Hey Tarzan!: GOP pushes new abortion limits - including placing a ban on PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION! :-)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Congress members seek to impose incremental restrictions By Juliet Eilperin THE WASHINGTON POST

March 16 — With an ally now in the White House, House Republicans yesterday opened a coordinated campaign to begin imposing new restrictions on abortion, starting with a bill that would impose penalties on people who harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.

AS A HOUSE panel began work on the proposal making it a federal crime to injure or kill a fetus during an attack, abortion foes and supporters said the bill signaled the beginning of an effort to capitalize on President Bush’s election and enact legislation that was stymied for years by President Bill Clinton.

Bush has already pleased abortion opponents by cutting off family planning funds to international groups that provide abortion referrals and by appointing conservative John D. Ashcroft as attorney general. Now lawmakers say that in the coming months they will seek to impose incremental restrictions on abortion while averting a direct confrontation over women’s constitutional rights to obtain the procedure.

The measures include a ban on a controversial procedure opponents refer to as “partial birth” abortion, a restriction prohibiting anyone but a parent from transporting a minor across state lines to have an abortion, and limitations on who can administer mifepristone, an abortion pill previously known as RU-486 that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration shortly before Clinton left office.

TYING ABORTION TO SPENDING BILLS Without the threat of a presidential veto, abortion opponents said they will also try to add abortion language to spending bills, such as possibly imposing parental consent requirements on family planning funds and eliminating contraception coverage for federal employees. “There’s some significant opportunity to complete some issues where not only members of Congress, but the majority of people in the country, are on the same side,” said Rep. Roy D. Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of the GOP leadership. “This is another one of those issues where the House is likely to set the agenda. I think the Senate will respond.”

Passage of antiabortion legislation is assured in the House, which approved many of the measures in the last Congress. Supporters of the proposals hope that by moving early on a number of them, they can influence the course of debate in the Senate, which traditionally has been less receptive to bills restricting abortion access.

“The landscape is full of land mines now that are potentially quite lethal in terms of a woman’s right to choose,” said Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights League. “The Senate remains our fire wall, if there’s a fire wall in this.” Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who has voted in favor of a “partial birth” abortion ban, said Democrats “will have to take them one step at a time. We see this not as an abortion issue, but as a women’s rights issue.”

SEEKING ‘REASONABLE REGULATION’ House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that while lawmakers do not have “a list” of which antiabortion bills they plan to bring up in the next several months, “obviously we have more opportunities in bringing about some reasonable regulation of abortion” now that Bush is in the White House.

Republicans said they were deliberately choosing measures that they believe would resonate with most voters and avoiding a frontal assault on the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that guaranteed women’s right to abortion.

“This is a pro-life Congress, House and Senate,” House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said. “But I would have doubts Congress would overturn Roe v. Wade.”

Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who authored the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that the Judiciary constitution subcommittee took up yesterday, argued that many abortion advocates believe a fetus should be protected once the mother has decided to carry it to term. Graham and other proponents of the measure said it was aimed at fetal protection, rather than undermining abortion rights.

“Once the woman has decided to have the baby, we are trying to protect it like any other member of the human family,” Graham said. “I think we get 70 percent plus support for that.”

Under the bill, any perpetrator of a federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman could be charged separately for injuring or killing her fetus at any stage of development, even if the attacker was unaware of the pregnancy. Twenty-four states have some form of fetal protection law, though more than half of them cover specific stages of development.

DISINGENUOUS IN THE EXTREME’ While Graham said the legislation would provide prosecutors with an added tool to punish brutal crimes against pregnant women, Democrats such as New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the subcommittee’s ranking minority member, decried the bill as “disingenuous in the extreme.”

“The real purpose is to establish a doctrine, contrary to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, that the fetus is a separate person,” Nadler said at the outset of the hearing. “This is driven by the politics of abortion rather than the substantive effort to fight violence against women.”

The measure, which could come up for a floor vote before the congressional recess that begins April 9, is widely expected to pass the House despite strong Democratic opposition. It sailed through the House in 1999 by a margin of 254 to 172, but never came to a vote in the Senate. Democrats offered a substitute two years ago that would have enhanced the penalties for attacking a pregnant woman, but it was narrowly defeated.

Senate Republican leaders say they face several challenges in seeking to dismantle abortion protections, particularly the “partial birth” procedure. The Supreme Court’s rejection last year of a Nebraska law outlawing the late-term procedure has frustrated GOP lawmakers, who say they have the votes for such a bill but remain unsure whether the proposal is constitutional.

“Is ‘partial birth’ abortion the right issue to bring up?” said Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-Okla.). “I’m reviewing that right now.”

Still, Nickles expressed confidence that abortion opponents will score some successes this Congress. Even such an abortion rights advocate as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she would consider supporting fetal protection legislation like the Unborn Victims Act if it required intent on the part of the attacker and applied to a viable fetus.

GROUNDS FOR CONSENSUS “When somebody beats to death a woman who’s 8 ˝ months pregnant, and kills her child, there are grounds for a crime against the child,” Feinstein said.

