Religions > Atheism > "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County,"
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2005 11:08:51 PM |
| Object: |
"She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
This headline could have easily been about the closing of the local abortion
mill. Maybe Andrea Yates should take her cue from Planned Parenthood; have
the ACLU represent her and claim she was only exercising her "Freedom of
Choice", albeit retroactively.
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-09T232314Z_01_SPI960173_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-YATES.xml
Texas child-killer Yates will have second trial
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who drowned her five
children in 2001, will face a second trial after the state's highest
criminal court refused on Wednesday to reinstate the murder convictions
against her.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a lower appeals court's ruling
issued in January that overturned jury verdicts against Yates because of
errors in the testimony of an expert witness.
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said he would try Yates
again as soon as possible. "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do
that in Harris County," he said.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 01:05:26 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Liz wrote:
What 'consequences' would you recommend for fucking? IMO, an orgasm
is always a welcome consequence.
Sometimes, a baby is the consequence. A human baby.
Sometimes an abortion is the consequence.
Abortion as a method to eliminate the consequence of
recklessness is immoral.
You're lies and hate are what is immoral. Your need to make people
suffer is perverse and evil.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 01:08:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:26:47 +0000, Liz wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 16:02:44 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> in
news message <1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
And sometimes you do.
What 'consequences' would you recommend for fucking? IMO, an orgasm
is always a welcome consequence.
You must use a ***** a lot, since any man who would insert part of his body into
someone who believes being in her body makes it her property, would have
to be a damned fool.
Liz #658 BAAWA
The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that
their interests and his own are the same -- Stendhal
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 07:43:26 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> posting the following on Tue, 29 Nov
2005 18:49:05 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
A woman I know has had two abortions. She's had one sexual partner in
her life, her husband. So, why the abortions?
She's a Polish Jew, and carries Tay Sachs. The aborted embtyos were
male and tested positive for the disease. She chose to abort rather
than face the fact of her children dying before they saw their fifth
birthday, in ever-increasing pain and loss of control.
So ***** you. And want to know the real funny thing? The best hope
for finding a way to cure things like Tay Sachs is stem-cell
research.. which you morons oppose!
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 01:01:09 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> posting the following on Tue, 29 Nov
2005 18:49:05 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
A woman I know has had two abortions. She's had one sexual partner in
her life, her husband. So, why the abortions?
She's a Polish Jew,
Oh, very noble.
and carries Tay Sachs. The aborted embtyos were
male and tested positive for the disease. She chose to abort rather
than face the fact of her children dying before they saw their fifth
birthday, in ever-increasing pain and loss of control.
Why doesn't she have a tubal ligation, or her husband
get a vasectomy? Why don't they stop having
unprotected sex? Wouldn't those all be examples of
exercising reproductive rights?
So ***** you. And want to know the real funny thing? The best hope
for finding a way to cure things like Tay Sachs is stem-cell
research.. which you morons oppose!
Oh, I'm *so* glad you brought up the 100% utilitarian
topic of stem-cell research, doogie. It's a good one.
I'm always amused and amazed by the people who
rationalize it in strictly utilitarian terms: "Well,
it would do a whole lot of good, so I guess I'm for
it." Well, doogie, sweeping several thousand
African-Americans off the streets of urban America and
performing brutal experiments on them without their
consent *also* might yield a lot of good, in the form
of cures for sickle cell disease, high blood pressure,
and so on. Are you in favor of it, doogie? If not,
why the ***** not? Isn't "doing a lot of good" the
standard - the *only* standard you goddamned fucking
morally bankrupt utilitarians consider?
How about rounding up a bunch of Jew babies for the
same thing, doogie? Wouldn't it do good?
No, doogie, and all you other chickenshit
utilitarians-when-it-suits-you. You can't can't
see-saw between utilitarianism and a deontological view
of rights like that. It's logically and morally untenable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 12:34:58 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:01:09 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> posting the following on Tue, 29 Nov
2005 18:49:05 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
A woman I know has had two abortions. She's had one sexual partner in
her life, her husband. So, why the abortions?
She's a Polish Jew,
Oh, very noble.
and carries Tay Sachs. The aborted embtyos were
male and tested positive for the disease. She chose to abort rather
than face the fact of her children dying before they saw their fifth
birthday, in ever-increasing pain and loss of control.
Why doesn't she have a tubal ligation, or her husband
get a vasectomy?
Why should she?
