| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2005 07:53:35 PM |
| Object: |
Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
Now that the autopsy vindicates what Michael Schiavo was saying all
along he should make a long list of people to sue who defamed/libeled
him, starting with Fox News, the Repug National Committee, Randall Terry
and Operation Rescue, Bill First, Tom DeLay, Jeb Bush, George Bush, Bill
O'Reilly, Sean Insanity, Michael "Weiner boy" Savage, the Schindlers and
many more. Specifically, malpractice charges also need to be filed
against First for his incompetent and unethical attempt to diagnose
Terry Schiavo by watching heavily edited home video footage. If Schiavo
and Felos cast a wide enough net and sues enough of them then maybe some
of them will even settle out of court and it will give them millions to
establish some kind of foundation to defend the rights and privacy of
americans from attack by all the christo-fascist zombie assholes out
there. That would be so fucking sweet.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Darklady" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 04:56:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:35:43 GMT, Tempest <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote:
Darklady wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:05:15 GMT, <needham@syix.com> wrote:
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:oFose.62215$887.11204@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Rjcse.102325$8S5.34942@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Terri was killed, starved to death.
Not according to the autopsy. Read before you speak.
I mean, if it was good enough for Mrs. Schiavo, surely they should
have done at least that much for JP 2, right?
They woulda because he had already expressed his wishes and made a
statement about human life before he passed away.
According to Mr. Shiavo, so did Terri. I choose to believe her husband --
sanctity of marriage and all, y'know.
That's quite a sanctity he vowed since he had years before took up residents
with another woman and father two children by her. It's also interesting
that once he had won a settlement on Teri's behalf, having made another vow
to use that money for her well being and recovery, he then remembered that
Teri didn't want to live any longer....
Quite interesting indeed!
What's interesting is that you clearly don't understand this
case and can't even keep the timeline straight or bother to learn the
details.
Terri had been mentally dead and in the hospital for years
before Michael finally become involved with another person.
The morons also can't admit that Michael didn't get involved with
another woman until AFTER Terri's parents told him to move on with his life.
Their hope, I suspect, was that he would divorce Terri and
they could grab control of her body.
-- Darklady
http://www.darklady.com
http://www.masturbate-a-thon.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tempest" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 01:56:44 PM |
|
|
Darklady wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:35:43 GMT, Tempest <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote:
Darklady wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:05:15 GMT, <needham@syix.com> wrote:
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:oFose.62215$887.11204@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Rjcse.102325$8S5.34942@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Terri was killed, starved to death.
Not according to the autopsy. Read before you speak.
I mean, if it was good enough for Mrs. Schiavo, surely they should
have done at least that much for JP 2, right?
They woulda because he had already expressed his wishes and made a
statement about human life before he passed away.
According to Mr. Shiavo, so did Terri. I choose to believe her husband --
sanctity of marriage and all, y'know.
That's quite a sanctity he vowed since he had years before took up residents
with another woman and father two children by her. It's also interesting
that once he had won a settlement on Teri's behalf, having made another vow
to use that money for her well being and recovery, he then remembered that
Teri didn't want to live any longer....
Quite interesting indeed!
What's interesting is that you clearly don't understand this
case and can't even keep the timeline straight or bother to learn the
details.
Terri had been mentally dead and in the hospital for years
before Michael finally become involved with another person.
The morons also can't admit that Michael didn't get involved with
another woman until AFTER Terri's parents told him to move on with his life.
Their hope, I suspect, was that he would divorce Terri and
they could grab control of her body.
It was so they could grab control over her money.
--
"Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their
dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
- William H. Beveridge, 1944
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jay" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
17 Jun 2005 09:54:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:35:43 GMT, Tempest <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terri had been mentally dead and in the hospital for
years before Michael finally become involved with
another person.
The morons also can't admit that Michael didn't get
involved with another woman until AFTER Terri's
parents told him to move on with his life.
....and then, later, used the fact that he'd taken their
advice as the #1 talking point against him. Think about
it; that's been the top anti-Mike talking point from such
cretins by a wide margin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tempest" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 01:14:33 PM |
|
|
jay wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:35:43 GMT, Tempest <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terri had been mentally dead and in the hospital for
years before Michael finally become involved with
another person.
The morons also can't admit that Michael didn't get
involved with another woman until AFTER Terri's
parents told him to move on with his life.