It is this kind of consensus, according to National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson, that abortion opponents are hoping to achieve this Congress.

“It’s a matter of what can be accomplished in the short term, particularly in the Senate,” Johnson said. “These things seem to have a fighting chance.”

For abortion rights advocates such as Nadler, the new political climate confirms what they feared when Bush won the presidency. “Last year we didn’t worry about these bills,” he said. “If the Senate didn’t kill them, the president would. Now we have to worry about them.” © 2001 The Washington Post Company

Hey Tarzan!: GOP pushes new abortion limits - including placing a ban on PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION! :-)

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 16, 2001

Answers

I'd have to bet that anyone who uses the phrase "women's rights" has never seen an abortion. The author of Silent Scream was an abortionist who used to do 20+ on weekends. He wondered about what he was doing and had a number filmed. He gave up performing abortions when he saw the film. He offered the film to the media. Everyone refused his opportunity for a public showing.

This bill is a step back to reality that a fetus is a person. When we get back to truth women will no longer kill their children because they have a fart in crosswise.

-- John Littmann (LITTMANNJOHNTL@AOL.COM), March 16, 2001.


Sheesh. You elect these guys to cut down on the scope and intrusiveness of government, and they turn around and shove their religion down your throat. I guess there's a fine line between standing up for principle and pandering to religious assholes, but some of these clowns sound like they've been brainwashed beyond hope. It's all very sad.

This was one of the two critical issues for me in the election. The democrats wanted to take away my guns, and the republicans wanted to force their religion on me. Both of these policies mean more expensive, intrusive government. Just how does one vote *against* it?

And why do the religious nutballs infest this forum, when the EZboard asylum would be much more congenial? Hey, go force your religion onto someone else. Government is supposed to be explicitly protecting us from what government is doing to us here. Idiots!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 16, 2001.


Flint, this is more than a religious issue.

-- (cin@cin.cin), March 16, 2001.

Did Flint really write that?

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), March 17, 2001.

Flint,

Hit a nerve there, eh?

As Jose Ortega y Gasset said on another thread recently, "It is the government's job in a constitutional republic to protect the rights of the minority from the majority" (loosely paraphrased). I agree.

Some Americans believe that the unborn in this country have a right to life that outweighs the mother's right to pursue happiness. To some of those particular Americans, religious belief is the backbone of their stance. To some other of those particular Americans, religious belief has nothing to do with it.

I know personally about that which I speak, as I was once an atheist, and I am now a born again Christian. Never in my life, regardless of where I was on the "belief in God" spectrum, have I believed that an unborn baby's right to life was less important than a mother's right to pursue happiness.



As a related aside, I see in the first post of this thread that the ultimate hypocrite, Dianne Feinstein, "would consider supporting fetal protection legislation". She is quoted as saying, "When somebody beats to death a woman who's 8 1/2 months pregnant, and kills her child , there are grounds for a crime against the child " (emphasis mine).

I guess that it's a "child" in Ms. Feinstein's book and should be afforded legal protection as such.

Unless, of course, that the mother doesn't want the "child". Then we must refer to it as a "fetus", ignore any legal right to protection that it has, and even go so far as to allow a "doctor" to pull it almost all of the way out of the womb before jamming scissors into the base of its skull and sucking its brains out.

I agree that government should keep out of my business. Up until my business denies someone else their rights, of course.

-- (Y2J@home.comm), March 17, 2001.


Without the threat of a presidential veto, abortion opponents said they will also try to add abortion language to spending bills, such as possibly imposing parental consent requirements on family planning funds and eliminating contraception coverage for federal employees.

Is anyone else disturbed by this? Looks like they're not so interested in eliminating abortion as they are in getting involved in people's bedrooms.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), March 17, 2001.


Y2J:

You miss the point that Alice hits. If there are some people who oppose abortion on other than religious grounds, this is fine. They are as welcome to their opinion as I am to mine -- *so long as neither of us forces ours on the other*!

The goal of this policy is to enforce a particular religion-inspired morality onto everyone, no matter how they might believe. This is the opposite of what government is supposed to do. It's all the more ironic that the party that preaches reduced government size, cost, and interference is the same one that has decided that in this particular case, interference is called for. Do you think it's coincidence that these policies just happen to coincide with the teachings of one particular church?

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, and act on those beliefs to the extent that you don't force anyone else to do the same. I do not force abortions on you whether you want a child or not. Please return the favor, OK? I do not care how justified you might feel in imposing on me, or what rationalizations you use. I'll leave you alone, you leave me alone.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 17, 2001.


Flint, the act of abortion IS forcing your beliefs upon another. The child's!

-- (cin@cin.cin), March 17, 2001.

I expected legislation on what some call "partial birth abortions" to be passed this year regardless of who assumed the Presidency. Gore didn't like the thought of it either.

