ot AND THE CHOICE IS...

John Roberts of Washington DC

In article <1121819690.620854.305940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> John Roberts of Washington DC[/color]

MSNBC had it right. How about that.
--
"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people"
-- Bill Clinton 1993 on MTV

Learning Richard wrote:[color=blue]
> John Roberts of Washington DC[/color]

And, when he grows tits and makes some adjustments 'down there', he'll have
earned the right to make reproductive decisions for women. Until then, such
decisions are between a women and her doctor. If the networks are right,
Johnny has, in the past, drafted a brief suggesting that Roe V. Wade be
overturned. If this turns out to be true, he should be given his walking
papers. bush too if we can arrange it.

I disagree with many of the TV commentators tonight that this
nomination will go forward and his confirmation is almost a foregone
conclusion.

Judge Roberts is not only a member of two prominent right-wing legal
groups, but has argued cases clearly perceived as pro-corporate,
anti-regulatory and anti-environment. We will no doubt see a nibbling
away of past court rulings favoring reproductive rights. Some are
already sugesting that he may turn out to be a younger version of his
former boss - Chief Justice Rehnquist.

I look for a short honeymoon and a contentious confirmation.

Michael

In article <esjDe.2555$Q75.498621@newshog.newsread.com>,
"FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Learning Richard wrote:[color=green]
> > John Roberts of Washington DC[/color]
>
> And, when he grows tits and makes some adjustments 'down there', he'll have
> earned the right to make reproductive decisions for women. Until then, such
> decisions are between a women and her doctor. If the networks are right,
> Johnny has, in the past, drafted a brief suggesting that Roe V. Wade be
> overturned. If this turns out to be true, he should be given his walking
> papers. bush too if we can arrange it.[/color]

since when are women given exclusive right to decide who dies and who
lives?
--
"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people"
-- Bill Clinton 1993 on MTV

In article <i5rDe.2565$Q75.501316@newshog.newsread.com>,
"FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dbu_^ wrote:[color=green]
> > In article <esjDe.2555$Q75.498621@newshog.newsread.com>,
> > "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Learning Richard wrote:
> >>> John Roberts of Washington DC
> >>
> >> And, when he grows tits and makes some adjustments 'down there',
> >> he'll have earned the right to make reproductive decisions for
> >> women. Until then, such decisions are between a women and her
> >> doctor. If the networks are right, Johnny has, in the past,
> >> drafted a brief suggesting that Roe V. Wade be overturned. If this
> >> turns out to be true, he should be given his walking papers. bush
> >> too if we can arrange it.[/color]
> >
> > since when are women given exclusive right to decide who dies and who
> > lives?[/color]
>
> One of *those* eh? For starters, it's NONE of your business what women do
> with *their* bodies. NONE at all. If a women should decide to share intimate
> things with you, consider yourself lucky. This sharing doesn't imply
> ownership and it ends when *she* says it does. Knuckle draggers like you are
> a real problem, one we certainly don't want to perpetuate with like thinking
> supreme court judges. God, natural section is slow :([/color]

You didn't answer my question.
--

Dbu_^ wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <i5rDe.2565$Q75.501316@newshog.newsread.com>,
> "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Dbu_^ wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> In article <esjDe.2555$Q75.498621@newshog.newsread.com>,
>>> "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Learning Richard wrote:
>>>>> John Roberts of Washington DC
>>>>
>>>> And, when he grows tits and makes some adjustments 'down there',
>>>> he'll have earned the right to make reproductive decisions for
>>>> women. Until then, such decisions are between a women and her
>>>> doctor. If the networks are right, Johnny has, in the past,
>>>> drafted a brief suggesting that Roe V. Wade be overturned. If this
>>>> turns out to be true, he should be given his walking papers. bush
>>>> too if we can arrange it.
>>>
>>> since when are women given exclusive right to decide who dies and
>>> who lives?[/color]
>>
>> One of *those* eh? For starters, it's NONE of your business what
>> women do with *their* bodies. NONE at all. If a women should decide
>> to share intimate things with you, consider yourself lucky. This
>> sharing doesn't imply ownership and it ends when *she* says it does.
>> Knuckle draggers like you are a real problem, one we certainly don't
>> want to perpetuate with like thinking supreme court judges. God,
>> natural section is slow :([/color]
>
> You didn't answer my question.[/color]