Why don't they stop having
unprotected sex? Wouldn't those all be examples of
exercising reproductive rights?
Yes, but why should she?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 02:01:02 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:01:09 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> posting the following on Tue, 29 Nov
2005 18:49:05 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
A woman I know has had two abortions. She's had one sexual partner in
her life, her husband. So, why the abortions?
She's a Polish Jew,
Oh, very noble.
and carries Tay Sachs. The aborted embtyos were
male and tested positive for the disease. She chose to abort rather
than face the fact of her children dying before they saw their fifth
birthday, in ever-increasing pain and loss of control.
Why doesn't she have a tubal ligation, or her husband
get a vasectomy?
Why should she?
Because when she gets pregnant, there's a significant
chance she's going to have to kill the child to prevent
the development of a dread disease. It's obvious she
just likes to *****; she doesn't even want any more
children. DO something permanent to ensure it's not an
issue.
Why don't they stop having
unprotected sex? Wouldn't those all be examples of
exercising reproductive rights?
Yes, but why should she?
See above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 08:42:47 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:01:02 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:01:09 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> posting the following on Tue, 29 Nov
2005 18:49:05 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
A woman I know has had two abortions. She's had one sexual partner in
her life, her husband. So, why the abortions?
She's a Polish Jew,
Oh, very noble.
and carries Tay Sachs. The aborted embtyos were
male and tested positive for the disease. She chose to abort rather
than face the fact of her children dying before they saw their fifth
birthday, in ever-increasing pain and loss of control.
Why doesn't she have a tubal ligation, or her husband
get a vasectomy?
Why should she?
Because when she gets pregnant, there's a significant
chance she's going to have to kill the child to prevent
the development of a dread disease.
So what?
It's obvious she
just likes to *****;
Hasty generalization and poisoning the well fallacy.
Why don't they stop having
unprotected sex? Wouldn't those all be examples of
exercising reproductive rights?
Yes, but why should she?
See above.
Ok. So why should she?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
03 Dec 2005 12:15:21 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:v3dvo1drmqsgpval0vj55atn23s8to78cc@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:01:02 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:01:09 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> posting the following on Tue, 29 Nov
2005 18:49:05 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Whould SHOULD there
be a consequence to just enjoying having sex? Birth control
would take care of just about all consequences if it was for
the meddling churches.
A woman I know has had two abortions. She's had one sexual partner in
her life, her husband. So, why the abortions?
She's a Polish Jew,
Oh, very noble.
and carries Tay Sachs. The aborted embtyos were
male and tested positive for the disease. She chose to abort rather
than face the fact of her children dying before they saw their fifth
birthday, in ever-increasing pain and loss of control.
Why doesn't she have a tubal ligation, or her husband
get a vasectomy?
Why should she?
Because when she gets pregnant, there's a significant
chance she's going to have to kill the child to prevent
the development of a dread disease.
So what?
It's obvious she
just likes to *****;
You definitely seem to have a problem with people enjoying
sex for its own sake. Besides, the woman still has a good
chance of having a healthy child. Did it ever strike you that
this is why she still has unprotected sex? She wants a child!
Hasty generalization and poisoning the well fallacy.
Why don't they stop having
unprotected sex? Wouldn't those all be examples of
exercising reproductive rights?
Yes, but why should she?
See above.
Ok. So why should she?
Exactly.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Miguel OPastel" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
04 Dec 2005 10:05:06 AM |
|
|
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lLudnbg8EvxyqgzenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
:
:
:
: "Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
: news:v3dvo1drmqsgpval0vj55atn23s8to78cc@4ax.com...
: > In alt.atheism On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:01:02 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
: > <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
: >
: >>Don Kresch wrote:
: >>
: >>> In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:01:09 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
: >>> <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>>Douglas Berry wrote:
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>>>What's so funny about peace, love and "S. Maizlich"
: >>>>><s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> posting the following on Tue, 29 Nov
: >>>>>2005 18:49:05 GMT iin alt.atheism?
: >>>>>
: >>>>>
: >>>>>
: >>>>>>Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
: >>>>>>smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
: >>>>>>is consequence-free fucking.
:
: Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Whould SHOULD there
: be a consequence to just enjoying having sex? Birth control
: would take care of just about all consequences if it was for
: the meddling churches.
: >>>>>
: >>>>>
: >>>>>A woman I know has had two abortions. She's had one sexual partner
in
: >>>>>her life, her husband. So, why the abortions?