...and then, later, used the fact that he'd taken their
advice as the #1 talking point against him. Think about
it; that's been the top anti-Mike talking point from such
cretins by a wide margin.
They ignore the fact that Michael took the money he won in the court
case, quit his job, went to school to become a registered nurse and
practically moved into the hospice care center with Terri so he could
take care of her.
Employees of the care center took the stand in his defense and told the
court how much and how long he cared for Terri on a daily basis.
But you won't hear the haters talking about that.
--
"Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their
dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
- William H. Beveridge, 1944
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
16 Jun 2005 09:44:32 PM |
|
|
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:oFose.62215$887.11204@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Rjcse.102325$8S5.34942@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Terri was killed, starved to death.
Not according to the autopsy. Read before you speak.
They said much about what didn't cause her death.
I do not recall them saying anything about what did cause her death.
I mean, if it was good enough for Mrs. Schiavo, surely they should
have done at least that much for JP 2, right?
They woulda because he had already expressed his wishes and made a
statement about human life before he passed away.
According to Mr. Shiavo, so did Terri. I choose to believe her husband --
sanctity of marriage and all, y'know.
I really am not concerned about that.
We have legal procedures here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay is
NOT admissible in a court of law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
17 Jun 2005 12:10:23 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:oFose.62215$887.11204@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Rjcse.102325$8S5.34942@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Terri was killed, starved to death.
Not according to the autopsy. Read before you speak.
They said much about what didn't cause her death.
I do not recall them saying anything about what did cause her death.
One of the things the autopsy concluded was that her death was NOT caused by
starvation -- yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming she was "murdered"
by starvation, so why would you suddenly give a damn about what the autopsy
actually says?
According to Mr. Shiavo, so did Terri. I choose to believe her husband --
sanctity of marriage and all, y'know.
I really am not concerned about that.
We have legal procedures here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay
is NOT admissible in a court of law.
Here's perhaps the key legal procedure which dictates what is to be done:
her husband had the legal right as next of kin to be the decision maker,
even if Terri didn't overtly speak her wishes. People do this every day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
17 Jun 2005 01:17:14 PM |
|
|
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:3Xsse.21172$h86.436@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:oFose.62215$887.11204@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Rjcse.102325$8S5.34942@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Terri was killed, starved to death.
Not according to the autopsy. Read before you speak.
They said much about what didn't cause her death.
I do not recall them saying anything about what did cause her death.
One of the things the autopsy concluded was that her death was NOT caused
by starvation
Autopsies are not to tell people what a person did NOT die from.
-- yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming she was "murdered" by
starvation, so why would you suddenly give a damn about what the autopsy
actually says?
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I am
in such a situation.
According to Mr. Shiavo, so did Terri. I choose to believe her
husband -- sanctity of marriage and all, y'know.
I really am not concerned about that.
We have legal procedures here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay
is NOT admissible in a court of law.
Here's perhaps the key legal procedure which dictates what is to be done:
her husband had the legal right as next of kin to be the decision maker,
even if Terri didn't overtly speak her wishes. People do this every day.
The law needs to be changed so the loan sharks can not stick spousal debts
acquired without permission of the other spouse on the spouse who did NOT
incur the debt.
You scumbags who support killing other persons without their consent and who
steal from people who did not make a pledge are a disgrace to the USA.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
17 Jun 2005 09:17:59 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:3Xsse.21172$h86.436@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:oFose.62215$887.11204@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Rjcse.102325$8S5.34942@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Terri was killed, starved to death.
Not according to the autopsy. Read before you speak.
They said much about what didn't cause her death.
I do not recall them saying anything about what did cause her death.
One of the things the autopsy concluded was that her death was NOT caused
by starvation
Autopsies are not to tell people what a person did NOT die from.
Says who? She died of massive brain injury and dehydration. Did you read the
fucking thing or not?
-- yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming she was "murdered" by
starvation, so why would you suddenly give a damn about what the autopsy
actually says?
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I am
in such a situation.
Do you have an advance health care directive?
According to Mr. Shiavo, so did Terri. I choose to believe her
husband -- sanctity of marriage and all, y'know.
I really am not concerned about that.
We have legal procedures here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay
is NOT admissible in a court of law.
Here's perhaps the key legal procedure which dictates what is to be done:
her husband had the legal right as next of kin to be the decision maker,
even if Terri didn't overtly speak her wishes. People do this every day.
