Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #485936 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-25 03:21 +0000 |
| Last post | 2019-01-25 22:16 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 165 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: Satan's Playground — New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 03:21 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-25 07:03 -0600
Expecting to get facts from a fruit is pure insanity Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 05:24 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 13:33 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-25 09:19 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-25 15:27 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 16:18 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 20:15 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-25 13:59 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 22:02 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-25 14:18 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 22:39 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-25 15:10 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 23:23 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-25 16:22 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-26 07:19 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-26 17:36 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-30 07:22 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-30 14:45 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-30 09:14 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-30 15:56 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 08:02 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-30 16:13 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 08:16 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:25 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-30 10:19 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-30 16:00 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-31 07:05 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-30 10:18 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-30 10:24 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-30 16:01 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:27 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 08:34 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-30 15:59 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-03 19:25 -0700
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-30 15:56 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-03 19:23 -0700
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:23 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:21 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-30 15:53 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-31 07:20 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 16:22 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:20 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 22:07 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-26 21:51 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 07:31 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-25 10:06 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 09:10 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 16:17 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-25 12:33 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 20:12 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-25 16:44 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 23:17 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-28 08:11 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 20:04 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-25 16:42 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 21:50 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 23:11 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 23:25 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 23:29 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-26 22:03 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 04:13 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-27 05:49 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 07:44 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-27 09:40 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-27 09:54 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 10:27 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-27 18:43 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-27 15:16 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 16:45 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-28 04:33 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 08:17 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-28 10:05 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 12:44 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-28 18:21 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 20:00 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-29 03:32 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-29 08:41 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-29 17:45 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 08:14 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-29 09:44 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 10:44 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-29 20:25 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 07:58 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-30 09:42 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 11:04 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-31 05:19 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 06:50 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 06:58 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-31 08:58 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 10:39 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-31 11:33 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 11:58 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 12:23 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-31 12:31 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-31 21:11 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-31 13:20 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-31 21:47 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 22:48 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 06:52 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 07:25 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-01 11:08 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 11:36 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 11:50 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-01 13:24 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 11:15 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 11:52 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-03 19:27 -0700
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-03 19:28 -0700
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-01 20:25 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-01 14:31 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-01 13:28 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 13:56 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-01 22:04 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 14:27 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Tommy B <riceornice8p@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 23:11 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 15:15 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 21:48 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:42 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-04 07:11 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York flyer <snowflyer09o@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:53 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-02 04:49 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 05:22 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-02 16:06 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 08:29 -0800
You can't forge the "Path:" line. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-02 10:51 -0800
Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-02 10:57 -0800
Re: Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 11:21 -0800
Re: Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 12:08 -0800
Re: Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-05 00:20 -0600
Re: Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 22:49 -0800
Re: Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 23:52 -0800
ProtonMail. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-04 23:05 -0800
Re: PutinMail. Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-02-05 01:07 -0600
Re: ProtonMail. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 23:21 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-02 12:16 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 12:39 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-02 20:58 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-02 14:12 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 14:29 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-03 18:46 +0000
Google Groups doesn't let you alter the IP adress. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-02 10:45 -0800
Re: Google Groups doesn't let you alter the IP adress. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-02 19:02 +0000
You can't forge the "Path:" line, grasshopper. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-02 11:06 -0800
Re: You can't forge the "Path:" line, grasshopper. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-02 19:08 +0000
_YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-02 11:28 -0800
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-05 00:29 -0600
_YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-04 22:58 -0800
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-05 14:11 -0600
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-05 13:16 -0500
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 13:59 -0800
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-05 17:31 -0500
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2019-02-05 22:47 +0000
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 14:54 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 12:54 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-31 17:48 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-31 22:32 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-28 12:16 -0700
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-27 23:39 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 08:31 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-28 07:18 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-25 12:31 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-25 12:26 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-25 14:09 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 22:16 +0000
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | silverslimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-26 22:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <pp7q4elfnve79374nbd2r1l32j07qhi13g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #485982 |
rOn Fri, 25 Jan 2019 23:29:29 +0000 (UTC), Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> wrote: >On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 23:11:09 +0000, RonB wrote: > >> On 2019-01-25, silverslimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 20:04:41 -0000 (UTC), RonB >>><ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On 2019-01-25, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Amanda KoXXX wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Evidence, please. >>>>>> >>>>>>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-celebrates-legalizing- >abortion-until-birth-as-catholic-bishops-question-cuomos-faith >>>>> >>>>> "if the woman's health is endangered or if the fetus is not viable." >>>>> >>>>> Changes things, a bit, eh? >>>> >>>>"Womens' health" includes "mental health." Which is tantamount to >>>>saying any woman can get an abortion (now at any time in New York) >>>>because "mental health" can be (and has been) defined as broadly as >>>>something as simple as the woman being stressed about having a baby. In >>>>other words, New York's new law is abortion (murder) on demand at ANY >>>>TIME in the pregnancy. >>>> >>>>Not only has late-term abortion been removed from the penal code (where >>>>late-term abortion was still a felony) it can now be committed by a >>>>"health care practitioner." In the past it required a physician. Isn't >>>>that nice? A serious operation can now be done by a "practitioner." >>>> >>>>Here's the wording of the law ... >>>> >>>>~~ >>>>"The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care is a >>>>fundamental component of every individual's health, privacy and >>>>equality. >>>> >>>>"Therefore, it is the policy of the state that: >>>> >>>>"Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse >>>>contraception or sterilization. Every individual who becomes pregnant >>>>has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to >>>>give birth to a child, or to have an abortion, pursuant to this >>>>article." >>>>~~ >>>> >>>>Nothing here to limit when in the pregnancy the woman can get an >>>>abortion. And who makes the decision about the "mental health" of the >>>>mother? >>>> >>>>~~ >>>>"According to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional >>>>judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is >>>>within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there >>>>is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to >>>>protect the patient's life or health." >>>>~~ >>>> >>>>In other words, the mother and the "health care practitioner" have the >>>>right to make the decision about the mother's "mental health." This >>>>would the same "health care practitioner" who is getting paid to murder >>>>the baby. The "mental health" dodge has long been used to justify >>>>abortions past the time allowed by state laws "due to the mental health >>>>of the mother." >>>> >>>>So, to answer your original question, no it doesn't change things at >>>>all. Abortion is now legal at full term in New York and the mother can >>>>murder her baby at any point before the baby is born (or at least up to >>>>the due date), so long as she and the "health care practitioner" decide >>>>there is a "mental health issue." >>>> >>>>And the so-called "Catholic" Gov. Andrew Cuomo, wants to put this >>>>"right" to murder an unborn child (at any point in the pregnancy) in >>>>the New York constitution. Disgusting son-of-a-bitch. >>> >>> I hope chrisv isn't ginger because he won't tan very well when he ends >>> up in Hell for supporting these demons. >> >> I give chrisv some slack, in case he really doesn't understand how >> "mental health" is misinterpreted by these abortion mills. Physical >> health of the mother (where the mother's life REALLY is in danger) has >> always been considered in child birth. There has always been the >> principle of "a life for a life" — in other words, if the mother will >> likely be killed in childbirth, the baby probably wouldn't make it >> anyhow. So doctors sacrificed one life to save the other. On the surface >> that's what this law looks like it's supporting but, in context, that's >> definitely NOT what it's saying. > >I have a close friend who was laying on the abortionist table ready to >abort her child, consensual sex but not the right guy. The >anesthesiologist asked her if she was really sure she wanted to do this. >It was an early pregnancy. My friend said no and stopped the procedure. > >Well, fast forward, literally, 20 years, and this boy now a man is a >player in the NBA and his mother got married to a different guy and has >been married since... You won't hear this on the MSM. I can't think of any good reason to abort a child. If you were raped then I can imagine you wanting to get rid of the product of the rape but with consensual sex, if you got pregnant, then hold onto the kid because not only should you take responsibility for your own actions, but you might actually enjoy motherhood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 04:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <q2jb66$5pr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #486048 |
On 2019-01-27, silverslimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: > rOn Fri, 25 Jan 2019 23:29:29 +0000 (UTC), Amanda KoXXX ><iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> wrote: > >>On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 23:11:09 +0000, RonB wrote: >> >>> On 2019-01-25, silverslimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 20:04:41 -0000 (UTC), RonB >>>><ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 2019-01-25, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> Amanda KoXXX wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Evidence, please. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-celebrates-legalizing- >>abortion-until-birth-as-catholic-bishops-question-cuomos-faith >>>>>> >>>>>> "if the woman's health is endangered or if the fetus is not viable." >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes things, a bit, eh? >>>>> >>>>>"Womens' health" includes "mental health." Which is tantamount to >>>>>saying any woman can get an abortion (now at any time in New York) >>>>>because "mental health" can be (and has been) defined as broadly as >>>>>something as simple as the woman being stressed about having a baby. In >>>>>other words, New York's new law is abortion (murder) on demand at ANY >>>>>TIME in the pregnancy. >>>>> >>>>>Not only has late-term abortion been removed from the penal code (where >>>>>late-term abortion was still a felony) it can now be committed by a >>>>>"health care practitioner." In the past it required a physician. Isn't >>>>>that nice? A serious operation can now be done by a "practitioner." >>>>> >>>>>Here's the wording of the law ... >>>>> >>>>>~~ >>>>>"The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care is a >>>>>fundamental component of every individual's health, privacy and >>>>>equality. >>>>> >>>>>"Therefore, it is the policy of the state that: >>>>> >>>>>"Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse >>>>>contraception or sterilization. Every individual who becomes pregnant >>>>>has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to >>>>>give birth to a child, or to have an abortion, pursuant to this >>>>>article." >>>>>~~ >>>>> >>>>>Nothing here to limit when in the pregnancy the woman can get an >>>>>abortion. And who makes the decision about the "mental health" of the >>>>>mother? >>>>> >>>>>~~ >>>>>"According to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional >>>>>judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is >>>>>within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there >>>>>is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to >>>>>protect the patient's life or health." >>>>>~~ >>>>> >>>>>In other words, the mother and the "health care practitioner" have the >>>>>right to make the decision about the mother's "mental health." This >>>>>would the same "health care practitioner" who is getting paid to murder >>>>>the baby. The "mental health" dodge has long been used to justify >>>>>abortions past the time allowed by state laws "due to the mental health >>>>>of the mother." >>>>> >>>>>So, to answer your original question, no it doesn't change things at >>>>>all. Abortion is now legal at full term in New York and the mother can >>>>>murder her baby at any point before the baby is born (or at least up to >>>>>the due date), so long as she and the "health care practitioner" decide >>>>>there is a "mental health issue." >>>>> >>>>>And the so-called "Catholic" Gov. Andrew Cuomo, wants to put this >>>>>"right" to murder an unborn child (at any point in the pregnancy) in >>>>>the New York constitution. Disgusting son-of-a-bitch. >>>> >>>> I hope chrisv isn't ginger because he won't tan very well when he ends >>>> up in Hell for supporting these demons. >>> >>> I give chrisv some slack, in case he really doesn't understand how >>> "mental health" is misinterpreted by these abortion mills. Physical >>> health of the mother (where the mother's life REALLY is in danger) has >>> always been considered in child birth. There has always been the >>> principle of "a life for a life" in other words, if the mother will >>> likely be killed in childbirth, the baby probably wouldn't make it >>> anyhow. So doctors sacrificed one life to save the other. On the surface >>> that's what this law looks like it's supporting but, in context, that's >>> definitely NOT what it's saying. >> >>I have a close friend who was laying on the abortionist table ready to >>abort her child, consensual sex but not the right guy. The >>anesthesiologist asked her if she was really sure she wanted to do this. >>It was an early pregnancy. My friend said no and stopped the procedure. >> >>Well, fast forward, literally, 20 years, and this boy now a man is a >>player in the NBA and his mother got married to a different guy and has >>been married since... You won't hear this on the MSM. > > I can't think of any good reason to abort a child. If you were raped > then I can imagine you wanting to get rid of the product of the rape > but with consensual sex, if you got pregnant, then hold onto the kid > because not only should you take responsibility for your own actions, > but you might actually enjoy motherhood. I think with some feminists, there is a definite hatred of motherhood. It's an unnatural, weird (Satanic) thing. A hatred of creation. -- The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 05:49 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <57c82096-5f9e-4a14-a95a-a1e31322a35d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486051 |
RonB wrote: > >I think with some feminists, there is a definite hatred of motherhood. And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when? Here’s a clue: I’m going to tell you just how you’re allowed & not allowed .. to live your private life. This is going to start with you having to give up Linux and pay more for OSX. Now then, are you going to meekly comply, or are you going to tell me to fuck off? Because if it’s the latter, you’re doing exactly what you’re whining about feminists. > It's an unnatural, weird (Satanic) thing. A hatred of creation. Nope: in nature, animals often kill their own young; no human demon involved. Try educating yourself by watching more nature shows instead of bible thumping. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 07:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <5612871c-68de-482d-9043-6f8bad7f405d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486054 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 6:49:13 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > RonB wrote: > > > >I think with some feminists, there is a definite hatred of motherhood. > > And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed > this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when? A fair point but since when are they a monolithic block, which is how you're trying to portray it? Look around, you'll see varying definitions of what it means to be a 'feminist'. > Here’s a clue: I’m going > to tell you just how you’re allowed & not allowed .. to live your private life. > This is going to start with you having to give up Linux and pay more for OSX. When you bring "pay" into it the context gets shifted 'cuz some might be more against having to foot the bill for abortion than the procedure. Notable is the fact that some are more pro birth than they are pro life, which is what you've alluded to. In any event "pay" also brings up the topic of personal responsibility and I don't think you want to go there. > Now then, are you going to meekly comply, or are you going to tell me to fuck off? > Because if it’s the latter, you’re doing exactly what you’re whining about feminists. Perhaps true in his case but there are people who are anti-pay who would prefer responsibility from those seeking 'free' medical procedures (i.e. roadside trash duty for the couple who aborted). > > It's an unnatural, weird (Satanic) thing. A hatred of creation. > > Nope: in nature, animals often kill their own young; no human demon involved. > Try educating yourself by watching more nature shows instead of bible thumping. With the exclusion of an episode where the mother's life is truly in danger, what's the difference between killing (I use kill instead of murder) a late term baby and killing "their own young" (as separated from the body)? Should the health consideration be limited to a risk of death, or no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 09:40 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <24f9bca3-ef5b-4b2a-991c-f1b1831650fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486056 |
Steve Carroll wrote: > -hh wrote: >> RonB wrote: >>> >I think with some feminists, there is a definite hatred of motherhood. >> >> And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed >> this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when? > > A fair point but since when are they a monolithic block, > which is how you're trying to portray it? Ask RonB, as it was he who claimed a monolithic “hatred of motherhood” >> Here’s a clue: I’m going >> to tell you just how you’re allowed & not allowed .. to live your private life. >> This is going to start with you having to give up Linux and pay more for OSX. > > When you bring "pay" into it ... Nope, for there’s never not been a cost of childbearing. In the last decade, college > the context gets shifted 'cuz some > might be more against having to foot the bill for abortion than > the procedure. Notable is the fact that some are more pro birth than they are pro life, which is what you've alluded to. In any event "pay" also brings up the topic of personal responsibility and I don't think you want to go there. > Now then, are you going to meekly comply, or are you going to tell me to fuck off? > Because if it’s the latter, you’re doing exactly what you’re whining about feminists. Perhaps true in his case but there are people who are anti-pay who would prefer responsibility from those seeking 'free' medical procedures (i.e. roadside trash duty for the couple who aborted). > > It's an unnatural, weird (Satanic) thing. A hatred of creation. > > Nope: in nature, animals often kill their own young; no human demon involved. > Try educating yourself by watching more nature shows instead of bible thumping. With the exclusion of an episode where the mother's life is truly in danger, what's the difference between killing (I use kill instead of murder) a late term baby and killing "their own young" (as separated from the body)? Should the health consideration be limited to a risk of death, or no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 09:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <56b83f26-ccc2-4b72-b873-ceedaf60680b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486064 |