: >>>>>
: >>>>>She's a Polish Jew,
: >>>>
: >>>>Oh, very noble.
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>>>and carries Tay Sachs. The aborted embtyos were
: >>>>>male and tested positive for the disease. She chose to abort rather
: >>>>>than face the fact of her children dying before they saw their fifth
: >>>>>birthday, in ever-increasing pain and loss of control.
: >>>>
: >>>>Why doesn't she have a tubal ligation, or her husband
: >>>>get a vasectomy?
: >>>
: >>>
: >>> Why should she?
: >>
: >>Because when she gets pregnant, there's a significant
: >>chance she's going to have to kill the child to prevent
: >>the development of a dread disease.
: >
: > So what?
: >
: >> It's obvious she
: >>just likes to *****;
:
: You definitely seem to have a problem with people enjoying
: sex for its own sake. Besides, the woman still has a good
: chance of having a healthy child. Did it ever strike you that
: this is why she still has unprotected sex? She wants a child!
: >
: > Hasty generalization and poisoning the well fallacy.
: >
: >>
: >>>>Why don't they stop having
: >>>>unprotected sex? Wouldn't those all be examples of
: >>>>exercising reproductive rights?
: >>>
: >>>
: >>> Yes, but why should she?
: >>
: >>See above.
: >
: > Ok. So why should she?
:
: Exactly.
:
: --
: ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
: Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
: BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
: ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
:
: >
: >
: > Don
: >
:
:
:
There's no such thing as sex without consequences. All actions have
consequences. But feel free to bang away at your own risk.
M
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
07 Dec 2005 04:31:16 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 08:05:06 -0800, "Miguel O'Pastel"
<nofascism@tall.usa> wrote:
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lLudnbg8EvxyqgzenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
:
:
snip
:
: Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Whould SHOULD there
: be a consequence to just enjoying having sex? Birth control
: would take care of just about all consequences if it was for
: the meddling churches.
: >>>>>
snip
There's no such thing as sex without consequences. All actions have
consequences. But feel free to bang away at your own risk.
I certainly do. I also feel free to take what measures I decide are
necessary for my protection, for the protection of my partner and for
the prevention of any undesired pregnancy. I am glad that you
approve, not that I have any need for your approval.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 08:11:30 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> posting the following on Wed, 30 Nov
2005 07:01:09 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
A woman I know has had two abortions. She's had one sexual partner in
her life, her husband. So, why the abortions?
and carries Tay Sachs. The aborted embtyos were
male and tested positive for the disease. She chose to abort rather
than face the fact of her children dying before they saw their fifth
birthday, in ever-increasing pain and loss of control.
Why doesn't she have a tubal ligation, or her husband
get a vasectomy? Why don't they stop having
unprotected sex? Wouldn't those all be examples of
exercising reproductive rights?
Their three daughters might have something to do with that. Children
are important to them.
So ***** you. And want to know the real funny thing? The best hope
for finding a way to cure things like Tay Sachs is stem-cell
research.. which you morons oppose!
Oh, I'm *so* glad you brought up the 100% utilitarian
topic of stem-cell research, doogie. It's a good one.
Ah, 3rd grade misspellings of my name. always the sign of a lost
cause.
I'm always amused and amazed by the people who
rationalize it in strictly utilitarian terms: "Well,
it would do a whole lot of good, so I guess I'm for
it." Well, doogie, sweeping several thousand
African-Americans off the streets of urban America and
performing brutal experiments on them without their
consent *also* might yield a lot of good, in the form
of cures for sickle cell disease, high blood pressure,
and so on. Are you in favor of it, doogie? If not,
why the ***** not? Isn't "doing a lot of good" the
standard - the *only* standard you goddamned fucking
morally bankrupt utilitarians consider?
Except those African-Americans, having been born, have rights. See,
there's the crucial difference. Once you can breathe on your own,
take food orally, and general show that you'll have a fighting chance
on Earth, you get the protection of law.
Parasites depended on the body of another don't. Under the law, they
are not people.
How about rounding up a bunch of Jew babies for the
same thing, doogie? Wouldn't it do good?
Depnds.. are we talking about living or dead? When I die, my body is
going to the same medical school that saved my life so that I can help
train a new doctor.
No, doogie, and all you other chickenshit
utilitarians-when-it-suits-you. You can't can't
see-saw between utilitarianism and a deontological view
of rights like that. It's logically and morally untenable.