The law needs to be changed so the loan sharks can not stick spousal debts
acquired without permission of the other spouse on the spouse who did NOT
incur the debt.
You scumbags who support killing other persons without their consent and
who steal from people who did not make a pledge are a disgrace to the USA.
http://www.fuckwit.info/why.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 10:42:58 AM |
|
|
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:rvLse.63114$887.331@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:3Xsse.21172$h86.436@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:oFose.62215$887.11204@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Rjcse.102325$8S5.34942@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Terri was killed, starved to death.
Not according to the autopsy. Read before you speak.
They said much about what didn't cause her death.
I do not recall them saying anything about what did cause her death.
One of the things the autopsy concluded was that her death was NOT
caused by starvation
Autopsies are not to tell people what a person did NOT die from.
Says who? She died of massive brain injury and dehydration. Did you read
the fucking thing or not?
-- yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming she was "murdered" by
starvation, so why would you suddenly give a damn about what the autopsy
actually says?
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I
am in such a situation.
Do you have an advance health care directive?
Having one in China or Cuba would do you NO GOOD whatsoever. However, in the
Unites States, having one that is backed by the supreme law of the land,
which is the US Constitution carries much weight! That is until the
government set precedence by ordaining the killing of Teri...
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 10:53:37 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:rvLse.63114$887.331@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:3Xsse.21172$h86.436@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:oFose.62215$887.11204@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Rjcse.102325$8S5.34942@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Terri was killed, starved to death.
Not according to the autopsy. Read before you speak.
They said much about what didn't cause her death.
I do not recall them saying anything about what did cause her
death.
One of the things the autopsy concluded was that her death was NOT
caused by starvation
Autopsies are not to tell people what a person did NOT die from.
Says who? She died of massive brain injury and dehydration. Did you
read the fucking thing or not?
-- yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming she was "murdered" by
starvation, so why would you suddenly give a damn about what the
autopsy actually says?
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected
if I am in such a situation.
Do you have an advance health care directive?
Having one in China or Cuba would do you NO GOOD whatsoever. However,
in the Unites States, having one that is backed by the supreme law of
the land, which is the US Constitution carries much weight! That is
until the government set precedence by ordaining the killing of
Teri...
LN
A sick twist:"...government set precedence by ordaining the killing of
Teri."
You ought to see if a shrink can straighten out your warped beliefs
You can't kill someone who's been dead for 15 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 02:18:22 PM |
|
|
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1oXse.33470$zm.10206@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
needham@syix.com wrote:
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:rvLse.63114$887.331@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:3Xsse.21172$h86.436@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Newk Indofman" <nkom@new.kindofman.org> wrote in message
news:oFose.62215$887.11204@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Rjcse.102325$8S5.34942@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Terri was killed, starved to death.
Not according to the autopsy. Read before you speak.
They said much about what didn't cause her death.
I do not recall them saying anything about what did cause her
death.
One of the things the autopsy concluded was that her death was NOT
caused by starvation
Autopsies are not to tell people what a person did NOT die from.
Says who? She died of massive brain injury and dehydration. Did you
read the fucking thing or not?
-- yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming she was "murdered" by
starvation, so why would you suddenly give a damn about what the
autopsy actually says?
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected
if I am in such a situation.
Do you have an advance health care directive?
Having one in China or Cuba would do you NO GOOD whatsoever. However,
in the Unites States, having one that is backed by the supreme law of
the land, which is the US Constitution carries much weight! That is
until the government set precedence by ordaining the killing of
Teri...
LN
A sick twist:"...government set precedence by ordaining the killing of
Teri."
You ought to see if a shrink can straighten out your warped beliefs
You can't kill someone who's been dead for 15 years.
No one credible has ever said she was dead before having been deprived of
food & water for 3-weeks, that is except morons like you.
LN
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
17 Jun 2005 03:50:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 07:19:59 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, endowed
by the creator.
Any more questions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 10:56:32 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
:"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
:news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
:> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
:> in alt.abortion with message-id
:> <jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
:>>Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I am
:>>in such a situation.
:> Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
:In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
:truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
:inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, endowed
:by the creator.
No such document with any legal authority exists.
:Any more questions?
When are the mental-health authorities returning you to the Home?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 07:30:08 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<BfUse.106075$8S5.5916@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, endowed
by the creator.