The fear of the pro-choice folks was that the right to a legally performed abortion would be whittled away [starting at late term abortions and working down to "We cannot allow women access to birth control."] I would think that was your concern with guns, as well, Flint, as I didn't see any indication that the Democrats were interested in taking your guns away. I think some folks may have feared the right being "whittled away."

History has already demonstrated that women who want abortions will get them [by hook or by crook, as the old saying goes.] Since pro- choice advocates didn't want to go back to the "quacks" who performed back-alley abortions before Roe v. Wade, the "underground" has moved swiftly to anticipate ANYTHING, resulting in medical training to those once called midwives in how to perform procedures safely and correctly.

Of course attempts will be made to "locate and close down" these informal "operations", but we're not talking about women who submitted to reproductive laws 100 years ago. We're talking about women who are in a position to finance the needs of other women and have a passionate interest in maintaining their health. In essence, politicians will be removed from the picture and women will go back to having abortions privately [although in a much safer environment than before.]

Outside of making criminals of many women, midwives, and even doctors, there are few down-sides in my mind. Since the act would be illegal, statistics wouldn't be kept [much like they weren't prior to Roe v. Wade], so folks opposed to the act would feel that abortions had been eliminated. Women who wanted abortions would still get them safely and probably get them at reduced rates. Since they would get them privately, there would be no clinic bombings, etc.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 17, 2001.


Anita:

I think you are confusing intent with tactics. The democrats recognize that they don't have enough political clout to outright take guns away, door to door (as happened in the UK and Australia). So they must whittle. But the *goal* is clear, the whittling is simply the best way to reach it under current circumstances. So we have waiting periods, and background checks, and magazine size limits, and bans on "assault" weapons, and on certain types of bullets, and on and on. It has been a ratchet under Clinton, all small changes all in the same direction.

Abortion is the same way. They admit right out in this article that they don't have the clout to overturn Roe v. Wade. But they also recognize that they have a sizeable constituency of people like cin and y2J, whose religious nonsense has lobotomized them permanently. This provides leverage with which to whittle. Ultimately, we have laws most people detest and flout when they can, which in turn (as we see in the drug wars) allows for selective enforcement, the selection being done for reasons the state need never specify.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 17, 2001.



Well, well, Ain't. Looks like the GOP has given up trying to attack a woman's right to choose directly and have taken to using underhanded, dishonest tactics. I guess they've finally faced up to the fact that they can't convince America that our reproductive decisions are their business.

Good point, Alice. That IS disturbing. The early efforts to criminalize abortion came at a time when legislators were concerned about having enough workers to fuel industry in this country, as well as a tide of immigrants. Since we're facing a similar situation now, is it possible that the goal of these people is to encourage reproduction rather than discourage abortion?

Anita, while I disgree with your conclusions, I must say I agree with your initial point. As long as women have gotten pregnant, they have had unwanted pregnancies, and as long as they have had unwanted pregnancies, they have found a way to terminate those pregnancies. Abortion will continue pretty much unabated, as it did the first time it was outlawed in our country (1839). The only thing that will change is that many women will suffer and die, and a few more pious hypocrites will sleep a little better at night.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 17, 2001.


Tarz:

Yes...the history of abortion just in America is VERY interesting. I remember back in 1839 [just kidding about the year] MANY women and even teens receiving abortions. One girl in my elementary school had three of them and never missed a day of school. A friend of mine from high-school had an abortion performed by her company doctor. She came home from work, told her mom she wasn't feeling well, slept the rest of the night and went to work the next morning.

Here's a brief rundown of abortion history in the U.S. Notice the reference to "Jane" in Chicago. "Jane" networks are already being set up across the nation with the help of doctors. Notice also that the FIRST time abortion was illegal, the AMA was largely responsible because they felt that THEY should be performing the procedures.

Certainly even in my vision of the underground handling the need, SOME women will not know where to go for safe abortions. My uncle's sister was one of these women the last time. She was new to the country, didn't know anyone, and women didn't much talk about these things during those years anyway. She died at the hands of a quack. I just don't see the same thing happening this time. Women talk openly to other women about sexuality, orgasms, and everything else. Networking is widespread. Women have more influence than they had the last time [despite recent trends to reduce that influence.]

What I see is abortion becoming a private thing handled discretely yet safely. The majority of folks opposed to abortion just don't want to hear or know about it. They WOULDN'T know about it. They would be like some parents who believe their children aren't sexually active.

Since nothing has passed yet, the issue is of little consequence at this point, but I WAS amazed to see that the underground is already engaging in training seminars.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 17, 2001.


***people like cin and y2J, whose religious nonsense has lobotomized them permanently.***

flint? do you really mean that?

-- (cin@cin.cin), March 18, 2001.


cin:

I'm just describing my reaction to an outlook I simply cannot come to grips with. Like, you will not only tell me how to live my life, you consider yourself *justified* in doing so because you have appointed yourself proxy for someone who will never even be born! The arrogant wrongness of this attitude simply staggers me. So I'm trying to put it in the best light I can. You are either incredibly evil, or stupefyingly dumb. I have chosen the latter, because only a thorough brainwashing could possibly have done this to you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindsprintg.com), March 18, 2001.