Not really, since we understand the difference between an
undiffrentiated clump of cells and a baby.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 08:44:50 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> posting the following on Wed, 30 Nov
2005 07:01:09 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
A woman I know has had two abortions. She's had one sexual partner in
her life, her husband. So, why the abortions?
and carries Tay Sachs. The aborted embtyos were
male and tested positive for the disease. She chose to abort rather
than face the fact of her children dying before they saw their fifth
birthday, in ever-increasing pain and loss of control.
Why doesn't she have a tubal ligation, or her husband
get a vasectomy? Why don't they stop having
unprotected sex? Wouldn't those all be examples of
exercising reproductive rights?
Their three daughters might have something to do with that. Children
are important to them.
So ***** you. And want to know the real funny thing? The best hope
for finding a way to cure things like Tay Sachs is stem-cell
research.. which you morons oppose!
Oh, I'm *so* glad you brought up the 100% utilitarian
topic of stem-cell research, doogie. It's a good one.
Ah, 3rd grade misspellings of my name. always the sign of a lost
cause.
I'm always amused and amazed by the people who
rationalize it in strictly utilitarian terms: "Well,
it would do a whole lot of good, so I guess I'm for
it." Well, doogie, sweeping several thousand
African-Americans off the streets of urban America and
performing brutal experiments on them without their
consent *also* might yield a lot of good, in the form
of cures for sickle cell disease, high blood pressure,
and so on. Are you in favor of it, doogie? If not,
why the ***** not? Isn't "doing a lot of good" the
standard - the *only* standard you goddamned fucking
morally bankrupt utilitarians consider?
Except those African-Americans, having been born, have rights. See,
there's the crucial difference. Once you can breathe on your own,
take food orally, and general show that you'll have a fighting chance
on Earth, you get the protection of law.
Oh, I see. So if you're in a coma with a feeding tube down your gullet
and on a ventilator for breathing, all due to a condition from which
there's a good chance you may make a full recovery, then we may suspend
your rights and perform experiments on you without your cnosent.
Very good. Get your fat ***** down to the nearest teaching hospital,
where someone will arrange for you conveniently to fall and hit your
head.
Parasites depended on the body of another don't. Under the law, they
are not people.
Fetuses are not parasites. That's a bit of rhetorical extravagance
that no one seriously uses any more, doogie.
How about rounding up a bunch of Jew babies for the
same thing, doogie? Wouldn't it do good?
Depnds.. are we talking about living or dead?
Living, you fuckwit.
No, doogie, and all you other chickenshit
utilitarians-when-it-suits-you. You can't can't
see-saw between utilitarianism and a deontological view
of rights like that. It's logically and morally untenable.
Not really, since we understand the difference between an
undiffrentiated clump of cells and a baby.
We already got rid of the "just a lump of cells" canard earlier today,
doogie. See, doogie, when I allege that most of the several million
convenience abortions done every year in the U.S. are obtained casually
and blithely, as if no more of a moral concern than getting a haircut
or having the oil changed on your shitheap of a car, people roundly
chastised me and said no, most women "agonized" over getting the
abortion. But no one agonizes over "just a lump of [undifferentiated]
cells", doogie. So stick that one up your *****, doogie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
29 Nov 2005 05:07:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:45:35 -0500, IAAH wrote:
<snip>
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
Spare us your baseless pronouncements. You can call it 'impossible
moral ground' all you want, but that only makes it clear that you have
control issues.
Typical 'liberal' obfuscation. You ignore the central issue, which is your
HYPOCRISY. Don't give us this "You can't legislate morality" as you seek
to do exactly that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
29 Nov 2005 06:23:21 PM |
|
|
"Bill K." <bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> writes:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:45:35 -0500, IAAH wrote:
<snip>
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
Spare us your baseless pronouncements. You can call it 'impossible
moral ground' all you want, but that only makes it clear that you have
control issues.
Typical 'liberal' obfuscation. You ignore the central issue, which is your
HYPOCRISY. Don't give us this "You can't legislate morality" as you seek
to do exactly that.
Blaming your obsession with control on the refusal of others to do as you say
without a coherent explanation? What a surprise...and that's the opinion of a
32-year voter who's voted for ONE Democrat in those 32 years of voting.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 0 (November 27)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 30 vs. Cleveland, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in HarrisCounty," |
30 Nov 2005 11:07:23 AM |
|
|
Bill K. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:45:35 -0500, IAAH wrote:
<snip>
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
Spare us your baseless pronouncements. You can call it 'impossible
moral ground' all you want, but that only makes it clear that you have
control issues.