[repost] Steve Carroll wrote: > -hh wrote: >> RonB wrote: >>> >I think with some feminists, there is a definite hatred of motherhood. >> >> And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed >> this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when? > > A fair point but since when are they a monolithic block, > which is how you're trying to portray it? Ask RonB, as it was he who claimed a monolithic “hatred of motherhood” >> Here’s a clue: I’m going >> to tell you just how you’re allowed & not allowed .. to live your private life. >> This is going to start with you having to give up Linux and pay more for OSX. > > When you bring "pay" into it ... Nope, for there’s never not been a cost of childbearing. In the last decade, college has alone grown to be ~$100K. > the context gets shifted 'cuz some > might be more against having to foot the bill for abortion than > the procedure. False dichotomy, since the procedure has been banned from using Federal funds for decades. Even so, pacifists aren’t allowed by law to demand that none of their taxes to go to the DoD, etc. > Notable is the fact that some are more pro birth > than they are pro life, which is what you've alluded to. Ethically, it’s both or neither. That’s why the “birthers” are a bunch of flaming hypocrites who are destined to be going straight to Hell. > In any event "pay" also brings up the topic of personal responsibility > and I don't think you want to go there. On the contrary: I’ll go,as far to point out that some people have tried to use this issue as a means to try to punish the poor from having the happiness of intercourse. >> Now then, are you going to meekly comply, or are you going to tell me to fuck off? >> Because if it’s the latter, you’re doing exactly what you’re whining about feminists. > > Perhaps true in his case but there are people who are anti-pay > who would prefer responsibility from those seeking 'free' medical > procedures (i.e. roadside trash duty for the couple who aborted). They’ve already been accommodated, even though they shouldn’t have been, just as how pacifists still have to have some of their taxes fund the DoD. And they’ve also advanced punitive policies which ironically increase the need for abortions - waiting for them to rot in Hell isn't soon enough. >> > It's an unnatural, weird (Satanic) thing. A hatred of creation. >> >> Nope: in nature, animals often kill their own young; no human demon involved. >> Try educating yourself by watching more nature shows instead of bible thumping. > > With the exclusion of an episode where the mother's life is > truly in danger, what's the difference between killing (I use > kill instead of murder) a late term baby and killing "their own > young" (as separated from the body)? Should the health > consideration be limited to a risk of death, or no? Nature shows are your friend too. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 10:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <245ee133-b09e-4dab-8e3e-10bfa8fa3736@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486065 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 10:54:43 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > [repost] > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > -hh wrote: > >> RonB wrote: > >>> >I think with some feminists, there is a definite hatred of motherhood. > >> > >> And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed > >> this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when? > > > > A fair point but since when are they a monolithic block, > > which is how you're trying to portray it? > > Ask RonB, as it was he who claimed a monolithic “hatred of motherhood” He's not the one who wrote what you did... that I'm questioning. > >> Here’s a clue: I’m going > >> to tell you just how you’re allowed & not allowed .. to live your private life. > >> This is going to start with you having to give up Linux and pay more for OSX. > > > > When you bring "pay" into it ... > > Nope, for there’s never not been a cost of childbearing. It's a matter of who pays that cost, not simply if there is one... and "pay" does change the topic's context, the OP's gripe appears to be on religious grounds. > In the last decade, college > has alone grown to be ~$100K. > > > the context gets shifted 'cuz some > > might be more against having to foot the bill for abortion than > > the procedure. > > False dichotomy, since the procedure has been banned from using > Federal funds for decades. Even so, pacifists aren’t allowed by law > to demand that none of their taxes to go to the DoD, etc. Of course they can, doesn't mean they'll get anything for their effort. Not all expenditures are federal, doesn't mean it didn't cost 'society' if they're not. > > Notable is the fact that some are more pro birth > > than they are pro life, which is what you've alluded to. > > Ethically, it’s both or neither. That’s why the “birthers” are a bunch > of flaming hypocrites who are destined to be going straight to Hell. Their "Hell", or your version of it? ;) I see a third option of being fine with someone wanting to abort as long as they bear their responsibility for it. I'm reading that you are against that, at least, for what you call 'the poor'. Should being poor, by some undefined definition, absolve you of the 'natural' order of having to bear responsibility for your offspring? If a mother bear doesn't keep a close watch on her cub(s)... <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hURgA_BNSGc> > > In any event "pay" also brings up the topic of personal responsibility > > and I don't think you want to go there. > > On the contrary: I’ll go,as far to point out that some people have tried to use this > issue as a means to try to punish the poor from having the happiness of intercourse. Well, in essence, you've just argued that everything comes with a price... so, you're arguing that one gets to absolve their financial responsibility based on what, exactly? Do you really believe that such a model is sustainable? Seems to me there'd be no poor in the world somewhere if someone could make it work. So why don't we see that, being that it's such an obvious thing to strive for? > >> Now then, are you going to meekly comply, or are you going to tell me to fuck off? > >> Because if it’s the latter, you’re doing exactly what you’re whining about feminists. > > > > Perhaps true in his case but there are people who are anti-pay > > who would prefer responsibility from those seeking 'free' medical > > procedures (i.e. roadside trash duty for the couple who aborted). > > They’ve already been accommodated ?? >, even though they shouldn’t have been, People paying the bill *shouldn't* be accommodated? > just as how pacifists still have to have some of their taxes fund the DoD. > And they’ve also advanced punitive policies which ironically increase the > need for abortions - waiting for them to rot in Hell isn't soon enough. My take: If you ask for something from 'society' that you wouldn't otherwise have, you should expect to be regulated. You're apparently living in some Utopian society where this doesn't apply. How can I find this magical place? ;) > >> > It's an unnatural, weird (Satanic) thing. A hatred of creation. > >> > >> Nope: in nature, animals often kill their own young; no human demon involved. > >> Try educating yourself by watching more nature shows instead of bible thumping. > > > > With the exclusion of an episode where the mother's life is > > truly in danger, what's the difference between killing (I use > > kill instead of murder) a late term baby and killing "their own > > young" (as separated from the body)? Should the health > > consideration be limited to a risk of death, or no? > > Nature shows are your friend too. Seems like you're good with "nature" when it suits you. Being good with it here didn't really address the question, though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 18:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <gb6ceuFp60U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #486066 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 10:54:43 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >> [repost] >> >> Steve Carroll wrote: >>> -hh wrote: >>>> RonB wrote: >>>>>> I think with some feminists, there is a definite hatred of motherhood. >>>> >>>> And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed >>>> this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when? >>> >>> A fair point but since when are they a monolithic block, >>> which is how you're trying to portray it? >> >> Ask RonB, as it was he who claimed a monolithic “hatred of motherhood” > > He's not the one who wrote what you did... that I'm > questioning. > >>>> Here’s a clue: I’m going >>>> to tell you just how you’re allowed & not allowed .. to live your private life. >>>> This is going to start with you having to give up Linux and pay more for OSX. >>> >>> When you bring "pay" into it ... >> >> Nope, for there’s never not been a cost of childbearing. > > It's a matter of who pays that cost, not simply if there > is one... and "pay" does change the topic's context, > the OP's gripe appears to be on religious grounds. They make up weird stories about feminism and you think that is religious? > >> In the last decade, college >> has alone grown to be ~$100K. >> >>> the context gets shifted 'cuz some >>> might be more against having to foot the bill for abortion than >>> the procedure. >> >> False dichotomy, since the procedure has been banned from using >> Federal funds for decades. Even so, pacifists aren’t allowed by law >> to demand that none of their taxes to go to the DoD, etc. > > Of course they can, doesn't mean they'll get anything > for their effort. Not all expenditures are federal, doesn't > mean it didn't cost 'society' if they're not As a pacifist one cannot legally not fund the military. Why should others be able to avoid funding things they do not agree with. By the way- his meaning was clear and you were playing pedantic games. > >>> Notable is the fact that some are more pro birth >>> than they are pro life, which is what you've alluded to. >> >> Ethically, it’s both or neither. That’s why the “birthers” are a bunch >> of flaming hypocrites who are destined to be going straight to Hell. > > Their "Hell", or your version of it? ;) I see a third option > of being fine with someone wanting to abort as long as > they bear their responsibility for it. I'm reading that you > are against that, at least, for what you call 'the poor'. > Should being poor, by some undefined definition, absolve > you of the 'natural' order of having to bear responsibility > for your offspring? If a mother bear doesn't keep a close > watch on her cub(s)... If you truly care about the money you save it by backing abortion and funding it along with other health care. Universal health care including abortions. Save money. Time for you to run. > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hURgA_BNSGc> > >>> In any event "pay" also brings up the topic of personal responsibility >>> and I don't think you want to go there. >> >> On the contrary: I’ll go,as far to point out that some people have tried to use this >> issue as a means to try to punish the poor from having the happiness of intercourse. > > Well, in essence, you've just argued that everything comes > with a price... so, you're arguing that one gets to absolve their > financial responsibility based on what, exactly? When will you say what absolves you from your responsibility to help those in need. That is a key part of society. And where do you whine about money going to the rich? > Do you really > believe that such a model is sustainable? Yes! A model where we help those in need is FAR more sustainable and moral than one where we do not. And far more than the one we have now where we help make the rich richer off of our labors. Absolutely. Thanks for asking. > Seems to me there'd > be no poor in the world somewhere if someone could make it > work. So why don't we see that, being that it's such an obvious > thing to strive for? No poor? Anywhere? What? > >>>> Now then, are you going to meekly comply, or are you going to tell me to fuck off? >>>> Because if it’s the latter, you’re doing exactly what you’re whining about feminists. >>> >>> Perhaps true in his case but there are people who are anti-pay >>> who would prefer responsibility from those seeking 'free' medical >>> procedures (i.e. roadside trash duty for the couple who aborted). >> >> They’ve already been accommodated > > ?? > >> , even though they shouldn’t have been, > > People paying the bill *shouldn't* be accommodated? So I pay for the military. How am I “accommodated”? I pay for the meals and entertainment of the wealthy. I pay more tax so the rich can pay less. Etc. > >> just as how pacifists still have to have some of their taxes fund the DoD. >> And they’ve also advanced punitive policies which ironically increase the >> need for abortions - waiting for them to rot in Hell isn't soon enough. > > My take: If you ask for something from 'society' that you wouldn't > otherwise have, you should expect to be regulated. You're apparently > living in some Utopian society where this doesn't apply. How can I find > this magical place? ;) So regulate capitalism. Ok. Regulate guns. Got it. > >>>>> It's an unnatural, weird (Satanic) thing. A hatred of creation. >>>> >>>> Nope: in nature, animals often kill their own young; no human demon involved. >>>> Try educating yourself by watching more nature shows instead of bible thumping. >>> >>> With the exclusion of an episode where the mother's life is >>> truly in danger, what's the difference between killing (I use >>> kill instead of murder) a late term baby and killing "their own >>> young" (as separated from the body)? Should the health >>> consideration be limited to a risk of death, or no? >> >> Nature shows are your friend too. > > Seems like you're good with "nature" when it suits you. > Being good with it here didn't really address the question, > though. You want to avoid the concept of helping those in need. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 15:16 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <b9c0bce5-26be-4c4e-853c-1062876dd4fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486066 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 1:27:55 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 10:54:43 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > [repost] > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > -hh wrote: > > >> RonB wrote: > > >>> >I think with some feminists, there is a definite hatred of motherhood. > > >> > > >> And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed > > >> this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when? > > > > > > A fair point but since when are they a monolithic block, > > > which is how you're trying to portray it? > > > > Ask RonB, as it was he who claimed a monolithic “hatred of motherhood” > > He's not the one who wrote what you did... that I'm > questioning. Which was just what, precisely? Make sure that you show clear & unambiguous linkage to this "monolithic block" that you claimed. > > >> Here’s a clue: I’m going > > >> to tell you just how you’re allowed & not allowed .. to live your private life. > > >> This is going to start with you having to give up Linux and pay more for OSX. > > > > > > When you bring "pay" into it ... > > > > Nope, for there’s never not been a cost of childbearing. > > It's a matter of who pays that cost, not simply if there > is one... and "pay" does change the topic's context, > the OP's gripe appears to be on religious grounds. Cost is what remains after the religious argument, which was already addressed and shot down: "As opposed to merely individuals who understand and support a Constitutionally secular country rather than a Caliphate." > > In the last decade, college > > has alone grown to be ~$100K. > > > > > the context gets shifted 'cuz some > > > might be more against having to foot the bill for abortion than > > > the procedure. > > > > False dichotomy, since the procedure has been banned from using > > Federal funds for decades. Even so, pacifists aren’t allowed by law > > to demand that none of their taxes to go to the DoD, etc. > > Of course they can, doesn't mean they'll get anything > for their effort. Not all expenditures are federal, doesn't > mean it didn't cost 'society' if they're not. Except for how the current agenda is seeking to change the law so that even those who are willing & able to pay for these services entirely out of their own pockets will not be allowed to do so. This shoots down all of the 'I don't want to personally pay' arguments too, which means that this is stripped bare down to some people wanting to dictate how others choose to live their life. > > > Notable is the fact that some are more pro birth > > > than they are pro life, which is what you've alluded to. > > > > Ethically, it’s both or neither. That’s why the “birthers” are a bunch > > of flaming hypocrites who are destined to be going straight to Hell. > > Their "Hell", or your version of it? ;) Mostly their own -- I'd rather see them suffer a living hell. > I see a third option > of being fine with someone wanting to abort as long as > they bear their responsibility for it. I'm reading that you > are against that, at least, for what you call 'the poor'. Wrong reading. > Should being poor, by some undefined definition, absolve > you of the 'natural' order of having to bear responsibility > for your offspring? Merely YA example of one of your Straw Man fallacies put in effect. > > > In any event "pay" also brings up the topic of personal responsibility > > > and I don't think you want to go there. > > > > On the contrary: I’ll go,as far to point out that some people have tried to use this > > issue as a means to try to punish the poor from having the happiness of intercourse. > > Well, in essence, you've just argued that everything comes > with a price... so, you're arguing that one gets to absolve their > financial responsibility based on what, exactly? No, wrong speculative guess. Please try again. > > >> Now then, are you going to meekly comply, or are you going to tell me to fuck off? > > >> Because if it’s the latter, you’re doing exactly what you’re whining about feminists. > > > > > > Perhaps true in his case but there are people who are anti-pay > > > who would prefer responsibility from those seeking 'free' medical > > > procedures (i.e. roadside trash duty for the couple who aborted). > > > > They’ve already been accommodated > > ?? > > >, even though they shouldn’t have been, > > People paying the bill *shouldn't* be accommodated? Follow the law and how pacifists can't dictate their taxes not paying for DoD, as immediately follows: > > just as how pacifists still have to have some of their taxes fund the DoD. > > And they’ve also advanced punitive policies which ironically increase the > > need for abortions - waiting for them to rot in Hell isn't soon enough. > > My take: ... As listed is utterly irrelevant. Deleted. > > >> > It's an unnatural, weird (Satanic) thing. A hatred of creation. > > >> > > >> Nope: in nature, animals often kill their own young; no human demon involved. > > >> Try educating yourself by watching more nature shows instead of bible thumping. > > > > > > With the exclusion of an episode where the mother's life is > > > truly in danger, what's the difference between killing (I use > > > kill instead of murder) a late term baby and killing "their own > > > young" (as separated from the body)? Should the health > > > consideration be limited to a risk of death, or no? > > > > Nature shows are your friend too. > > Seems like you're good with "nature" when it suits you. > Being good with it here didn't really address the question, > though. On the contrary: it reveals what reality is before it gets fucked up. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 16:45 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <bc3e17ca-2a90-49ea-8855-83b75ed7aebe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486077 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:16:59 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 1:27:55 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 10:54:43 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > [repost] > > > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > -hh wrote: > > > >> RonB wrote: > > > >>> >I think with some feminists, there is a definite hatred of motherhood. > > > >> > > > >> And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed > > > >> this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when? > > > > > > > > A fair point but since when are they a monolithic block, > > > > which is how you're trying to portray it? > > > > > > Ask RonB, as it was he who claimed a monolithic “hatred of motherhood” > > > > He's not the one who wrote what you did... that I'm > > questioning. > > Which was just what, precisely? "And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when?" -hh There is no group of -‘feminist’ women- that would give the OP a lock step reply upon discussion. And there's no law that has ever created such a group, that's just something on your wish list. > > > >> Here’s a clue: I’m going > > > >> to tell you just how you’re allowed & not allowed .. to live your private life. > > > >> This is going to start with you having to give up Linux and pay more for OSX. > > > > > > > > When you bring "pay" into it ... > > > > > > Nope, for there’s never not been a cost of childbearing. > > > > It's a matter of who pays that cost, not simply if there > > is one... and "pay" does change the topic's context, > > the OP's gripe appears to be on religious grounds. > > Cost is what remains after the religious argument, which was already > addressed and shot down: > > "As opposed to merely individuals who understand and support > a Constitutionally secular country rather than a Caliphate." ??? With respect to 'who pays', federally, the only Constitutional aspect of this is based on the Hyde Amendment and/or ones that are related to it. > > > In the last decade, college > > > has alone grown to be ~$100K. > > > > > > > the context gets shifted 'cuz some > > > > might be more against having to foot the bill for abortion than > > > > the procedure. > > > > > > False dichotomy, since the procedure has been banned from using > > > Federal funds for decades. Even so, pacifists aren’t allowed by law > > > to demand that none of their taxes to go to the DoD, etc. > > > > Of course they can, doesn't mean they'll get anything > > for their effort. Not all expenditures are federal, doesn't > > mean it didn't cost 'society' if they're not. > > Except for how the current agenda is seeking to change the law so > that even those who are willing & able to pay for these services entirely > out of their own pockets will not be allowed to do so. If it passes we'll have to live with that, it's not like POTUS candidates like Clinton didn't refer to this, as being paid for by others, as a "right". Hyde makes it clear there is no right unless certain circumstances are met. IOW... there's another political agenda someone or other doesn't like and, yes, the outcome involves regulation again... news at 11. > This shoots down > all of the 'I don't want to personally pay' arguments too, Actually, Hyde (mostly) took care of that on a federal level. > which means > that this is stripped bare down to some people wanting to dictate how > others choose to live their life. ??? How is it not dictating how to live one's life when their pocket is being reached into (even on the state level)? > > > > Notable is the fact that some are more pro birth > > > > than they are pro life, which is what you've alluded to. > > > > > > Ethically, it’s both or neither. That’s why the “birthers” are a bunch > > > of flaming hypocrites who are destined to be going straight to Hell. > > > > Their "Hell", or your version of it? ;) > > Mostly their own -- I'd rather see them suffer a living hell. > > > I see a third option > > of being fine with someone wanting to abort as long as > > they bear their responsibility for it. I'm reading that you > > are against that, at least, for what you call 'the poor'. > > Wrong reading. So you're saying it's not possible that a person can not give a crap about abortion other than they know they don't want to pay for someone else's (I'm not talking about 'the law' here... and it's not like you're sticking to that, either, you're talking some 'wish list' stuff)? > > Should being poor, by some undefined definition, absolve > > you of the 'natural' order of having to bear responsibility > > for your offspring? > > Merely YA example of one of your Straw Man fallacies put in effect. No, it was a legitimate question, I'm wondering if there is any kind of cutoff point for you on, well, *any* 'liberal' issue. I've never seen one from you so I'm curious if there are any. > > > > In any event "pay" also brings up the topic of personal responsibility > > > > and I don't think you want to go there. > > > > > > On the contrary: I’ll go,as far to point out that some people have tried to use this > > > issue as a means to try to punish the poor from having the happiness of intercourse. > > > > Well, in essence, you've just argued that everything comes > > with a price... so, you're arguing that one gets to absolve their > > financial responsibility based on what, exactly? > > No, wrong speculative guess. Please try again. LOL! I take that as 'they can if certain conditions are met'. > > > >> Now then, are you going to meekly comply, or are you going to tell me to fuck off? > > > >> Because if it’s the latter, you’re doing exactly what you’re whining about feminists. > > > > > > > > Perhaps true in his case but there are people who are anti-pay > > > > who would prefer responsibility from those seeking 'free' medical > > > > procedures (i.e. roadside trash duty for the couple who aborted). > > > > > > They’ve already been accommodated > > > > ?? > > > > >, even though they shouldn’t have been, > > > > People paying the bill *shouldn't* be accommodated? > > Follow the law and how pacifists can't dictate their taxes not paying for DoD, > as immediately follows: > > > > just as how pacifists still have to have some of their taxes fund the DoD. > > > And they’ve also advanced punitive policies which ironically increase the > > > need for abortions - waiting for them to rot in Hell isn't soon enough. > > > > My take: ... > > As listed is ... based on the knowledge that there is such a thing as Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and there is such a thing as the Hyde Amendment (and related ones). I guess you're arguing that things like Hyde are forms of this alleged 'accommodation' <shrug>? Face it, when you ask for something you wouldn't otherwise get, regulation is part of the deal... always has been, always will be. > > > >> > It's an unnatural, weird (Satanic) thing. A hatred of creation. > > > >> > > > >> Nope: in nature, animals often kill their own young; no human demon involved. > > > >> Try educating yourself by watching more nature shows instead of bible thumping. > > > > > > > > With the exclusion of an episode where the mother's life is > > > > truly in danger, what's the difference between killing (I use > > > > kill instead of murder) a late term baby and killing "their own > > > > young" (as separated from the body)? Should the health > > > > consideration be limited to a risk of death, or no? > > > > > > Nature shows are your friend too. > > > > Seems like you're good with "nature" when it suits you. > > Being good