Any more questions?
Obviously the people who wrote and signed that document were
lying and the document did not have any legal force, because the
author of that document and many of the signers continued to own
slaves after they signed the document. Obviously, the truth is
they believed the right to liberty was alienable. Why should
any other part of their lie be believed?
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
I do not want the peace which passeth understanding,
I want the understanding which bringeth peace.
- Helen Keller
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 07:32:21 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<BfUse.106075$8S5.5916@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, endowed
by the creator.
Any more questions?
Yes. I see you deliberately did not mention the document because it
is not a legal document, was signed before there was a United States,
and is not the basis of any law.
It is, of course, the Declaration of Independence.
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity
usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a
Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration
mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the
Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of
the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful
government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the
separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various
grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The
unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The
grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have
more than thirteen states.
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire
the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it
in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a
historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain
at a time before the formation of our government.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 10:37:27 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jq48b11dub8e3fc2q0fbl7ifpe6err2aj5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<BfUse.106075$8S5.5916@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I
am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, endowed
by the creator.
Any more questions?
Yes. I see you deliberately did not mention the document because it
is not a legal document, was signed before there was a United States,
and is not the basis of any law.
It is, of course, the Declaration of Independence.
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity
usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a
Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration
mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the
Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of
the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful
government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the
separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various
grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The
unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The
grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have
more than thirteen states.
The Federlist documents which preceeded the Constitution is repleat with
Christain docturine. These documents were the basis upon which the
Constitution was written. All the while, at the same time, these founding
fathers were adament that free people should have the unalienable right to
choose the religion of their own choice!
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire
the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it
in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a
historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain
at a time before the formation of our government.
Those LOFTY THOUGHTS which you are so flippantly dismissing do indeed
articulate the BASIS of the US Constitution. And it is therefore a perfectly
rational and cogent argument to claim this text as the government basis for
forming the union and ratifying the constitution. After all the preamble so
states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America."
And how can a people have ANY OF THOSE LOFTY ideas without a most primodial
assurance of "LIFE"?
Dismissing that the Constition is no guarantee of life is a quite silly
argument.
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 02:35:36 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:37:27 GMT, <needham@syix.com> in alt.abortion
with message-id <XcXse.30490$J12.28667@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jq48b11dub8e3fc2q0fbl7ifpe6err2aj5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<BfUse.106075$8S5.5916@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I
am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, endowed
by the creator.
Any more questions?
Yes. I see you deliberately did not mention the document because it
is not a legal document, was signed before there was a United States,
and is not the basis of any law.
It is, of course, the Declaration of Independence.
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity
usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a
Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration
mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the
Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of
the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful
government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the
separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various
grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The
unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The
grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have
more than thirteen states.
The Federlist documents which preceeded the Constitution is repleat with
Christain docturine.
That is not true of the Constitution, no matter what was in preceding
documents.
These documents were the basis upon which the
Constitution was written. All the while, at the same time, these founding
fathers were adament that free people should have the unalienable right to
choose the religion of their own choice!
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire
the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it
in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a
historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain
at a time before the formation of our government.
Those LOFTY THOUGHTS which you are so flippantly dismissing do indeed
articulate the BASIS of the US Constitution. And it is therefore a perfectly
rational and cogent argument to claim this text as the government basis for
forming the union and ratifying the constitution. After all the preamble so
states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America."
And how can a people have ANY OF THOSE LOFTY ideas without a most primodial
assurance of "LIFE"?
Dismissing that the Constition is no guarantee of life is a quite silly
argument.
No. If it is there it must be spelled out either in words or in a
court interpretation. Provide an exact reference to either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 03:44:03 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:hnt8b1d73oecms00184dqcbj12ss0ng4r7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:37:27 GMT, <needham@syix.com> in alt.abortion
with message-id <XcXse.30490$J12.28667@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jq48b11dub8e3fc2q0fbl7ifpe6err2aj5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<BfUse.106075$8S5.5916@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if
I
am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
endowed
by the creator.
Any more questions?
Yes. I see you deliberately did not mention the document because it
is not a legal document, was signed before there was a United States,
and is not the basis of any law.
It is, of course, the Declaration of Independence.