Typical 'liberal' obfuscation.
Exactly right. In fact, it was utterly incoherent
babbling, but I've come to expect that from little iaah.
You ignore the central issue, which is your
HYPOCRISY. Don't give us this "You can't legislate morality" as you seek
to do exactly that.
Of course they do! EVERYONE does. The entire legal
system is an attempt to legislate morality, but in
particular, the social engineering the left seeks to
achieve through legislation and court decisions is
ENTIRELY an attempt to legislate morality. When the
left get "hate crime" laws passed, that is enacting
their moral beliefs that expressing "hateful" thoughts
is immoral into law.
The extremes of both sides of the spectrum are
monstrously hypocritical, but in this instance we are
focusing only on the monstrous, massive hypocrisy of
the left. We can address the monstrous, massive
hypocrisy of the right in other topics.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
30 Nov 2005 11:45:06 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:07:29 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:45:35 -0500, IAAH wrote:
<snip>
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
Spare us your baseless pronouncements. You can call it 'impossible
moral ground' all you want, but that only makes it clear that you have
control issues.
Typical 'liberal' obfuscation. You ignore the central issue, which is your
HYPOCRISY. Don't give us this "You can't legislate morality" as you seek
to do exactly that.
Oh really? What 'morality' am I trying to legislate now? What am I
trying to force on people?
Oh, and trying to get women left alone to make their own choices about
their bodies isn't 'forcing' anything on you. If that's where you're
trying to go, don't even bother - it's a non-starter.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
30 Nov 2005 11:46:15 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:07:29 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:45:35 -0500, IAAH wrote:
<snip>
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
Spare us your baseless pronouncements. You can call it 'impossible
moral ground' all you want, but that only makes it clear that you have
control issues.
Typical 'liberal' obfuscation. You ignore the central issue, which is your
HYPOCRISY. Don't give us this "You can't legislate morality" as you seek
to do exactly that.
Oh really? What 'morality' am I trying to legislate now? What am I
trying to force on people?
Oh, and trying to get women left alone to make their own choices about
their bodies isn't 'forcing' anything on you. If that's where you're
trying to go, don't even bother - it's a non-starter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
03 Dec 2005 03:51:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:46:15 -0500, IAAH wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:07:29 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:45:35 -0500, IAAH wrote:
<snip>
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
Spare us your baseless pronouncements. You can call it 'impossible
moral ground' all you want, but that only makes it clear that you have
control issues.
Typical 'liberal' obfuscation. You ignore the central issue, which is your
HYPOCRISY. Don't give us this "You can't legislate morality" as you seek
to do exactly that.
Oh really? What 'morality' am I trying to legislate now? What am I
trying to force on people?
How would I know that? But do you support the welfare system? Do you
support same-sex "marriage"? Do you support socialized medicine? If you
support any of these, you're a HYPOCRITE.
Oh, and trying to get women left alone to make their own choices about
their bodies isn't 'forcing' anything on you. If that's where you're
trying to go, don't even bother - it's a non-starter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
03 Dec 2005 04:04:52 PM |
|
|
"Bill K." <bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.12.03.21.51.31.714979@XXXoptonline.net:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:46:15 -0500, IAAH wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:07:29 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:45:35 -0500, IAAH wrote:
<snip>
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth
when a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
Spare us your baseless pronouncements. You can call it 'impossible
moral ground' all you want, but that only makes it clear that you
have control issues.
Typical 'liberal' obfuscation. You ignore the central issue, which is
your HYPOCRISY. Don't give us this "You can't legislate morality" as
you seek to do exactly that.
Oh really? What 'morality' am I trying to legislate now? What am I
trying to force on people?
How would I know that? But do you support the welfare system? Do you
support same-sex "marriage"? Do you support socialized medicine? If
you support any of these, you're a HYPOCRITE.
You are an idiot, Pill K. The "welfare system", "same sex marriage" and
"socialized medicine" are not "moral" issues.
Oh, and trying to get women left alone to make their own choices
about their bodies isn't 'forcing' anything on you. If that's where
you're trying to go, don't even bother - it's a non-starter.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: TQOTN Nomination Was:: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
03 Dec 2005 05:05:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:51:33 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:46:15 -0500, IAAH wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:07:29 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:45:35 -0500, IAAH wrote:
Snip
Nominated portion.
