OT: John Roberts

OK. The Roe v Wade thing:

We shouild be protecting life first. That used to be a bedrock principle.
Roe v Wade was another attempt to legislate from the bench, in the best
traditions of Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson. We had to have a nasty
bloody war to fix the first one and had an undeclared war to fix the second
one. There's still a lot of bitterness about both issues, as there is about
Roe v Wade, Engle v Vitale, etc. I think that the Court was wrong about
all 4 issues and the Court, so far, agrees with me on two issues.

Charles of Kankakee

Charles @ Kankakee wrote:[color=blue]
> OK. The Roe v Wade thing:
>
> We shouild be protecting life first. That used to be a bedrock
> principle. Roe v Wade was another attempt to legislate from the
> bench, in the best traditions of Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson. We had
> to have a nasty bloody war to fix the first one and had an
> undeclared war to fix the second one. There's still a lot of
> bitterness about both issues, as there is about Roe v Wade, Engle v
> Vitale, etc. I think that the Court was wrong about all 4 issues
> and the Court, so far, agrees with me on two issues.
> Charles of Kankakee[/color]

Oddly enough, evolutionary throwbacks like yourself & bush have no issue
with needlessly blowing up women, children and old men in places like Iraq.
You don't lift a finger when tragedies like Rwanda happen. But, anytime
someone says they'll add to your spousal control or the control of women
you've never met, you're right in line for more. Back to the cave with you.
You haven't earned a right to an opinion on this.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:16:17 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Charles @ Kankakee wrote:[color=green]
>> OK. The Roe v Wade thing:
>>
>> We shouild be protecting life first. That used to be a bedrock
>> principle. Roe v Wade was another attempt to legislate from the
>> bench, in the best traditions of Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson. We had
>> to have a nasty bloody war to fix the first one and had an
>> undeclared war to fix the second one. There's still a lot of
>> bitterness about both issues, as there is about Roe v Wade, Engle v
>> Vitale, etc. I think that the Court was wrong about all 4 issues
>> and the Court, so far, agrees with me on two issues.
>> Charles of Kankakee[/color]
>
>Oddly enough, evolutionary throwbacks like yourself & bush have no issue
>with needlessly blowing up women, children and old men in places like Iraq.
>You don't lift a finger when tragedies like Rwanda happen. But, anytime
>someone says they'll add to your spousal control or the control of women
>you've never met, you're right in line for more. Back to the cave with you.
>You haven't earned a right to an opinion on this.
>
>[/color]

Are you ok, Fan?

Talk about off the edge....


--

Scott in Florida

"FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lgrDe.2567$Q75.501330@newshog.newsread.com...[color=blue]
> Charles @ Kankakee wrote:[color=green]
>> OK. The Roe v Wade thing:
>>
>> We shouild be protecting life first. That used to be a bedrock
>> principle. Roe v Wade was another attempt to legislate from the
>> bench, in the best traditions of Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson. We
>> had to have a nasty bloody war to fix the first one and had an
>> undeclared war to fix the second one. There's still a lot of
>> bitterness about both issues, as there is about Roe v Wade, Engle v
>> Vitale, etc. I think that the Court was wrong about all 4 issues
>> and the Court, so far, agrees with me on two issues.
>> Charles of Kankakee[/color]
>
> Oddly enough, evolutionary throwbacks like yourself & bush have no issue
> with needlessly blowing up women, children and old men in places like
> Iraq. You don't lift a finger when tragedies like Rwanda happen. But,
> anytime someone says they'll add to your spousal control or the control of
> women you've never met, you're right in line for more. Back to the cave
> with you. You haven't earned a right to an opinion on this.
>[/color]


Oddly enough when Rwanda happens, UN does nothing, but when Iraq happens,
all you hippies come out of the wood work jumping up and down that we are
killing children.

If the US would involve itself in Rwanda, you lefties you be talking shit
about it here anyway. There is just no way to please a lefty.

Why didnt France or Germany go into Rwanda? I don't see you cutting on the
other nations.

Abortion is about killing an unborn child. Nothing to do with women rights.
Its all about the rights of the baby that happens to be inside of a woman.

I always wonder how one can balance one woman's right as being
greater than anothers, like the right to life liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, for the unborn female


mike hunt



"Dan J.S." wrote:[color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
> Abortion is about killing an unborn child. Nothing to do with women rights.
> Its all about the rights of the baby that happens to be inside of a woman.[/color]

Dan J.S. wrote:[color=blue]
> "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lgrDe.2567$Q75.501330@newshog.newsread.com...[color=green]
>> Charles @ Kankakee wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> OK. The Roe v Wade thing:
>>>
>>> We shouild be protecting life first. That used to be a bedrock
>>> principle. Roe v Wade was another attempt to legislate from the
>>> bench, in the best traditions of Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson. We
>>> had to have a nasty bloody war to fix the first one and had an
>>> undeclared war to fix the second one. There's still a lot of
>>> bitterness about both issues, as there is about Roe v Wade, Engle v
>>> Vitale, etc. I think that the Court was wrong about all 4 issues
>>> and the Court, so far, agrees with me on two issues.
>>> Charles of Kankakee[/color]
>>
>> Oddly enough, evolutionary throwbacks like yourself & bush have no
>> issue with needlessly blowing up women, children and old men in
>> places like Iraq. You don't lift a finger when tragedies like Rwanda
>> happen. But, anytime someone says they'll add to your spousal
>> control or the control of women you've never met, you're right in
>> line for more. Back to the cave with you. You haven't earned a right
>> to an opinion on this.[/color]
>
>
> Oddly enough when Rwanda happens, UN does nothing, but when Iraq
> happens, all you hippies come out of the wood work jumping up and
> down that we are killing children.[/color]

The UN isn't doing crap in Iraq either. Wake up.
[color=blue]
> If the US would involve itself in Rwanda, you lefties you be talking
> shit about it here anyway. There is just no way to please a lefty.[/color]

If, If, If.
[color=blue]
> Why didnt France or Germany go into Rwanda? I don't see you cutting
> on the other nations.[/color]

I'm far more interested in the US. A *lot* more interested than you are.
[color=blue]
> Abortion is about killing an unborn child. Nothing to do with women
> rights. Its all about the rights of the baby that happens to be
> inside of a woman.[/color]

When you can grow one, your opinion might be worth something.

Love that hippy thing, idiot.

Why did you use one Of Dizzys names to sign your post? ;)


mike hunt



FanJet wrote:[color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Abortion is about killing an unborn child. Nothing to do with women
> > rights. Its all about the rights of the baby that happens to be
> > inside of a woman.[/color]
>
> When you can grow one, your opinion might be worth something.
>
> Love that hippy thing, idiot.[/color]