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity
usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a
Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration
mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the
Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of
the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful
government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the
separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various
grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The
unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The
grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have
more than thirteen states.
The Federlist documents which preceeded the Constitution is repleat with
Christain docturine.
That is not true of the Constitution, no matter what was in preceding
documents.
Still, the basis of the Constitution was founded upon Christain principles
contrary to previous claim to which you now accept as fact.
You are one confussed puppy...
These documents were the basis upon which the
Constitution was written. All the while, at the same time, these founding
fathers were adament that free people should have the unalienable right to
choose the religion of their own choice!
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire
the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it
in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a
historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain
at a time before the formation of our government.
Those LOFTY THOUGHTS which you are so flippantly dismissing do indeed
articulate the BASIS of the US Constitution. And it is therefore a
perfectly
rational and cogent argument to claim this text as the government basis
for
forming the union and ratifying the constitution. After all the preamble
so
states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America."
And how can a people have ANY OF THOSE LOFTY ideas without a most
primodial
assurance of "LIFE"?
Dismissing that the Constition is no guarantee of life is a quite silly
argument.
No. If it is there it must be spelled out either in words or in a
court interpretation. Provide an exact reference to either.
Problems following simple logic eh?
LN
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 04:25:48 PM |
|
|
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:nI%se.4534$Pa5.2852@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:hnt8b1d73oecms00184dqcbj12ss0ng4r7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:37:27 GMT, <needham@syix.com> in alt.abortion
with message-id <XcXse.30490$J12.28667@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jq48b11dub8e3fc2q0fbl7ifpe6err2aj5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<BfUse.106075$8S5.5916@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected
if
I
am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold
these
truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
endowed
by the creator.
Any more questions?
Yes. I see you deliberately did not mention the document because it
is not a legal document, was signed before there was a United States,
and is not the basis of any law.
It is, of course, the Declaration of Independence.
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity
usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a
Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration
mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the
Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of
the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful
government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the
separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various
grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The
unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The
grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have
more than thirteen states.
The Federlist documents which preceeded the Constitution is repleat with
Christain docturine.
That is not true of the Constitution, no matter what was in preceding
documents.
Still, the basis of the Constitution was founded upon Christain principles
No it fucking well wasn't. You have no proof of it, nor is there any mention
of your Blood Cult in the Constitution.
On the other hand, the mentions of religion in the Constitution and Bill of
Rights run counter to the propaganda and lies you continue to espouse.
The Treaty of Tripoli is the final nail in the "Christian Nation" *****.
contrary to previous claim to which you now accept as fact.
He has stated nothing of the sort, Dumbass.
You are one confussed puppy...
The confusion is your own, since you can't distinguish your lies from the
random ***** you conjure up.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 01:36:16 PM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com> wrote in message
news:wj0te.72132$PR6.17136@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Still, the basis of the Constitution was founded upon Christain
principles
No it fucking well wasn't. You have no proof of it, nor is there any
mention
of your Blood Cult in the Constitution.
When you educate yourself and care to have your butt kicked again royally, I
may satisfy that fetish of yours....
On the other hand, the mentions of religion in the Constitution and Bill
of
Rights run counter to the propaganda and lies you continue to espouse.
I told you moron, look in the Federalist Papers, the documents which
preceeded the US Constitution....
Class over!
LN
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 04:29:29 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<nI%se.4534$Pa5.2852@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, the lovely and
talented <needham@syix.com> broadcast on alt.atheism:
Still, the basis of the Constitution was founded upon Christain principles
contrary to previous claim to which you now accept as fact.
Well, let's see, where are these christian principles in the
Constitution?
The Constitution calls for counting slaves as fractional people.
So, score one for you since slavery is a christian principle.
But where does it call for the crossburnings, the night riders,
and the lynchings. Those key christian principles seem to be
missing from the Constitution. Then there is that pesky Bill of
Rights. Nearly every part of that really pisses christians off,
except the bit about guns, which they interpret in their own
way. Then there is the 14th Amendment with that equality before
the law stuff - hardly a day goes by that christians are trying
to subvert that.
So, no. On balance it is pretty clear that the Constitution
does not authorize christofascism.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
It is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners.