Bill K
Typical 'liberal' obfuscation. You ignore the central issue, which is your
HYPOCRISY. Don't give us this "You can't legislate morality" as you seek
to do exactly that.
IAAH
Oh really? What 'morality' am I trying to legislate now? What am I
trying to force on people?
Bill K
How would I know that?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But do you support the welfare system? Do you
support same-sex "marriage"? Do you support socialized medicine? If you
support any of these, you're a HYPOCRITE.
End
It just seemed so typically fundy.
Bill K makes an accusation, but when IAAH, calls him on it, he doesn't
actually know, in what it is that he is accusing, IAAh of.
So he makes a list, just on the off chance.
I hope this makes sense to you all.
Can I get a second? Pretty please. (:-)
..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
03 Dec 2005 05:08:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:51:33 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:46:15 -0500, IAAH wrote:
snip
Oh really? What 'morality' am I trying to legislate now? What am I
trying to force on people?
How would I know that?
You are making the accusation, and yet you don't know what it is that
you are accusing him of?
That has *got* to be one for the legend.
But do you support the welfare system?
Irrelevant. You are just looking for something that you can twist to
support your unfounded claim.
Do you
support same-sex "marriage"? Do you support socialized medicine? If you
support any of these, you're a HYPOCRITE.
In what way?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
04 Dec 2005 07:57:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:08:19 +0000, Nightshade wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:51:33 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:46:15 -0500, IAAH wrote:
snip
Oh really? What 'morality' am I trying to legislate now? What am I
trying to force on people?
How would I know that?
You are making the accusation, and yet you don't know what it is that
you are accusing him of?
It was apparent in what you "snipped" that I was referring GENERICALLY to
'liberals', a group to which the writer obviously owes allegiance.
That has *got* to be one for the legend.
But do you support the welfare system?
Irrelevant. You are just looking for something that you can twist to
support your unfounded claim.
Very relevant, and the fact that you avoid it demonstrates just how
"founded" my claim was.
Do you
support same-sex "marriage"? Do you support socialized medicine? If you
support any of these, you're a HYPOCRITE.
In what way?
What other reason is there for same-sex "marriage" support other than
"fairness" which is just another form of "morality"? Same with socialized
medicine. Same with just about everything associated with modern-day
'liberalism'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
04 Dec 2005 10:03:54 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 08:57:49 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:08:19 +0000, Nightshade wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:51:33 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:46:15 -0500, IAAH wrote:
snip
Oh really? What 'morality' am I trying to legislate now? What am I
trying to force on people?
How would I know that?
You are making the accusation, and yet you don't know what it is that
you are accusing him of?
It was apparent in what you "snipped" that I was referring GENERICALLY to
'liberals', a group to which the writer obviously owes allegiance.
No, it was not apparent, It appeared then, and still appears now, as
a straight attack against IAAH
Here is the relevant part of the post
Quote;-----------------------------------------------------
You
Typical 'liberal' obfuscation. You ignore the central issue, which is your
HYPOCRISY. Don't give us this "You can't legislate morality" as you seek
to do exactly that.
IAAH
Oh really? What 'morality' am I trying to legislate now? What am I
trying to force on people?
YOU
How would I know that? But do you support the welfare system? Do you
support same-sex "marriage"? Do you support socialized medicine? If you
support any of these, you're a HYPOCRITE.
End quote;--------------------------------------------------
Your attack is direct to IAAH , and when you are called on it, you
have no answer, and so, in good xtian fashion, you try and tell us
that you meant something different.
Now, in answer to YOUR questions;
But do you support the welfare system?
Do you support same-sex "marriage"?
Do you support socialized medicine?
Yes I do, all three.
If you
support any of these, you're a HYPOCRITE.
Now tell us all, how supporting fair treatment for all, and protection
for all, makes me, or IAAH, anyone else, a hypocrite.
That has *got* to be one for the legend.
But do you support the welfare system?
Irrelevant. You are just looking for something that you can twist to
support your unfounded claim.
Very relevant, and the fact that you avoid it demonstrates just how
"founded" my claim was.
You are very good with the accusations, and even better at screaming
the house down, when they are made against you. What you are not very
good at, is supporting your accusations.
When questioned you just rant on about hypocrites and morality, with
no explanation.