with it here didn't really address the question, > > though. > > On the contrary: it reveals what reality is before it gets fucked up. By man writing laws that would never exist anywhere else in the animal kingdom? The "nature" you keep trying to invoke is a lot harsher than you seem to believe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 04:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <a865f9fc-88f3-42ba-845b-4f61fce8ad82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486080 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 7:45:30 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:16:59 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 1:27:55 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 10:54:43 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > > [repost] > > > > > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > -hh wrote: > > > > >> RonB wrote: > > > > >>> >I think with some feminists, there is a definite hatred of motherhood. > > > > >> > > > > >> And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed > > > > >> this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when? > > > > > > > > > > A fair point but since when are they a monolithic block, > > > > > which is how you're trying to portray it? > > > > > > > > Ask RonB, as it was he who claimed a monolithic “hatred of motherhood” > > > > > > He's not the one who wrote what you did... that I'm > > > questioning. > > > > Which was just what, precisely? > > "And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed > this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when?" -hh > > There is no group of -‘feminist’ women- that would give the > OP a lock step reply upon discussion. Correct, which was part of the reason why I called RonB out on it. > And there's no law that has ever created such a group, that's just > something on your wish list. False, for I never claimed any such thing. > > > > >> Here’s a clue: I’m going > > > > >> to tell you just how you’re allowed & not allowed .. to live your private life. > > > > >> This is going to start with you having to give up Linux and pay more for OSX. > > > > > > > > > > When you bring "pay" into it ... > > > > > > > > Nope, for there’s never not been a cost of childbearing. > > > > > > It's a matter of who pays that cost, not simply if there > > > is one... and "pay" does change the topic's context, > > > the OP's gripe appears to be on religious grounds. > > > > Cost is what remains after the religious argument, which was already > > addressed and shot down: > > > > "As opposed to merely individuals who understand and support > > a Constitutionally secular country rather than a Caliphate." > > ??? With respect to 'who pays', federally, the only Constitutional > aspect of this is based on the Hyde Amendment and/or ones that > are related to it. No, this isn't the "who pays" part. This is referring to the part where some people want to destroy the 1st Amendment and make the USA into a religious Caliphate. And because as we've seen even comment that even the Pope isn't conservative enough for them, it would be the hypocrite wing of the Evangelicals. > > > > In the last decade, college > > > > has alone grown to be ~$100K. > > > > > > > > > the context gets shifted 'cuz some > > > > > might be more against having to foot the bill for abortion than > > > > > the procedure. > > > > > > > > False dichotomy, since the procedure has been banned from using > > > > Federal funds for decades. Even so, pacifists aren’t allowed by law > > > > to demand that none of their taxes to go to the DoD, etc. > > > > > > Of course they can, doesn't mean they'll get anything > > > for their effort. Not all expenditures are federal, doesn't > > > mean it didn't cost 'society' if they're not. > > > > Except for how the current agenda is seeking to change the law so > > that even those who are willing & able to pay for these services entirely > > out of their own pockets will not be allowed to do so. > > If it passes we'll have to live with that, it's not like POTUS > candidates like Clinton didn't refer to this, as being paid for > by others, as a "right". Hyde makes it clear there is no right > unless certain circumstances are met. IOW... there's another > political agenda someone or other doesn't like and, yes, the > outcome involves regulation again... news at 11. Wrong: the noted agenda is to make it entirely illegal, not merely that IAW Hyde the Government doesn't pay for it. That's why this isn't merely about who pays. > > This shoots down > > all of the 'I don't want to personally pay' arguments too, > > Actually, Hyde (mostly) took care of that on a federal level. Correct. > > which means > > that this is stripped bare down to some people wanting to dictate how > > others choose to live their life. > > ??? How is it not dictating how to live one's life when their > pocket is being reached into (even on the state level)? You're feigning confusion because you're only looking at the "payer" in this. > > > > > Notable is the fact that some are more pro birth > > > > > than they are pro life, which is what you've alluded to. > > > > > > > > Ethically, it’s both or neither. That’s why the “birthers” are a bunch > > > > of flaming hypocrites who are destined to be going straight to Hell. > > > > > > Their "Hell", or your version of it? ;) > > > > Mostly their own -- I'd rather see them suffer a living hell. > > > > > I see a third option > > > of being fine with someone wanting to abort as long as > > > they bear their responsibility for it. I'm reading that you > > > are against that, at least, for what you call 'the poor'. > > > > Wrong reading. > > So you're saying it's not possible that a person can not > give a crap about abortion other than they know they > don't want to pay for someone else's (I'm not talking > about 'the law' here... and it's not like you're sticking > to that, either, you're talking some 'wish list' stuff)? Wrong reading. > > > Should being poor, by some undefined definition, absolve > > > you of the 'natural' order of having to bear responsibility > > > for your offspring? > > > > Merely YA example of one of your Straw Man fallacies put in effect. > > No, it was a legitimate question, I'm wondering if there is any > kind of cutoff point for you on, well, *any* 'liberal' issue. I've > never seen one from you so I'm curious if there are any. Wrong reading. > > > > > In any event "pay" also brings up the topic of personal responsibility > > > > > and I don't think you want to go there. > > > > > > > > On the contrary: I’ll go,as far to point out that some people have tried to use this > > > > issue as a means to try to punish the poor from having the happiness of intercourse. > > > > > > Well, in essence, you've just argued that everything comes > > > with a price... so, you're arguing that one gets to absolve their > > > financial responsibility based on what, exactly? > > > > No, wrong speculative guess. Please try again. > > LOL! I take that as 'they can if certain conditions are met'. Wrong reading. > > > > >> Now then, are you going to meekly comply, or are you going to tell me to fuck off? > > > > >> Because if it’s the latter, you’re doing exactly what you’re whining about feminists. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps true in his case but there are people who are anti-pay > > > > > who would prefer responsibility from those seeking 'free' medical > > > > > procedures (i.e. roadside trash duty for the couple who aborted). > > > > > > > > They’ve already been accommodated > > > > > > ?? > > > > > > >, even though they shouldn’t have been, > > > > > > People paying the bill *shouldn't* be accommodated? > > > > Follow the law and how pacifists can't dictate their taxes not paying for DoD, > > as immediately follows: > > > > > > just as how pacifists still have to have some of their taxes fund the DoD. > > > > And they’ve also advanced punitive policies which ironically increase the > > > > need for abortions - waiting for them to rot in Hell isn't soon enough. > > > > > > My take: ... > > > > As listed is > > ... based on the knowledge that there is such a thing as > Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and there is > such a thing as the Hyde Amendment (and related ones). > I guess you're arguing that things like Hyde are forms of > this alleged 'accommodation' <shrug>? Face it, when you > ask for something you wouldn't otherwise get, regulation > is part of the deal... always has been, always will be. As listed is STILL irrelevant, because the so-called 'regulation' is seeking to violate the First Amendment, which is unambiguous as soon as we hear words like "Sin", "Hell" and (next line): "(Satanic)": > > > > >> > It's an unnatural, weird (Satanic) thing. A hatred of creation. > > > > >> > > > > >> Nope: in nature, animals often kill their own young; no human demon involved. > > > > >> Try educating yourself by watching more nature shows instead of bible thumping. > > > > > > > > > > With the exclusion of an episode where the mother's life is > > > > > truly in danger, what's the difference between killing (I use > > > > > kill instead of murder) a late term baby and killing "their own > > > > > young" (as separated from the body)? Should the health > > > > > consideration be limited to a risk of death, or no? > > > > > > > > Nature shows are your friend too. > > > > > > Seems like you're good with "nature" when it suits you. > > > Being good with it here didn't really address the question, > > > though. > > > > On the contrary: it reveals what reality is before it gets fucked up. > > By man writing laws that would never exist anywhere else > in the animal kingdom? The "nature" you keep trying to > invoke is a lot harsher than you seem to believe. The only part that's unique to man is that we have the ability to document our social behavior rules in writing. Just like how a new male lion winning a pride kills the cubs of not-his-bloodline, humans have also practiced regicide of family bloodlines, with notable examples having been documented at late as the 20th Century: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_family> While nature is harsh, that doesn't make humans vastly kinder. Do remember that yesterday (1/27/2019) was the 74th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz: twelve million killed, with easily half condemned to death in ghetto prisons and concentration camps for the crime of not being of the State-approved religion. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 08:17 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <ac19e628-5481-4452-a437-5cbfa3d749e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486084 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 5:33:34 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 7:45:30 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:16:59 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 1:27:55 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 10:54:43 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > > > [repost] > > > > > > > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > -hh wrote: > > > > > >> RonB wrote: > > > > > >>> >I think with some feminists, there is a definite hatred of motherhood. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed > > > > > >> this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when? > > > > > > > > > > > > A fair point but since when are they a monolithic block, > > > > > > which is how you're trying to portray it? > > > > > > > > > > Ask RonB, as it was he who claimed a monolithic “hatred of motherhood” > > > > > > > > He's not the one who wrote what you did... that I'm > > > > questioning. > > > > > > Which was just what, precisely? > > > > "And rather than mansplainingly guessing, you’ve actually discussed > > this in depth with ‘feminist’ women ... when?" -hh > > > > There is no group of -‘feminist’ women- that would give the > > OP a lock step reply upon discussion. > > Correct, which was part of the reason why I called RonB out on it. Yet, you did the what you're claiming he did... ‘feminist’ women are not a 'group' from which a singular answer can be obtained. IIRC, even early feminists were against abortion. > > And there's no law that has ever created such a group, that's just > > something on your wish list. > > False, for I never claimed any such thing. I never said that, I'm merely differentiating your wish list from reality in a joking manner and I forget a smiley, sue me ;) > > > > > >> Here’s a clue: I’m going > > > > > >> to tell you just how you’re allowed & not allowed .. to live your private life. > > > > > >> This is going to start with you having to give up Linux and pay more for OSX. > > > > > > > > > > > > When you bring "pay" into it ... > > > > > > > > > > Nope, for there’s never not been a cost of childbearing. > > > > > > > > It's a matter of who pays that cost, not simply if there > > > > is one... and "pay" does change the topic's context, > > > > the OP's gripe appears to be on religious grounds. > > > > > > Cost is what remains after the religious argument, which was already > > > addressed and shot down: > > > > > > "As opposed to merely individuals who understand and support > > > a Constitutionally secular country rather than a Caliphate." > > > > ??? With respect to 'who pays', federally, the only Constitutional > > aspect of this is based on the Hyde Amendment and/or ones that > > are related to it. > > No, this isn't the "who pays" part. LOL! Of course it is... and *you* opened that door. > This is referring to the part where > some people want to destroy the 1st Amendment and make the USA > into a religious Caliphate. The OP's main issue appears to be based on the fact that