- Albert Camus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 05:15:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:29:29 -0500, Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <slrndb94gf.18bt.eighner@goodwill.io.com>
wrote:
In our last episode,
<nI%se.4534$Pa5.2852@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, the lovely and
talented <needham@syix.com> broadcast on alt.atheism:
Still, the basis of the Constitution was founded upon Christain principles
contrary to previous claim to which you now accept as fact.
Well, let's see, where are these christian principles in the
Constitution?
The Constitution calls for counting slaves as fractional people.
For the purpose of representation and taxation only.
So, score one for you since slavery is a christian principle.
Slavery has existed in almost every culture in history. It has no
religious connection.
But where does it call for the crossburnings, the night riders,
and the lynchings. Those key christian principles seem to be
missing from the Constitution. Then there is that pesky Bill of
Rights. Nearly every part of that really pisses christians off,
except the bit about guns, which they interpret in their own
way. Then there is the 14th Amendment with that equality before
the law stuff - hardly a day goes by that christians are trying
to subvert that.
So, no. On balance it is pretty clear that the Constitution
does not authorize christofascism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 05:13:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:44:03 GMT, <needham@syix.com> in alt.abortion
with message-id <nI%se.4534$Pa5.2852@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:hnt8b1d73oecms00184dqcbj12ss0ng4r7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:37:27 GMT, <needham@syix.com> in alt.abortion
with message-id <XcXse.30490$J12.28667@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jq48b11dub8e3fc2q0fbl7ifpe6err2aj5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<BfUse.106075$8S5.5916@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if
I
am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
endowed
by the creator.
Any more questions?
Yes. I see you deliberately did not mention the document because it
is not a legal document, was signed before there was a United States,
and is not the basis of any law.
It is, of course, the Declaration of Independence.
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity
usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a
Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration
mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the
Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of
the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful
government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the
separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various
grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The
unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The
grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have
more than thirteen states.
The Federlist documents which preceeded the Constitution is repleat with
Christain docturine.
That is not true of the Constitution, no matter what was in preceding
documents.
Still, the basis of the Constitution was founded upon Christain principles
contrary to previous claim to which you now accept as fact.
No. If the founders had any interest in any religious principals they
would have included them in the Constitution. They expressly rejected
them.
You are one confussed puppy...
These documents were the basis upon which the
Constitution was written. All the while, at the same time, these founding
fathers were adament that free people should have the unalienable right to
choose the religion of their own choice!
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire
the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it
in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a
historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain
at a time before the formation of our government.
Those LOFTY THOUGHTS which you are so flippantly dismissing do indeed
articulate the BASIS of the US Constitution. And it is therefore a
perfectly
rational and cogent argument to claim this text as the government basis
for
forming the union and ratifying the constitution. After all the preamble
so
states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America."
And how can a people have ANY OF THOSE LOFTY ideas without a most
primodial
assurance of "LIFE"?
Dismissing that the Constition is no guarantee of life is a quite silly
argument.
No. If it is there it must be spelled out either in words or in a
court interpretation. Provide an exact reference to either.
Problems following simple logic eh?
Not at all. But if the only place those 'rights' can be found is in
some 'logic' why can't I simply ignore them? What's to prevent me?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 07:52:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, endowed
by the creator.
Any more questions?
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 08:06:38 AM |
|
|
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:c668b1pd2jijdvkblvfckaqp5arr6s0tc1@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I
am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, endowed
by the creator.
Any more questions?
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 11:05:25 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
:"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
:news:c668b1pd2jijdvkblvfckaqp5arr6s0tc1@4ax.com...
:> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
:> wrote:
:>>"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
:>>news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
:>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
:>>> in alt.abortion with message-id
:>>> <jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
:>>>>Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I
:>>>>am in such a situation.
:>>> Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
:>>In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
:>>truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
:>>inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, endowed
:>>by the creator. Any more questions?
:> Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
:July 4th, 1776. Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as
:such.
Wrong. Independence was declared two days earlier, on July 2. The letter
explaining what the Continentals had done was what was adopted to be sent to
George III, on the 4th. As others have pointed out, it had all the legal
authority of a birthday card.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 08:25:56 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects,
I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them"
-- Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 08:41:35 AM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 11:10:34 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
:"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
:news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
:> In our last episode,
:> <kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
:> talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
:>>> Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
:>> July 4th, 1776.
:>> Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
:> That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
:*****.
That sums up your online existence.
:Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
That was 87 years later, moron. You know, that States War and the
Emancipation Proclamation?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