Their responsible for abortions,getting God out of the schools,and the decline of morals in this country.....their called liberals(scum) oh yea they gave us that lying,cheating,china luvin commie scumbag of a president,the most pathetic in the history of mankind,all I can say is thank GOD for Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- John Tempesto (Right@party.com), March 18, 2001.


I wont thank God for Bush, but otoh, if you read this thread you quickly discover that most here rake you over the coals at the very mention of religion.

Cin, his comment was pathetic, was it not?

-- reader (truth@justice.forall), March 18, 2001.


Religion is fine, so long as you aren't using the power of the state to enforce the teachings of any religion. *Then* you rightly deserve to be raked over the coals. Religion as a substitute for thought is to be pitied. Religion enforced by the state is to be feared.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 18, 2001.

Flint,

You wrote, "people like cin and y2J,(sic) whose religious nonsense has lobotomized them permanently".

I wrote, "I know personally about that which I speak, as I was once an atheist, and I am now a born again Christian. Never in my life, regardless of where I was on the 'belief in God' spectrum, have I believed that an unborn baby's right to life was less important than a mother's right to pursue happiness".

My situation doesn't fit your preconceived notion of how a pro life person thinks. Rather than trying to understand it, you just ignore it and try to pigeon hole me into being "lobotomized by religion". Your position is untenable, old chap.

One last thing, Flint. If a parent chooses to neglect a child by not feeding said child, do you believe that the state should get involved? Why or why not?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 18, 2001.

J:

If the damage is not permanent, you will demonstrate this by coming to your senses. I'll wait and watch. If this doesn't happen, well, I'm satisfied with my explanation of why.

I think you are fooling yourself by a deliberate mischaracterization of the situation. I'm not talking about the "happiness" of the woman. Why she makes private decisions is private. You project a reason of your own creation onto her and then you criticize her for holding it. Do you think this is right? It looks stupid. Things that are none of your business are none of your business. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

As for the state getting involved, that is a hard question. I know infanticide has been practiced by many societies. I don't know at what age someone might deserve state protection, but I know that age cannot be less than zero.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 18, 2001.


Religion is a lot like fucking your wife in the mouth: its damn good, but you're not supposed to go around telling everybody about it.

-- true true (keep@it.to.yourself), March 18, 2001.

"I'm not talking about the "happiness" of the woman. Why she makes private decisions is private. You project a reason of your own creation onto her and then you criticize her for holding it. Do you think this is right? It looks stupid. Things that are none of your business are none of your business. Why is that so hard for you to understand?"

Thank you Flint.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), March 18, 2001.


Flint,

You are none too bright with your religion/abortion reasoning. Let me say it one more time for you: I was against abortion before I became a Christian. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my abortion beliefs. Get it?

What a person does in private is, indeed, none of the government's (or my) business. UNLESS, what that person is doing is injurious to another. To claim otherwise is nonsense. Of course, maybe it is hard for you to see that it is nonsense, especially since you said,

"As for the state getting involved, that is a hard question. I know infanticide has been practiced by many societies. I don't know at what age someone might deserve state protection, but I know that age cannot be less than zero".

By your own words, you are not sure if a baby is entitled to the protection of the state.

You make me sick.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 18, 2001.

"You make me sick."

Welcome back Dennis! Where you been?

-- ICU (icu@yes.you), March 18, 2001.


Anonymous Coward,

Shall I conclude that you, like Flint, are unsure of what age a child must be before he or she should be afforded the same protections of the state that the rest of us are?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 18, 2001.

J:

How considerate for YOU to decide when YOU are justified in meddling in someone else's business. Is this because you suspect you wouldn't be granted permission if you asked? Out of curiosity, do you support the Chinese government's policy of forcing women to have abortions whether they want them or not? After all, force is force. You favor it, I oppose it. Or do you only approve of government force when YOU get to do the forcing unto others?

And no, *I* didn't make you sick. By your own admission, you were sick even before you decided to adopt a religion ratifying it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 18, 2001.


I have no confusion about when a child should be protected. And unlike YOU, I have no confusion about the difference between the children who were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing and the property that was destroyed. What was the phrase that you used? Oh yes, "collateral damage".

Many of us still remember how you defended Timotny McVeigh's murder of almost 200 Americans. Maybe if abortion doctors posed as white supremecists, you would be happy with a woman's right to choose.

-- ICU (icu@yes.you), March 18, 2001.


Flint,

You really are dense. Is the government "meddling" when the police arrest a man for killing his wife? How about his teenager? His grade schooler? His toddler? His infant? His newborn?

Should the police ask permission to arrest the man?

Get the picture yet? It is not about me MEDDLING in someone's business, it is about the government PROTECTING the citizenry.

I approve of government force to protect citizen's rights from being violated by other citizens.

You seem to be unsure of whether or not infanticide is wrong.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 18, 2001.

