From: Howard Brazee on 15 May 2010 10:10
On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:52:24 -0700, Billy <wildbilly(a)withouta.net>
>Always interesting, that people that are against abortion are always for
>the death penalty, hmmm?
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
From: BAR on 15 May 2010 10:17
In article <dn0su55ifibtj86cb6fj2duq0jhaat12fo(a)4ax.com>,
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 20:09:27 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> >In article <4bede2ba$0$4831$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> >nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> >> >>
> >> >> If you kill a pregnant mother you can be charged with two murders.
> >> >> However, if you kill an unborn child, via abortion, you cannot be
> >> >> charged with murder. What is the difference? The unborn child is dead
> >> >> either way.
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess it is ok to kill unborn children because they cannot speak
> >> >> for themselves.
> >> >
> >> > The vast majority are victims of convenience.
> >> Cite.
> >Now all we need is for the other three cite boys to chime in.
> It wouldn't matter if fifty asked for cites from you. You never can
> produce them.
Sure Bobby, whatever you say.
From: Hisler on 15 May 2010 10:27
Turban Joe Balasootoe wrote:
> On May 13, 6:47 pm, Strabo <str...(a)flashlight.net> wrote:
>> brad herschel wrote:
>>> On May 13, 1:48 pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 10:39:55 -0700 (PDT), "Speeders & Drunk Drivers
>>>> are MURDERERS" <beta...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> On May 13, 6:15 am, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
>>>>>> This should clear up one misconception here.
>>>>>> The fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:
>>>>>> ...Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property
>>>>>> ...without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
>>>>>> jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
>>>>>> ...The Supreme Court has ruled that these provisions apply to all
>>>>>> ...persons in the U.S., without regard to race, or nationality.
>>>>>> ...Therefore, U.S. residents -- legal and illegal -- have
>>>>>> ...constitutional rights such as equal protection of the law and the
>>>>>> ...right to due process.
>>>>> The first words in the constitution are "We the people of the united
>>>>> states" and that makes it clear the words people or person refer to
>>>>> citizens. The SC takes their usual bribes from Business and ignores
>>>> You're an idiot....and prove it over and over. Keep it up, we need
>>>> the laughs.
>>>> BK- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I would take those "rights" from illegal aliens. Americans should have
>>> the right to shoot border crossers at site of invasion, make citizens
>>> arrests, seize assets, etc.
>>> Uncle Suckemoff is totally inept.
>> Illegal aliens are foreign nationals illegally in the US. They are
>> quite simply, outlaws.
>>> Brad- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> Legals are even more of a malediction. Here's one running for
> the U.S. Congressional seat in PA's 6th District: Manan Trivedi:
> 4. Do you agree that any immigration reform bill should:
> a) Contain a meaningful path to citizenship - one that does
> not include overly-punitive fines or a touchback requirement - for law-
> abiding undocumented immigrants currently in the United States;
> b) Ensure that expanded legal permanent immigration, rather
> than expansion of temporary worker programs, serves as the United
> States' primary external answer to workforce shortages; and
Some 9 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the U.S. in the
lifetime of an American 5th grader. There are no workforce shortages.
There is double digit unemployment made far worse by immigration, legal
> c) Ensure that any non-agricultural temporary worker programs
> maintain current caps on the total number of non-agricultural
> temporary worker visas issued, and also include a meaningful
> prevailing wage requirement keyed to the Service Contract Act and
> Davis-Bacon Act?
> "I support all the measures above in a comprehensive immigration
> reform bill. I am the son of immigrants and we are a nation that
> continues to prosper because of the contributions of immigrants.
He's like a junkie who has to sell heroin to unsuspecting youth in order
to pay for his own drug addiction. More reason to stop all immigration.
> need to pursue comprehensive immigration reform that assures that
> America continues to attract and retain the best and brightest from
> around the world." (Trivedi)
From: BAR on 15 May 2010 10:28
In article <wildbilly-887263.23001914052010(a)c-61-68-245-
199.per.connect.net.au>, wildbilly(a)withouta.net says...
> In article <856o2qFl8fU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.2657871a8175bc1b989f11(a)news.giganews.com...
> > > In article <alangbaker-9AB73F.11414914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> > > alangbaker(a)telus.net says...
> > > > >
> > > > > What rights are not codified in the US constitution as the US
> > > > > constitution exists today?
> > > >
> > > > The document is very clear that there are rights in doesn't enumerate.
> > > >
> > > > You don't seriously disagree with this, do you?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you kill a pregnant mother you can be charged with two murders.
> > > > > However, if you kill an unborn child, via abortion, you cannot be
> > > > > charged with murder. What is the difference? The unborn child is dead
> > > > > either way.
> > > >
> > > > Parents hold their offsprings rights in trust. A parent can decide that
> > > > they will move self and child across the country and if the child
> > > > doesn't like it, confine the child to his or her room.
> > > >
> > > > But if a third party does that, it's called kidnapping.
> > > >
> > > > What's the difference in that case?
> > >
> > > Are you of the opinion that the US constitution is a living document?
> > >
> > > I am of the opinion that if you want to change the US constitution you
> > > do it through the process it defines and get an amendment passed.
> > >
> > > The problem is that rights come from the creator and the creator did not
> > > and will not give you the "right" to steal your neighbors property to
> > > fund your desires. A document that is one of the base documents of our
> > > laws specifically proscribes stealing.
> > You're wasting your time with Uncle Al, the unborn kiddy's pal. He doesn't
> > believe in a creator....or much of anything for that matter.
> > -Greg
> It's a mater of hypocrisy. Can you demand a woman take care of a baby,
> when you wouldn't? Should a kid have to face resentful parents, when you
> could give the child a good life? If you insist that the child be born,
> then you take some responsibility.
Why is the sperm donor on the hook for 18 years of support? Shouldn't it
be a joint decision between the egg donor and the sperm donor. After all
the woman is just a vessel to carry the fetus.
From: Frank Ketchum on 15 May 2010 10:39
<bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 09:37:48 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
> <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>>"Billy" <wildbilly(a)withouta.net> wrote in message
>>> It's a mater of hypocrisy. Can you demand a woman take care of a baby,
>>> when you wouldn't? Should a kid have to face resentful parents, when you
>>> could give the child a good life? If you insist that the child be born,
>>> then you take some responsibility.
>>The cornerstone of your whole argument is to completely ignore the concept
>>of personal responsibility.
> He just demanded personal responsibility.
I know, that is my POINT. He demands personal responsibility from people
who oppose abortion. He refuses the concept of personal responsibility when
it comes to a woman who gets pregnant. She is not in anyway responsible for
getting pregnant, but those who would have her bear the child are
responsible for it. Hypocrisy and stupidity blended nicely.
>>To then suggest that someone else needs to be responsible for a child
>>is... well.... let's just put it this way - You are
>>a perfect liberal.
> Where did he say that? Seems that you agree here, making you a
> perfect liberal. :-)
I am a perfect (classic) liberal.