there is no good yardstick for when full term abortion will occur and how it'll be left up to the person who stands to profit from performing it. Those both seem like reasonable concerns, yet, you're yammering about a "Caliphate". What's wrong with this picture? > And because as we've seen even comment that even the Pope isn't > conservative enough for them, it would be the hypocrite wing of the Evangelicals. > > > > > > > In the last decade, college > > > > > has alone grown to be ~$100K. > > > > > > > > > > > the context gets shifted 'cuz some > > > > > > might be more against having to foot the bill for abortion than > > > > > > the procedure. > > > > > > > > > > False dichotomy, since the procedure has been banned from using > > > > > Federal funds for decades. Even so, pacifists aren’t allowed by law > > > > > to demand that none of their taxes to go to the DoD, etc. > > > > > > > > Of course they can, doesn't mean they'll get anything > > > > for their effort. Not all expenditures are federal, doesn't > > > > mean it didn't cost 'society' if they're not. > > > > > > Except for how the current agenda is seeking to change the law so > > > that even those who are willing & able to pay for these services entirely > > > out of their own pockets will not be allowed to do so. > > > > If it passes we'll have to live with that, it's not like POTUS > > candidates like Clinton didn't refer to this, as being paid for > > by others, as a "right". Hyde makes it clear there is no right > > unless certain circumstances are met. IOW... there's another > > political agenda someone or other doesn't like and, yes, the > > outcome involves regulation again... news at 11. > > Wrong: the noted agenda is to make it entirely illegal, not merely > that IAW Hyde the Government doesn't pay for it. That's why this > isn't merely about who pays. So what if that's the agenda of *some*? Do you fear a return to Comstock era? ;) That's not going to happen... but even if it did, it'd be based on 'the will of the people' through their duly elected reps so we'd have to live with it until another change was made. Some Muslims have an agenda to install Sharia Law here... everyone has an agenda <shrug>. > > > This shoots down > > > all of the 'I don't want to personally pay' arguments too, > > > > Actually, Hyde (mostly) took care of that on a federal level. > > Correct. > > > > which means > > > that this is stripped bare down to some people wanting to dictate how > > > others choose to live their life. > > > > ??? How is it not dictating how to live one's life when their > > pocket is being reached into (even on the state level)? > > You're feigning confusion because you're only looking at the "payer" in this. Actually, I'm just noting hypocrisy. FWIW, I haven't "only" looked at the "payer" aspect; I did so with you because you brought it up in your analogy. > > > > > > Notable is the fact that some are more pro birth > > > > > > than they are pro life, which is what you've alluded to. > > > > > > > > > > Ethically, it’s both or neither. That’s why the “birthers” are a bunch > > > > > of flaming hypocrites who are destined to be going straight to Hell. > > > > > > > > Their "Hell", or your version of it? ;) > > > > > > Mostly their own -- I'd rather see them suffer a living hell. > > > > > > > I see a third option > > > > of being fine with someone wanting to abort as long as > > > > they bear their responsibility for it. I'm reading that you > > > > are against that, at least, for what you call 'the poor'. > > > > > > Wrong reading. > > > > So you're saying it's not possible that a person can not > > give a crap about abortion other than they know they > > don't want to pay for someone else's (I'm not talking > > about 'the law' here... and it's not like you're sticking > > to that, either, you're talking some 'wish list' stuff)? > > Wrong reading. LOL! > > > > Should being poor, by some undefined definition, absolve > > > > you of the 'natural' order of having to bear responsibility > > > > for your offspring? > > > > > > Merely YA example of one of your Straw Man fallacies put in effect. > > > > No, it was a legitimate question, I'm wondering if there is any > > kind of cutoff point for you on, well, *any* 'liberal' issue. I've > > never seen one from you so I'm curious if there are any. > > Wrong reading. You're making less and less sense as you go along. > > > > > > In any event "pay" also brings up the topic of personal responsibility > > > > > > and I don't think you want to go there. > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary: I’ll go,as far to point out that some people have tried to use this > > > > > issue as a means to try to punish the poor from having the happiness of intercourse. > > > > > > > > Well, in essence, you've just argued that everything comes > > > > with a price... so, you're arguing that one gets to absolve their > > > > financial responsibility based on what, exactly? > > > > > > No, wrong speculative guess. Please try again. > > > > LOL! I take that as 'they can if certain conditions are met'. > > Wrong reading. I don't think so... given that you've made statements like: "I'd rather see them suffer a living hell." - hh It's pretty obvious you believe that none of 'them' should be allowed through the gates of your Utopia ;) > > > > > >> Now then, are you going to meekly comply, or are you going to tell me to fuck off? > > > > > >> Because if it’s the latter, you’re doing exactly what you’re whining about feminists. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps true in his case but there are people who are anti-pay > > > > > > who would prefer responsibility from those seeking 'free' medical > > > > > > procedures (i.e. roadside trash duty for the couple who aborted). > > > > > > > > > > They’ve already been accommodated > > > > > > > > ?? > > > > > > > > >, even though they shouldn’t have been, > > > > > > > > People paying the bill *shouldn't* be accommodated? > > > > > > Follow the law and how pacifists can't dictate their taxes not paying for DoD, > > > as immediately follows: > > > > > > > > just as how pacifists still have to have some of their taxes fund the DoD. > > > > > And they’ve also advanced punitive policies which ironically increase the > > > > > need for abortions - waiting for them to rot in Hell isn't soon enough. > > > > > > > > My take: ... > > > > > > As listed is > > > > ... based on the knowledge that there is such a thing as > > Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and there is > > such a thing as the Hyde Amendment (and related ones). > > I guess you're arguing that things like Hyde are forms of > > this alleged 'accommodation' <shrug>? Face it, when you > > ask for something you wouldn't otherwise get, regulation > > is part of the deal... always has been, always will be. > > As listed is STILL irrelevant, because the so-called 'regulation' > is seeking to violate the First Amendment, ??? That a reg *might* violate anything preceding it is a completely different issue from the concept that you *will* be regulated if you ask for something today that was unavailable to you yesterday. This entire convo is *about* regulation, to say that it's "irrelevant" is silly. But I'm sure the SCOTUS will be glad to hear you're keeping an eye on their future work for them ;) > which is unambiguous > as soon as we hear words like "Sin", "Hell" and (next line): "(Satanic)": > > > > > > > >> > It's an unnatural, weird (Satanic) thing. A hatred of creation. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Nope: in nature, animals often kill their own young; no human demon involved. > > > > > >> Try educating yourself by watching more nature shows instead of bible thumping. > > > > > > > > > > > > With the exclusion of an episode where the mother's life is > > > > > > truly in danger, what's the difference between killing (I use > > > > > > kill instead of murder) a late term baby and killing "their own > > > > > > young" (as separated from the body)? Should the health > > > > > > consideration be limited to a risk of death, or no? > > > > > > > > > > Nature shows are your friend too. > > > > > > > > Seems like you're good with "nature" when it suits you. > > > > Being good with it here didn't really address the question, > > > > though. > > > > > > On the contrary: it reveals what reality is before it gets fucked up. > > > > By man writing laws that would never exist anywhere else > > in the animal kingdom? The "nature" you keep trying to > > invoke is a lot harsher than you seem to believe. > > The only part that's unique to man is that we have the ability to document our > social behavior rules in writing. Perhaps but this is, in my opinion, a bit of a weakened point coming from one who has apparently joined the ranks of 'pick 'n choose' regarding those rules. The larger point here is that animals don't lie as elegantly or in as sophisticated a manner as do humans. > Just like how a new male lion winning a pride kills the cubs of not-his-bloodline, > humans have also practiced regicide of family bloodlines, with notable examples > having been documented at late as the 20th Century: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_family> > > While nature is harsh, that doesn't make humans vastly kinder. Kinder is subjective and focused when you're dealing with politics (which directly translates into $$). > Do remember > that yesterday (1/27/2019) was the 74th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz: > twelve million killed, with easily half condemned to death in ghetto prisons and > concentration camps for the crime of not being of the State-approved religion. COLA regular owl might have a few things to say on that ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 10:05 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <d8ae412a-9134-467d-be38-a13733785052@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486087 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11:17:16 AM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 5:33:34 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > ... > > > > This is referring to the part where > > some people want to destroy the 1st Amendment and make the USA > > into a religious Caliphate. > > The OP's main issue appears to be based on the fact that > there is no good yardstick for when full term abortion will > occur and how it'll be left up to the person who stands to > profit from performing it. Those both seem like reasonable > concerns, yet, you're yammering about a "Caliphate". > What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong is that both you & RonB don't understand how laws are written and implemented. Those "missing" details you're both complaining about will come about as the regulations are drafted & codified to implement the law. > > > > > Of course they can, doesn't mean they'll get anything > > > > > for their effort. Not all expenditures are federal, doesn't > > > > > mean it didn't cost 'society' if they're not. > > > > > > > > Except for how the current agenda is seeking to change the law so > > > > that even those who are willing & able to pay for these services > > > > entirely out of their own pockets will not be allowed to do so. > > > > > > If it passes we'll have to live with that, it's not like POTUS > > > candidates like Clinton didn't refer to this, as being paid for > > > by others, as a "right". Hyde makes it clear there is no right > > > unless certain circumstances are met. IOW... there's another > > > political agenda someone or other doesn't like and, yes, the > > > outcome involves regulation again... news at 11. > > > > Wrong: the noted agenda is to make it entirely illegal, not merely > > that IAW Hyde the Government doesn't pay for it. That's why this > > isn't merely about who pays. > > So what if that's the agenda of *some*? Do you fear a return > to Comstock era? ;) That's not going to happen... Better look around, because in many regions we're already there, by how some States have incorporated regulations which had the effect (intentionally) to legislate it out of existence without being an actual ban. For example: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman%27s_Health_v._Hellerstedt> > ... but even if it did, it'd be based on 'the will of the people' > through their duly elected reps so we'd have to live with it until > another change was made. Some Muslims have an agenda to install > Sharia Law here... everyone has an agenda <shrug>. Not quite, since Representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution and until we change the Constitution, we're not a tyranny of mere majority rule. > > > By man writing laws that would never exist anywhere else > > > in the animal kingdom? The "nature" you keep trying to > > > invoke is a lot harsher than you seem to believe. > > > > The only part that's unique to man is that we have the > > ability to document our social behavior rules in writing. > > Perhaps but this is, in my opinion, a bit of a weakened > point coming from one who has apparently joined the > ranks of 'pick 'n choose' regarding those rules. The > larger point here is that animals don't lie as elegantly > or in as sophisticated a manner as do humans. Better look around more, and not limit yourself to thinking that lies apply only to human language: The Margay is a Central/South American feline whose mimicry skills are used to sound like a baby monkey in distress to then lure in a primate to an ambush. Cowbirds, Cuckoos & others are parasitic birds who use deception and lay their eggs in other birds' nests... Many Butterflies are masters of disguise, as well as some moths which mimic the bold markings of poisonous butterflies even though they themselves aren't poisonous .. that's so common that it has its own name: Batesian mimicry. There's fish with deceptive markings to protect themselves from predators, such as the four eye butterflyfish. And there's insects that look like leaves and sticks. Plus the decorator crab. Lions are known to use the males to distract while the females do the actual ambush & kill. There's even plants which conduct deception: the Venus flytrap produces chemicals which smell like food to lure in flies (ditto for lots of other chemicals in plants now being found); the bee orchid's flower looks like a female bee in order to attract a male bee to carry its pollination. The field is Pouyannian mimicry. The list of lies and deception in Nature goes on and on and on; mankind is hardly unique...or even necessarily "better". -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 12:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <6f0647ef-080f-4590-8193-a2ea1875c1a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486093 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11:17:16 AM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 5:33:34 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > This is referring to the part where > > > some people want to destroy the 1st Amendment and make the USA > > > into a religious Caliphate. > > > > The OP's main issue appears to be based on the fact that > > there is no good yardstick for when full term abortion will > > occur and how it'll be left up to the person who stands to > > profit from performing it. Those both seem like reasonable > > concerns, yet, you're yammering about a "Caliphate". > > What's wrong with this picture? > > What's wrong is that both you & RonB don't understand how laws > are written and implemented. Those "missing" details you're > both complaining about will come about as the regulations are > drafted & codified to implement the law. ??? Have you actually read it? Seen how it was pitched? I'm thinking that's a 'no'. So... when do you expect these new amendments you believe are forthcoming to be added that address the issues in question here? > > > > > > Of course they can, doesn't mean they'll get anything > > > > > > for their effort. Not all expenditures are federal, doesn't > > > > > > mean it didn't cost 'society' if they're not. > > > > > > > > > > Except for how the current agenda is seeking to change the law so > > > > > that even those who are willing & able to pay for these services > > > > > entirely out of their own pockets will not be allowed to do so. > > > > > > > > If it passes we'll have to live with that, it's not like POTUS > > > > candidates like Clinton didn't refer to this, as being paid for > > > > by others, as a "right". Hyde makes it clear there is no right > > > > unless certain circumstances are met. IOW... there's another > > > > political agenda someone or other doesn't like and, yes, the > > > > outcome involves regulation again... news at 11. > > > > > > Wrong: the noted agenda is to make it entirely illegal, not merely > > > that IAW Hyde the Government doesn't pay for it. That's why this > > > isn't merely about who pays. > > > > So what if that's the agenda of *some*? Do you fear a return > > to Comstock era? ;) That's not going to happen... > > Better look around, because in many regions we're already there, > by how some States have incorporated regulations which had the > effect (intentionally) to legislate it out of existence without > being an actual ban. For example: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman%27s_Health_v._Hellerstedt> Apparently you're not familiar with the Comstock laws, either. > > ... but even if it did, it'd be based on 'the will of the people' > > through their duly elected reps so we'd have to live with it until > > another change was made. Some Muslims have an agenda to install > > Sharia Law here... everyone has an agenda <shrug>. > > Not quite, since Representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution > and until we change the Constitution, we're not a tyranny of mere > majority rule. Being that you're more than fine with states thumbing their noses at federal law as they encourage sanctuary cities, why would this bother you? Gee, it can't be due to the fact that this follows your agenda while laws you would ignore don't, can it (code-name: hypocrisy)? > > > > By man writing laws that would never exist anywhere else > > > > in the animal kingdom? The "nature" you keep trying to > > > > invoke is a lot harsher than you seem to believe. > > > > > > The only part that's unique to man is that we have the > > > ability to document our social behavior rules in writing. > > > > Perhaps but this is, in my opinion, a bit of a weakened > > point coming from one who has apparently joined the > > ranks of 'pick 'n choose' regarding those rules. The > > larger point here is that animals don't lie as elegantly > > or in as sophisticated a manner as do humans. > > Better look around more, and not limit yourself to thinking > that lies apply only to human language: > > The Margay is a Central/South American feline whose mimicry > skills are used to sound like a baby monkey in distress to > then lure in a primate to an ambush. > > Cowbirds, Cuckoos & others are parasitic birds who use > deception and lay their eggs in other birds' nests... > > Many Butterflies are masters of disguise, as well as some > moths which mimic the bold markings of poisonous butterflies > even though they themselves aren't poisonous .. that's so > common that it has its own name: Batesian mimicry. > > There's fish with deceptive markings to protect themselves > from predators, such as the four eye butterflyfish. And > there's insects that look like leaves and sticks. Plus the > decorator crab. > > Lions are known to use the males to distract while the females > do the actual ambush & kill. > > There's even plants which conduct deception: the Venus flytrap > produces chemicals which smell like food to lure in flies (ditto > for lots of other chemicals in plants now being found); the bee > orchid's flower looks like a female bee in order to attract a male > bee to carry its pollination. The field is Pouyannian mimicry. > > The list of lies and deception in Nature goes on and on and on; > mankind is hardly unique...or even necessarily "better". I repeat: "...animals don't lie as elegantly or in as sophisticated a manner as do humans." Deception, as practiced by animals, and camouflage don't even come close to what humans are capable of doing to each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 18:21 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <f1a0c022-5bf4-4f9b-bd21-1b17e05b7984@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486106 |
Steve wrote: > > > > What's wrong is that both you & RonB don't understand how laws > > are written and implemented. Those "missing" details you're > > both complaining about will come about as the regulations are > > drafted & codified to implement the law. > > ??? Have you actually read it? How can anyone read implimentation regulations which haven’t been written yet? > Seen how it was pitched? > I'm thinking that's a 'no'. So... when do you expect these > new amendments you believe are forthcoming to be added > that address the issues in question here? Depends on how the implication regs are written, to see if any amendments are actually required. >> > > Wrong: the noted agenda is to make it entirely illegal, not merely >> > > that IAW Hyde the Government doesn't pay for it. That's why this >> > > isn't merely about who pays. >> > >> > So what if that's the agenda of *some*? Do you fear a return >> > to Comstock era? ;) That's not going to happen... >> >> Better look around, because in many regions we're already there, >> by how some States have incorporated regulations which had the >> effect (intentionally) to legislate it out of existence without >> being an actual ban. For example: >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman%27s_Health_v._Hellerstedt> > > Apparently you're not familiar with the Comstock laws, either. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it: Legislators attempting to impose “Christian” morals in a secular Nation; found unconstitutional. >> > ... but even if it did, it'd be based on 'the will of the people' >> > through their duly elected reps so we'd have to live with it until >> > another change was made. Some Muslims have an agenda to install >> > Sharia Law here... everyone has an agenda <shrug>. >> >> Not quite, since Representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution >> and until we change the Constitution, we're not a tyranny of mere >> majority rule. > > Being that you're more than fine with states thumbing > their noses at federal law as they encourage sanctuary > cities, why would this bother you? Because you’ve chosen to mischaracterize what I’ve said about that. > Gee, it can't be due > to the fact that this follows your agenda while laws you > would ignore don't, can it (code-name: hypocrisy)? No, for the hypocrisy I’ve noted was that the ones screaming today for States to comply were also screaming during the prior administration a big “fuck you” at the Feds at Unfunded mandates, in the name of State Rights. These positions are mutually exclusive, so they were either wrong then or are wrong now. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 20:00 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <00c5a710-f811-467d-9c66-dc392810498d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486114 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 7:21:37 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > Steve wrote: > > > > > > What's wrong is that both you & RonB don't understand how laws > > > are written and implemented. Those "missing" details you're > > > both complaining about will come about as the regulations are > > > drafted & codified to implement the law. > > > > ??? Have you actually read it? > > How can anyone read implimentation regulations which haven’t been written yet? ??? The "implimentation" (implementation) *has* been written as far as what is being complained about here is concerned, which is why so many people are so vocal about this issue. > > Seen how it was pitched? > > I'm thinking that's a 'no'. So... when do you expect these > > new amendments you believe are forthcoming to be added > > that address the issues in question here? > > Depends on how the implication regs are written, to see if any > amendments are actually required. "implication regs"? One thing they'd better be looking at is how to deal with the increased number of lawsuits based on the rise in abortion mills run by midwives and the like. If there's one thing New Yorkers are good at it's filing a lawsuit. They just might catch up to New Jersey in malpractice suits with this in play ;) > >> > > Wrong: the noted agenda is to make it entirely illegal, not merely > >> > > that IAW Hyde the Government doesn't pay for it. That's why this > >> > > isn't merely about who pays. > >> > > >> > So what if that's the agenda of *some*? Do you fear a return > >> > to Comstock era? ;) That's not going to happen... > >> > >> Better look around, because in many regions we're already there, > >> by how some States have incorporated regulations which had the > >> effect (intentionally) to legislate it out of existence without > >> being an actual ban. For example: > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman%27s_Health_v._Hellerstedt> > > > > Apparently you're not familiar with the Comstock laws, either. > > Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it: Legislators attempting > to impose “Christian” morals in a secular Nation; found unconstitutional. I read that as a 'no'. > >> > ... but even if it did, it'd be based on 'the will of the people' > >> > through their duly elected reps so we'd have to live with it until > >> > another change was made. Some Muslims have an agenda to install > >> > Sharia Law here... everyone has an agenda <shrug>. > >> > >> Not quite, since Representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution > >> and until we change the Constitution, we're not a tyranny of mere > >> majority rule. > > > > Being that you're more than fine with states thumbing > > their noses at federal law as they encourage sanctuary > > cities, why would this bother you? > > Because you’ve chosen to mischaracterize what I’ve said about that. Bull, you're clearly picking and choosing laws to follow. > > Gee, it can't be due > > to the fact that this follows your agenda while laws you > > would ignore don't, can it (code-name: hypocrisy)? > > No, for the hypocrisy I’ve noted was that the ones screaming today for States > to comply were also screaming during the prior administration a big “fuck you” > at the Feds at Unfunded mandates, in the name of State Rights. These positions > are mutually exclusive, so they were either wrong then or are wrong now. I don't know what "ones" you're referring to but it does you no good to conflate things like this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 03:32 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <af963097-15ef-47cc-a8d6-482b7a59cb39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486115 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11:00:17 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 7:21:37 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > Steve wrote: > > > > > > > > What's wrong is that both you & RonB don't understand how laws > > > > are written and implemented. Those "missing" details you're > > > > both complaining about will come about as the regulations are > > > > drafted & codified to implement the law. > > > > > > ??? Have you actually read