"I approve of government force to protect citizen's rights from being violated by other citizens."

Unless those citizens work in a building with federal offices, right Dennis?

-- ICU (icu@yes.you), March 18, 2001.


Anonymous Coward,

If you have no confusion as to when a child should be protected, then you should share that information with Flint. He posted recently, but he may have run next door to help the neighbor lady drown her baby.

As far as you trying to change the subject of this thread to take the heat off of Flint for his pro infanticide stance by bringing up the earlier thread about OK City, I will say this: I believe what Timothy McVeigh did was WRONG. My choice of the words, "collateral damage", to describe those who were killed that day in addition to the federal agents that McVeigh was targeting was, while technically correct, not a wise choice. It was insensitive, and I regret having typed it and apologize to all who were offended.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 18, 2001.

Yeah right. You said the Federal Building was a fair target since it housed federal offices, including the BATF. You said that Timothy McVeigh "suspended the rule of law" in Oklahoma City in retribution for the suspension of the rule of law at Waco. You also said that Eric Rudolph was a hero who saw no other way to end abortion but to blow up abortion clinics (and a lesbian night club) and kill two people and blind another.

The only thing you're sorry about is that your words are being thrown back in your face.

Your thirst for blood

-- ICU (icu@yes.you), March 18, 2001.


OK, we finished drowning that baby. The world is a better place in every possible way as a result. Isn't it? Just think -- less burden on the world's resources and on my neighbor's budget, less hassle for everyone. If we don't control our population, circumstances are guaranteed to do so for us -- and NOT as we would choose.

And we didn't even need any bureaucrats to "help" us.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 18, 2001.


What an amazing display of futility we have here on this thread. Supposedly intelligent people engaging in debate on two subjects that should be avoided at all costs: Religion and Abortion.

My friends, save your rhetoric for the battles that can be won.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 18, 2001.


So:

Hey, while nobody can hope to penetrate the religious mindset, it is possible to tease them. Kind of fun, too. But once the politicians start passing laws to pander to these nitwits, then things get more serious. Of course, no political battles can be won here...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 18, 2001.


Flint,

If you are being serious about drowning the baby, then my answer would be that, no, the world is NOT "a better place in every possible way as a result". Especially not if you are the baby.

On the other hand, if you are attempting to be sarcastic, then that begs the obvious question. Are you still standing by your pro infanticide stance that you so clearly articulated when you typed these words,

"As for the state getting involved, that is a hard question. I know infanticide has been practiced by many societies. I don't know at what age someone might deserve state protection, but I know that age cannot be less than zero".

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 18, 2001.

For the record, "collateral damage" is a military term used exclusively for buildings, public works, etc. In other words, items that will cost money (collateral) to repair. Human beings are called casual. Your use of the term was not only insensitive (to say the least) it wasn't correct in any sense, even technically.

ICU-

You really shouldn't tease anyone who thinks you have a right to life until you choose to work for the government or go to work in a building they own.

Flint-

Same goes for you.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.


Whoops! That should be "human beings are casualties".

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.

Tarzan,

I thought that during Desert Storm, General Schwartzkopf referred to Iraqi civilians as "collateral damage". Collateral as in: accompanying or existing in a subordinate, corroborative, or indirect relationship. In other words, anything or anyone that was not the intended target. I could, however, be mistaken. Regardless, as I said earlier, it was an insensitive use, whether correct or not, and something that I regret having typed.

On another note, how do you feel about Flint's uncertainty of whether or not infanticide is wrong?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 19, 2001.

I'm okay with Flint's personal views. So long as he abides by the rule of law, he's not hurting anyone.

What really keeps me awake is your confusion of whether or not murder is wrong.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithout.anet), March 19, 2001.


Tarzan,

A bit hypocritical there, eh old boy?

You incorrectly claim that I am confused on whether or not murder is wrong, and that my supposed state keeps you awake at night. At the same time, you say that you are okay with Flint's belief that it is okay to kill infants, "so long as he abides by the rule of law", and "he's not hurting anyone".

An interesting position to take.

You are at ease with a man's belief that it is okay to murder infants, as long as he doesn't act on it, and yet, you lose sleep over another man's supposed confusion over whether or not murder is wrong.

I don't know why, but I expected better from you.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 19, 2001.

Support of terrorism disturbs me. Sorry you find that disappointing.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.

Tarzan,

Oh I see, because I pointed out that the government's murder of women and children at Waco played a role in the Oklahoma City bombing, then I support terrorism? That's a stretch, even for you. For the record, I do not support terrorism.

What I find disturbing is belief that infanticide is acceptable. Support of that belief is also disturbing.

Once one starts believing that it's okay to kill babies in the womb, it must be a slippery slope that allows one to start believing that it's okay to kill them outside the womb as well.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 19, 2001.

Your support of Tim McVeigh's bombing of the Murrough building was pretty unequivical last fall. I believe you called him a "patriot" if memory serves. Same for Eric Rudolph, though you did say the lesbian bar bombing was a bad idea. What happened between November and March?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.