So typical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
04 Dec 2005 11:27:13 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:03:54 +0000, Nightshade wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 08:57:49 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:08:19 +0000, Nightshade wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:51:33 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:46:15 -0500, IAAH wrote:
snip
Oh really? What 'morality' am I trying to legislate now? What am I
trying to force on people?
How would I know that?
You are making the accusation, and yet you don't know what it is that
you are accusing him of?
It was apparent in what you "snipped" that I was referring GENERICALLY to
'liberals', a group to which the writer obviously owes allegiance.
No, it was not apparent, It appeared then, and still appears now, as
a straight attack against IAAH
Here is the relevant part of the post
Quote;-----------------------------------------------------
You
Typical 'liberal' obfuscation. You ignore the central issue, which is your
HYPOCRISY. Don't give us this "You can't legislate morality" as you seek
to do exactly that.
IAAH
Oh really? What 'morality' am I trying to legislate now? What am I
trying to force on people?
YOU
How would I know that? But do you support the welfare system? Do you
support same-sex "marriage"? Do you support socialized medicine? If you
support any of these, you're a HYPOCRITE.
End quote;--------------------------------------------------
Your attack is direct to IAAH ,
What "attack"? I pointed out that *IF* he supported those things, while
saying we can't legislate morality, he's a hypocrite. That's not an
attack, that's an observation based on fact.
and when you are called on it, you
have no answer, and so, in good xtian fashion, you try and tell us
that you meant something different.
Now, in answer to YOUR questions;
But do you support the welfare system?
Do you support same-sex "marriage"?
Do you support socialized medicine?
Yes I do, all three.
You're a hypocrite. That's not an "attack", that's an observation based on
fact.
If you
support any of these, you're a HYPOCRITE.
Now tell us all, how supporting fair treatment for all, and protection
for all, makes me, or IAAH, anyone else, a hypocrite.
You can call it "fairness", but what is it REALLY if not your version of
"morality"?
Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?
Would eliminating the welfare system be immoral in your view?
Is failing to provide universal health INSURANCE immoral in your view?
You don't need to answer because your fellow leftists have answered them
over and over.
That has *got* to be one for the legend.
But do you support the welfare system?
Irrelevant. You are just looking for something that you can twist to
support your unfounded claim.
Very relevant, and the fact that you avoid it demonstrates just how
"founded" my claim was.
You are very good with the accusations, and even better at screaming
the house down,
Baseless hyperbole.
when they are made against you. What you are not very
good at, is supporting your accusations.
When questioned you just rant on about hypocrites and morality, with
no explanation.
So typical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
04 Dec 2005 11:30:48 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.12.04.17.27.12.45823@XXXoptonline.net>, Bill K.
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?
Why do you want to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in HarrisCounty," |
04 Dec 2005 11:58:37 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <pan.2005.12.04.17.27.12.45823@XXXoptonline.net>, Bill K.
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?
Why do you want to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
Because we can?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
04 Dec 2005 12:07:11 PM |
|
|
In article <h7Gkf.9213$N45.8415@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <pan.2005.12.04.17.27.12.45823@XXXoptonline.net>, Bill K.
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?
Why do you want to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
Because we can?
The whole "hate" thing, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
04 Dec 2005 04:56:32 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:07:11 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <h7Gkf.9213$N45.8415@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <pan.2005.12.04.17.27.12.45823@XXXoptonline.net>, Bill K.
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?
Why do you want to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
Because we can?
The whole "hate" thing, right?
That is how it looks from here.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in HarrisCounty," |
04 Dec 2005 01:50:18 PM |
|
|
davie shitbag barnes lied:
In article <h7Gkf.9213$N45.8415@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> wrote:
davie shitbag barnes lied:
In article <pan.2005.12.04.17.27.12.45823@XXXoptonline.net>, Bill K.
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?
Why do you want to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
Because we can?
The whole
The whole kick-davie-in-the-***** thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
04 Dec 2005 02:08:50 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in news:_LHkf.9749
$wf.464@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
davie shitbag barnes lied:
In article <h7Gkf.9213$N45.8415@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> wrote:
davie shitbag barnes lied:
In article <pan.2005.12.04.17.27.12.45823@XXXoptonline.net>, Bill K.
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?
Why do you want to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
Because we can?
The whole
The whole kick-davie-in-the-***** thing.
^^^^
You misspelled *kiss* again, S. Malcontent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