Yes I did. It's a comprehension problem on *your* end.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:50:28 GMT, Dbu_^ <ntspam@spc.om> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <esjDe.2555$Q75.498621@newshog.newsread.com>,
> "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Learning Richard wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > John Roberts of Washington DC[/color]
>>
>> And, when he grows tits and makes some adjustments 'down there', he'll have
>> earned the right to make reproductive decisions for women. Until then, such
>> decisions are between a women and her doctor. If the networks are right,
>> Johnny has, in the past, drafted a brief suggesting that Roe V. Wade be
>> overturned. If this turns out to be true, he should be given his walking
>> papers. bush too if we can arrange it.[/color]
>
>since when are women given exclusive right to decide who dies and who
>lives?[/color]

It is ok for Democratic women to kill future democrats....


--

Scott in Florida

In article <tirDe.2568$Q75.501279@newshog.newsread.com>,
"FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dbu_^ wrote:[color=green]
> > In article <i5rDe.2565$Q75.501316@newshog.newsread.com>,
> > "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Dbu_^ wrote:
> >>> In article <esjDe.2555$Q75.498621@newshog.newsread.com>,
> >>> "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Learning Richard wrote:
> >>>>> John Roberts of Washington DC
> >>>>
> >>>> And, when he grows tits and makes some adjustments 'down there',
> >>>> he'll have earned the right to make reproductive decisions for
> >>>> women. Until then, such decisions are between a women and her
> >>>> doctor. If the networks are right, Johnny has, in the past,
> >>>> drafted a brief suggesting that Roe V. Wade be overturned. If this
> >>>> turns out to be true, he should be given his walking papers. bush
> >>>> too if we can arrange it.
> >>>
> >>> since when are women given exclusive right to decide who dies and
> >>> who lives?
> >>
> >> One of *those* eh? For starters, it's NONE of your business what
> >> women do with *their* bodies. NONE at all. If a women should decide
> >> to share intimate things with you, consider yourself lucky. This
> >> sharing doesn't imply ownership and it ends when *she* says it does.
> >> Knuckle draggers like you are a real problem, one we certainly don't
> >> want to perpetuate with like thinking supreme court judges. God,
> >> natural section is slow :([/color]
> >
> > You didn't answer my question.[/color]
>
> Yes I did. It's a comprehension problem on *your* end.[/color]


Isn't this beyond natural selection? Would this be considered human
engineering. Perhaps all we need is to make babies in test tubes.
Women will be out of a job, we won't need you anymore, except for an
occasional BJ.
--
"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we
need?"--Lee Iacocca

Michael T wrote:[color=blue]
> I disagree with many of the TV commentators tonight that this
> nomination will go forward and his confirmation is almost a foregone
> conclusion.
>
> Judge Roberts is not only a member of two prominent right-wing legal
> groups, but has argued cases clearly perceived as pro-corporate,
> anti-regulatory and anti-environment. We will no doubt see a nibbling
> away of past court rulings favoring reproductive rights. Some are
> already sugesting that he may turn out to be a younger version of his
> former boss - Chief Justice Rehnquist.
>
> I look for a short honeymoon and a contentious confirmation.
>[/color]

honeymoon's over. lock and load.

In article <1121875845.120181.225560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Michael T wrote:[color=green]
> > I disagree with many of the TV commentators tonight that this
> > nomination will go forward and his confirmation is almost a foregone
> > conclusion.
> >
> > Judge Roberts is not only a member of two prominent right-wing legal
> > groups, but has argued cases clearly perceived as pro-corporate,
> > anti-regulatory and anti-environment. We will no doubt see a nibbling
> > away of past court rulings favoring reproductive rights. Some are
> > already sugesting that he may turn out to be a younger version of his
> > former boss - Chief Justice Rehnquist.
> >
> > I look for a short honeymoon and a contentious confirmation.
> >[/color]
>
> honeymoon's over. lock and load.[/color]

what honeymoon?
--

How to get the Constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court
justices, 101. Lesson number one, win the Presidential race.
Lesson number two have the largest number of votes, on the
Committee and in the Senate, for confirmation.

Welcome to the court Justice Roberts.