Wow. Anyone who really supported the bombing of the OK City building isn't even worth talking to, Tar.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 19, 2001.

You know, I agree.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.

Tarzan,

My goal on that thread was not to show support for McVeigh and Rudolph. My goal was to show how the government's actions (directly murdering women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and indirectly allowing the murder of unborn children in countless abortion clinics) leads to acts such as those perpetrated by McVeigh and Rudolph. If it came across that I was supporting terrorism, it was unintended.

Do you have some ulterior motive for your support of Flint's pro infanticide stance, or do you also think that it is acceptable to kill infants?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 19, 2001.

You also said that Federal Workers knew what they were getting into when they went to work for the government just like anyone who chooses to work at an abortion clinic. Now you claim not to support terrorism.

If Flint chose to drown an infant tonight, I certainly wouldn't call him a patriot. If Flint chose to blow up an FBI office, what would you call him?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.


Tarzan,

I don't specifically recall saying that about government workers and abortion clinic workers. I don't deny having said it; I just don't recall it. Nonetheless, pointing out the fact that working in an abortion clinic makes you a potential target of certain people, and that working for the FBI or ATF after Waco and Ruby Ridge makes you a potential target for other people, hardly constitutes support of terrorism. If I point out that a black man is in danger at a KKK meeting, or that a white man is in danger at a Black Panthers meeting, am I supporting racism?

I would call him a psychopath.

Again, do you have some ulterior motive for supporting Flint's pro infanticide stance, or do you also think that it is acceptable to kill infants?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 19, 2001.

J:

If you will reread instead of just screaming, you will see that I did not take a pro-infanticide position. I didn't take an anti- infanticide stance either. But not taking one position isn't the same thing as actively taking another positiion. Your binary thinking has betrayed you once again.

On the other hand, I think lots of people deserve to die. Fortunately, they all will.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 19, 2001.


J:

You're pushing the envelope on this one. Flint never said he was in favor of infanticide. I feel he was correct in stating that he didn't know at what age an infant acquired rights, but that he was sure it wasn't less than zero [which was ALL he said.] Infants die sometimes for no apparent reason. AFAIK, no one has yet been prosecuted for deaths attributed to SIDS.

You then went on to suggest that Flint was probably next-door helping his neighbor drown an infant and when he jokingly said that the drowning was complete, you said, "If you were serious...." Jeez, J, give it up.

I've seen your "slippery slope" argument too many times to not believe it a strategy encouraged by anti-abortion groups. It makes no sense to anyone outside your circle. An acorn is NOT a tree. You might let them know that this argument not only isn't producing converts, but depicts the one presenting this argument as a fool.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 19, 2001.


Flint:

This is the SECOND time today that we posted simultaneously. This has only occurred once before [for me] with Lars. It shocks me when it happens twice in one day with the same poster.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 19, 2001.


Flint,

Screaming? Me? Actually, it was you who said that you were, "just describing my reaction to an outlook I simply cannot come to grips with". It sounds that if anyone were screaming, it was you, not I.

You said, "I don't know at what age someone might deserve state protection, but I know that age cannot be less than zero".

By your own words you have said that you are unsure if a baby has the same right to life that the rest of us have.

Tap dance all you want about not taking a stance one way or another. Just where is the middle ground on this issue, Flint? If you are just too apathetic to take a stance against the killing of babies, then you may as well be for it. At the least, you are condoning it, which is still nauseating.

Am I one of those people whom you think deserves to die, big guy?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 19, 2001.

Anita,

No offense intended, but looking like a fool in your eyes really doesn't bother me.

After all, you seem to equate the notion that since "no one has yet been prosecuted for deaths attributed to SIDS", then infants must not acquire their rights at birth. Does that also mean that if an adult dies by an accident and no one is prosecuted, that he or she didn't have rights either?

The bottom line appears to be that you pro-abortion people are so adamant that a child in utero doesn't have the right to life, that you can't bring yourselves to admit that the child has a right to life even after he or she has been born.

"Slippery slope", indeed.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 19, 2001.

J:

Please stick around. I'm having too much fun with you. Now that you've been carefully corrected, you look stupider than ever. However, I suggest you go pray for a while. Ask for some ability to think straight. (p.s. that's a joke. Praying for the ability to think is like saying "This sentence is false". Instant paradox).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 19, 2001.


Flint,

"Carefully corrected"? Hardly.

You trying to backpedal from your position that a child is not necessarily endued with the right to life at birth, by a semantic tap dance about not really having taken a position, blah, blah, blah, is hardly careful correction.

Quit trying to dodge the point, Flint. Should a parent be allowed to kill her baby once it has been born, or not?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 19, 2001.

Flint perhaps you should look up the word arrogance. Better yet, look in the mirror.

According to Flint's views..everyone who doesn't agree with his views is stupid. Everyone who believes in a deity and spirituality and chooses to live their life accordingly is brainwashed.