it? > > > > How can anyone read implimentation regulations which haven’t been written yet? > > ??? The "implimentation" (implementation) *has* been written > as far as what is being complained about here is concerned, > which is why so many people are so vocal about this issue. Cite them then. > > > Seen how it was pitched? > > > I'm thinking that's a 'no'. So... when do you expect these > > > new amendments you believe are forthcoming to be added > > > that address the issues in question here? > > > > Depends on how the implication regs are written, to see if any > > amendments are actually required. > > "implication regs"? Autocorrect. > One thing they'd better be looking > at is how to deal with the increased number of lawsuits > based on the rise in abortion mills run by midwives and > the like. If there's one thing New Yorkers are good at > it's filing a lawsuit. They just might catch up to New > Jersey in malpractice suits with this in play ;) Speculation. > > >> > > Wrong: the noted agenda is to make it entirely illegal, not merely > > >> > > that IAW Hyde the Government doesn't pay for it. That's why this > > >> > > isn't merely about who pays. > > >> > > > >> > So what if that's the agenda of *some*? Do you fear a return > > >> > to Comstock era? ;) That's not going to happen... > > >> > > >> Better look around, because in many regions we're already there, > > >> by how some States have incorporated regulations which had the > > >> effect (intentionally) to legislate it out of existence without > > >> being an actual ban. For example: > > >> > > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman%27s_Health_v._Hellerstedt> > > > > > > Apparently you're not familiar with the Comstock laws, either. > > > > Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it: Legislators attempting > > to impose “Christian” morals in a secular Nation; found unconstitutional. > > I read that as a 'no'. What part of the KISS summary above is incorrect? > > >> > ... but even if it did, it'd be based on 'the will of the people' > > >> > through their duly elected reps so we'd have to live with it until > > >> > another change was made. Some Muslims have an agenda to install > > >> > Sharia Law here... everyone has an agenda <shrug>. > > >> > > >> Not quite, since Representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution > > >> and until we change the Constitution, we're not a tyranny of mere > > >> majority rule. > > > > > > Being that you're more than fine with states thumbing > > > their noses at federal law as they encourage sanctuary > > > cities, why would this bother you? > > > > Because you’ve chosen to mischaracterize what I’ve said about that. > > Bull, you're clearly picking and choosing laws to follow. My understanding has been that the Sanctuary Cities are merely choosing to not perform an ****optional courtesy **** to ICE. But I could be wrong. So then, just what specific laws are Sanctuary Cities failing to follow? Be specific & cite the legal code, chapter & verse. > > > Gee, it can't be due > > > to the fact that this follows your agenda while laws you > > > would ignore don't, can it (code-name: hypocrisy)? > > > > No, for the hypocrisy I’ve noted was that the ones screaming today for States > > to comply were also screaming during the prior administration a big “fuck you” > > at the Feds at Unfunded mandates, in the name of State Rights. These positions > > are mutually exclusive, so they were either wrong then or are wrong now. > > I don't know what "ones" you're referring to but it does > you no good to conflate things like this. Oh, you can figure it out in a predominantly two party political system, especially since the implications of this entire thread is merely an example of where the topic of State Rights which this same group exploited for the last decade is now being used against them not only with Sanctuary Cities, but also the Abortion issue. FYI, if they do end up being successful in defeating Roe v Wade at the Federal level, the legal implications are that the issue will revert to being State regulated. No, it won't result in an immediate nation-wide ban. What NY's change in laws did was two things, the first of which was to explicitly position them as a non-banned State. Just think of all of the business they'll get from America's wealthiest 5% who won't have to fly to Europe this time! /S -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 08:41 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <mbp05epgr0lqj8ed4n77ag79cea6pch970@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #486118 |
-hh wrote: >Just think of all of the business they'll get from America's wealthiest 5% who >won't have to fly to Europe this time! I only wish they would extend the limits out further, so that we could abort "Hadron" and "DFS" and "Snit". -- "Which is more important to you: freedom for people or freedom for code?" - some thing, attacking the GPL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 17:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <gbbhphF4tioU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #486124 |
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > -hh wrote: > >> Just think of all of the business they'll get from America's wealthiest 5% who >> won't have to fly to Europe this time! > > I only wish they would extend the limits out further, so that we could > abort "Hadron" and "DFS" and "Snit". > Interesting how you fear us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 08:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <5f80b0ae-5bb3-4771-862a-123da681729f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486118 |
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:32:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11:00:17 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 7:21:37 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > Steve wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What's wrong is that both you & RonB don't understand how laws > > > > > are written and implemented. Those "missing" details you're > > > > > both complaining about will come about as the regulations are > > > > > drafted & codified to implement the law. > > > > > > > > ??? Have you actually read it? > > > > > > How can anyone read implimentation regulations which haven’t been written yet? > > > > ??? The "implimentation" (implementation) *has* been written > > as far as what is being complained about here is concerned, > > which is why so many people are so vocal about this issue. > > Cite them then. I'm referring to the OP's complaint, so unless you're aware of a forthcoming detail that's going to remove *that* detail you're tossing red herrings again. > > > > Seen how it was pitched? > > > > I'm thinking that's a 'no'. So... when do you expect these > > > > new amendments you believe are forthcoming to be added > > > > that address the issues in question here? > > > > > > Depends on how the implication regs are written, to see if any > > > amendments are actually required. > > > > "implication regs"? > > Autocorrect. > > > One thing they'd better be looking > > at is how to deal with the increased number of lawsuits > > based on the rise in abortion mills run by midwives and > > the like. If there's one thing New Yorkers are good at > > it's filing a lawsuit. They just might catch up to New > > Jersey in malpractice suits with this in play ;) > > Speculation. Of course, but you don't see the potential for an increase? > > > >> > > Wrong: the noted agenda is to make it entirely illegal, not merely > > > >> > > that IAW Hyde the Government doesn't pay for it. That's why this > > > >> > > isn't merely about who pays. > > > >> > > > > >> > So what if that's the agenda of *some*? Do you fear a return > > > >> > to Comstock era? ;) That's not going to happen... > > > >> > > > >> Better look around, because in many regions we're already there, > > > >> by how some States have incorporated regulations which had the > > > >> effect (intentionally) to legislate it out of existence without > > > >> being an actual ban. For example: > > > >> > > > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman%27s_Health_v._Hellerstedt> > > > > > > > > Apparently you're not familiar with the Comstock laws, either. > > > > > > Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it: Legislators attempting > > > to impose “Christian” morals in a secular Nation; found unconstitutional. > > > > I read that as a 'no'. > > What part of the KISS summary above is incorrect? So it is a 'no', got it ;) > > > >> > ... but even if it did, it'd be based on 'the will of the people' > > > >> > through their duly elected reps so we'd have to live with it until > > > >> > another change was made. Some Muslims have an agenda to install > > > >> > Sharia Law here... everyone has an agenda <shrug>. > > > >> > > > >> Not quite, since Representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution > > > >> and until we change the Constitution, we're not a tyranny of mere > > > >> majority rule. > > > > > > > > Being that you're more than fine with states thumbing > > > > their noses at federal law as they encourage sanctuary > > > > cities, why would this bother you? > > > > > > Because you’ve chosen to mischaracterize what I’ve said about that. > > > > Bull, you're clearly picking and choosing laws to follow. > > My understanding has been that the Sanctuary Cities are merely choosing > to not perform an ****optional courtesy **** to ICE. What activist judge did you get that one from? ;) I'll see yours and raise a different reality: "frustrate effectuation". > But I could be wrong. So then, just what specific laws are Sanctuary Cities > failing to follow? Be specific & cite the legal code, chapter & verse. That some activist judges are seeking to legislate this issue from the bench doesn't mean these cities are complying with federal law. Seems you read too much far left propaganda, and being that it's so pervasive now, no one can blame you. I suggest trying some alternative perspective now and then: <https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov/27/steve-daines/sanctuary-jurisdictions-violate-laws-our-nation-s-/> I'm sure this often dishonest, left leaning cite would have loved to have given a red alert or whatever they use for 100% false but even they had to realize they'd lose more credibility than they already have if they did so. Then there's what you'll label 'the far right': <https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/sanctuary-cities-thats-constitutional-hell-no> And there are judges who are aware of (and doing more than merely adhering to) the superficial, anti-fed agenda on this: -- The City's sovereignty argument asks us to turn the Tenth Amendment's shield against the federal government's using state and local governments to enact and administer federal programs into a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs. If Congress may not forbid states from outlawing even voluntary cooperation with federal programs by state and local officials, states will at times have the power to frustrate effectuation of some programs. Absent any cooperation at all from local officials, some federal programs may fail or fall short of their goals unless federal officials resort to legal processes in every routine or trivial matter, often a practical impossibility. For example, resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), was often in the nature of a refusal by local government to cooperate until under a court order to do so. -- So while 'the left', including activist judges, are playing games by using this as a political football of sorts, we can expect to see more and larger caravans from our southern border. Last I heard this latest one is over 12,000 strong and counting. > > > > Gee, it can't be due > > > > to the fact that this follows your agenda while laws you > > > > would ignore don't, can it (code-name: hypocrisy)? > > > > > > No, for the hypocrisy I’ve noted was that the ones screaming today for States > > > to comply were also screaming during the prior administration a big “fuck you” > > > at the Feds at Unfunded mandates, in the name of State Rights. These positions > > > are mutually exclusive, so they were either wrong then or are wrong now. > > > > I don't know what "ones" you're referring to but it does > > you no good to conflate things like this. > > Oh, you can figure it out in a predominantly two party political system, LOL! You keep trying to sell your black/white vision on this issue that just doesn't exist. > FYI, if they do end up being successful in defeating Roe v Wade at the Federal level, > the legal implications are that the issue will revert to being State regulated. It already is in many cases. > No, it won't result in an immediate nation-wide ban. I don't envision that ever happening, despite the fact that the group of people coming across the southern border (future citizens of the U.S.) are probably the biggest single anti-abortion group given that Christian values are what the vast majority of them were brought up on. If I could trade 'far left liberals' for illegal immigrants I'd do it in a heartbeat because they value the 'family' concept to a greater degree. Hey, maybe there's room for this! Don't want to wait in line? No problem, left loons have you covered, they'll give up their citizenship so you can take their spot. Yeah, right <eyeroll>. > What NY's change in laws did was > two things, the first of which was to explicitly position them as a non-banned State. > Just think of all of the business they'll get from America's wealthiest 5% who > won't have to fly to Europe this time! /S LOL!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web