Nice fellow, I met him when his father was the Plant Manager
of the Bethlehem Pa plant of Bethlehem Steel, back in the early
eighties. LOL


mike hunt



Little Richard wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Michael T wrote:[color=green]
> > I disagree with many of the TV commentators tonight that this
> > nomination will go forward and his confirmation is almost a foregone
> > conclusion.
> >
> > Judge Roberts is not only a member of two prominent right-wing legal
> > groups, but has argued cases clearly perceived as pro-corporate,
> > anti-regulatory and anti-environment. We will no doubt see a nibbling
> > away of past court rulings favoring reproductive rights. Some are
> > already sugesting that he may turn out to be a younger version of his
> > former boss - Chief Justice Rehnquist.
> >
> > I look for a short honeymoon and a contentious confirmation.
> >[/color]
>
> honeymoon's over. lock and load.[/color]

The only plan for the future, in the vision of the neo fascist
on the evil left, is disruption of everything the President
does. They have no vision for the future. Delay, disrupt,
divert, and outright lie if necessary, is all they have been
doing since 2000.
They lost every battle and they will lose this one as well. One
can never win with negativism, only ideas. Little Richard has
not changed anybody's mind in the NG. He is only venting his
feeble negativism and strengthening the resolve of those whom he
insults daily. He has only the likes of Dizzy agreeing with
him.
Who in their right mind would follow a person like him? LOL



mike hunt



Dbu_^ wrote:[color=blue]
>
> In article <1121875845.120181.225560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Little Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Michael T wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > I disagree with many of the TV commentators tonight that this
> > > nomination will go forward and his confirmation is almost a foregone
> > > conclusion.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > I look for a short honeymoon and a contentious confirmation.
> > >[/color]
> >
> > honeymoon's over. lock and load.[/color]
>
> what honeymoon?
> --
>
>
>[/color]

Dbu~^ wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <tirDe.2568$Q75.501279@newshog.newsread.com>,
> "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Dbu_^ wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> In article <i5rDe.2565$Q75.501316@newshog.newsread.com>,
>>> "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dbu_^ wrote:
>>>>> In article <esjDe.2555$Q75.498621@newshog.newsread.com>,
>>>>> "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Learning Richard wrote:
>>>>>>> John Roberts of Washington DC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, when he grows tits and makes some adjustments 'down there',
>>>>>> he'll have earned the right to make reproductive decisions for
>>>>>> women. Until then, such decisions are between a women and her
>>>>>> doctor. If the networks are right, Johnny has, in the past,
>>>>>> drafted a brief suggesting that Roe V. Wade be overturned. If
>>>>>> this turns out to be true, he should be given his walking
>>>>>> papers. bush too if we can arrange it.
>>>>>
>>>>> since when are women given exclusive right to decide who dies and
>>>>> who lives?
>>>>
>>>> One of *those* eh? For starters, it's NONE of your business what
>>>> women do with *their* bodies. NONE at all. If a women should decide
>>>> to share intimate things with you, consider yourself lucky. This
>>>> sharing doesn't imply ownership and it ends when *she* says it
>>>> does. Knuckle draggers like you are a real problem, one we
>>>> certainly don't want to perpetuate with like thinking supreme
>>>> court judges. God, natural section is slow :(
>>>
>>> You didn't answer my question.[/color]
>>
>> Yes I did. It's a comprehension problem on *your* end.[/color]
>
>
> Isn't this beyond natural selection? Would this be considered human
> engineering. Perhaps all we need is to make babies in test tubes.
> Women will be out of a job, we won't need you anymore, except for an
> occasional BJ.[/color]

No, it isn't. No, it wouldn't. Perhaps. No, they wouldn't. You'd need to
look elsewhere but that's nothing new, is it?

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:22:50 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>If this turns out to be true, he should be given his walking
>papers. bush too if we can arrange it.[/color]

You had your chance last November.
Time to STFU and hope you do better in 2008.
[color=blue]
>If the networks are right,
>Johnny has, in the past, drafted a brief suggesting that Roe V. Wade be
>overturned.[/color]

I really hate to quote Ann Coulter, but it's fitting here:

It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of
Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was
arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts
has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a
footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

"In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point
out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93
Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the
interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out
that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily
reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United
States."

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of
Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was
just doing my job."



--- Rich
[url]http://richlockyer.tripod.com/[/url]