Sad little boy. Trying so desperately to impress everyone with your brain. Yet you lack any depth. You are as shallow as the sand at low tide

-- (@ .), March 19, 2001.


??? Why is the sand shallower at low tide? Please explain. Use the bible if it helps, OK?

J:

Anita and I both explained. Please read. At least give it a good try. At least make it *look* like you tried.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 19, 2001.


Flint,

Still dodging, I see.

What's the matter, Flint? Is it becoming glaringly apparent to you that by taking the position that a baby isn't necessarily endued with the right to life at birth, that you have put yourself in the spot of condoning infanticide by default?

I'll ask you again: Should a parent be allowed to kill her baby once it has been born, or not?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 19, 2001.

J:

I'd put the "age of personhood" at the third birthday. Three years should be enough for the mother to decide if she wants to raise the child or not. Before that, she should have the option of either killing and eating it, or selling it on the open market.

I think that way, we could pretty well guarantee that every child was genuinely wanted. It would also help us eliminate genetic deformities, improve the physical beauty of the race by eliminating the uglies, help with the population pressure, and facilitate the adoption process. I don't see any downside at all.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 19, 2001.


Flint,

Yet another dodge, this time through the use of sarcasm. You are just so clever.

Afraid to answer the question, aren't you Flint? If you say yes, you openly admit to believing that infanticide is acceptable.

If you say no, then that puts you into an opposing position with your earlier comment about not knowing "at what age someone might deserve state protection".

Just so that we all may know which it is, I'll ask you again: Should a parent be allowed to kill her baby once it has been born, or not?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 19, 2001.

J:

What makes you think I wasn't serious?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 19, 2001.


J:

But I should clarify a bit. Before the age of 3, the disposition of the pre-person is entirely up to the mother. Not the state, and not anybody else either except as she decides.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 19, 2001.


Flint you are a sick person.

You would rather say these horrific things than admit to being wrong?

And if you truly mean them you should be locked away

-- (@ .), March 19, 2001.


Flint,

The last poster pretty much hits the nail on the head.

The truly scary thing is that I think you may actually feel that infanticide up to a certain age is acceptable. Probably not three years old, but probably a number of weeks. Such a position would certainly mesh with these infamous words:

"As for the state getting involved, that is a hard question. I know infanticide has been practiced by many societies. I don't know at what age someone might deserve state protection, but I know that age cannot be less than zero".

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 19, 2001.

J:

Fer pete's sake, try thinking for yourself for once! LOOK at what you and nameless there are doing -- simply calling names and expressing mindless outrage. I presented a list of advantages for a proposal, and in your favor you have presented nothing whatsoever.

My point was that this is something a society decides for itself, based on a variety of factors -- medical practices, social needs, resources, population pressures, popular acceptability, and so on. And it's something that changes as circumstances change. Adapting to changing circumstances is one of the basic signs of intelligence.

I agree my suggestion is likely to be impractical. My point is that there is no absolute right or wrong answer here. We look for a workable, practical approach. Historically, different societies have taken many different approaches, depending on *their* circumstances. One approach we've seen is to train their less capable members to believe that one particular approach is "absolutely right".

Now, rather than just parroting your indoctrination and swooning around like a ninny, try addressing the actual issue for once. Otherwise, as you have seen, you will be left behind by a society handling its own needs and requirements *thoughtfully*. So far, you have only shown us a *refusal* to think. Let's see if you also have an inability to think. I'm sure you can do it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 20, 2001.


Flint,

Basically, as I have surmised, you believe that infanticide is acceptable if a particular society deems that it is. In your world, "there is no absolute right or wrong answer", only that which is "practical".

Then, because I don't endorse the "practicality" of infanticide, you try to belittle me by using words such as "less capable members", "parroting your indoctrination", and "you will be left behind by a society handling its own needs and requirements *thoughtfully*".

I am capable of thinking just fine. You, of all people, saying that I won't think or that I can't think, hardly makes it true.

You constantly belittle those who follow the true God, but you follow a god yourself. Your god is intelligence, and your allegiance to it is there for all the world to see in your arrogance. The problem is that intelligence without God leads to knowledge, not wisdom. You believe that you have the knowledge to see that infanticide is acceptable. The truth is that you don't have the wisdom to see that it is not.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 20, 2001.

The god of intelligence, lmao!!!

Surely the god of intelligence IS flint, is it not?

Good one J :-)

-- (just@having.fun), March 20, 2001.


If I point out that a black man is in danger at a KKK meeting, or that a white man is in danger at a Black Panthers meeting, am I supporting racism?

That, of course, is not what you said. You called Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph "patriots". You said that their targets were justified because of the outrage they had over Waco (and abortion, in the case of Rudolph). If you point out that a black man is in danger at a Klan rally and said the Klansmen who hurt and/or killed him were patriots who were moved by their act because of their frustration over bussing, then yes, you would be supporting racism.

Again, do you have some ulterior motive for supporting Flint's pro infanticide stance, or do you also think that it is acceptable to kill infants?

