persons?
When will you understand that part of it?
I have no obligation to understand your foaming insanity.
There is no such thing as any conceived living human being in utero that
can escape being aborted in Roe V Wadeland. There is no law to protect
it
from being aborted.
Ignoring the woman carrying it is about all you're capable of
I am not ignoring that which exists as you pro-Choicers routinely do to
support your killing game.
You need to deal with your fantasy. I'm not responsible for it.
[...]
How about that democracy, representative government MANDATE that Roe
V
Wade didn't rely upon to become law, you ingrate.
How about you being returned to the state funny farm so you can get
the
help you obviously need?
How about recognizing the reality and stop acting as if Constitutional
government isn't proper in the USA?
I'll consult with Constitutional scholars - which you will never be.
Do you mean you prefer to consult with opinion rather than with the
language contained in the Constitution?
I prefer actual scholars, who are far more aware of what's going on than
you will ever be.
More aware?
Don't you mean they are confronted by pro-Choicers more?
LOL!
No, I speak English. You'll have to learn how to translate Wentzkybabble
to
English.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