It is not supporting any of Flint's stances to point out your hypocrisy.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingignthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 20, 2001.


Tarzan,

If I remember correctly, I said that Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph viewed themselves as patriots, and that they believed that their targets were justified because of their outrage. I may have even said that I was also outraged about Waco and abortion.

Does my sharing their outrage somehow magically cause me to be like them in every way? Since I own a gun, am I a threat to shoot up a high school? Since I don't think affirmative action is right, am I a racist?

You say that you are not supporting any of Flint's stances, and yet when I asked you how you felt about his uncertainty of whether or not infanticide was wrong, you stated, "I'm okay with Flint's personal views".

I'll ask you again: Do you also think that it is acceptable to kill infants?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 20, 2001.

If I remember correctly, I said that Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph viewed themselves as patriots, and that they believed that their targets were justified because of their outrage. I may have even said that I was also outraged about Waco and abortion.

Actually, you defended them very vociferously, to the point of saying I was a coward for saying they were anything other than patriots. The discussion got very heated at more than one point. You said that Eric Rudolph did whatever he could to defeat abortion and that Tim McVeigh followed the government's lead in "suspending the rule of law" at Oklahoma City. You said it was unfortunate that collateral damages (i.e., children and others) got in the way of legitimate targets (meaning, presumably the FBI agents at the Murrough building).

Does my sharing their outrage somehow magically cause me to be like them in every way?

Your defense of their behavior gives me pause.

Since I own a gun, am I a threat to shoot up a high school? Since I don't think affirmative action is right, am I a racist?

Honestly, after that conversation, I would have said that you were a likely threat to any FBI, BATF, abortion workers, or lesbian bar patrons in your area. Given your energertic defense of McVeigh and Rudolph as patriots and your defense of their actions as regrettable but understandable, I think it's pretty clear where your allegiances lie.

You say that you are not supporting any of Flint's stances, and yet when I asked you how you felt about his uncertainty of whether or not infanticide was wrong, you stated, "I'm okay with Flint's personal views".

I'm okay with your personal views. Everyone has them, everyone is welcome to them. I just don't know why yours seem to have changed so radically from November to March.

I'll ask you again: Do you also think that it is acceptable to kill infants?

Do you think it's acceptable to kill BATF agents?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 20, 2001.


Tarzan,

Your dodging is similar to Flint's; are you also a self-perceived intelligentsia who believes that infanticide is acceptable, and yet you just aren't comfortable admitting it?

Even though you continue to dodge my question, I will answer yours. I believe that if anyone, government agent or otherwise, opens fire on a building full of women and children, then they shouldn't be surprised if they are killed by return fire.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 20, 2001.

I believe that if anyone, government agent or otherwise, opens fire on a building full of women and children, then they shouldn't be surprised if they are killed by return fire.

Talk about a dodge! What a hypocrite!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 20, 2001.


J:

You don't even seem conscious of the fact that your beliefs are nothing more than the practical solutions to problems perceived in different times by a more superstitious society, along with a method for convincing superstitious people to adopt those solutions. Other religions have used the same brainwashing techniques to inculcate different useful practices.

Yes, less capable people need absolutes. And they will hang on to those absolutes if it kills them, which absolutes often do. Once again, adaptability is a sign of intelligence. "Wisdom" is not synonymous with willful limitations, nor with a refusal to learn. You should realize that the great thing about absolutes is, you have so many to choose from.

And as Tarzan points out, even your absolutes get applied very selectively. They are inconsistent with one another, and change with what you see as immediate personal satisfaction. Your "wisdom" can't seem to tell principles from excuses. If you'd thought it through yourself, you would understand it and could change it. As it is, you can only repeat it. Without even realizing it!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 20, 2001.


Tarzan,

I answered your question. Surely you didn't expect me to say something that could lead to jail time, did you?

What is amazing to me is that I have found not just one, but two men who will not take an unequivocal stance that infanticide is wrong.



Flint,

I will let you in on something that everyone (with the exception of you, of course) on this forum knows for certain: Just because you say something, that doesn't make it true. Most all of that which you post has a basic, "I am Flint, look what a big brain I have" air to it. A goodly amount of it also has a, "You believe in God, therefore you can't have a big brain like me" sense about it. The reality is that you think that you are so incredibly intelligent, that you can't even fathom, let alone see, when you are in the wrong.

Just keep trying to convince us all how intelligent you are because you don't believe in God, and just keep psycho-babbling on and on about how much more intelligent you are because you are "adaptable"; so adaptable, in fact, that you seem to have no problem advocating the killing of your infant if it were "practical". Would this "adaptability" also mean bad news for an elderly mother if she could no longer hack it on her own? I mean, nursing homes are pretty expensive these days.

If being "intelligent" by your standards means killing my own child if it were "practical", I will do just fine to remain ignorant.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

Right on J! Well said

-- (cin@cin.cin), March 21, 2001.

I answered your question. Surely you didn't expect me to say something that could lead to jail time, did you?

Interesting. Expressing an opinion that's anti-government while not actively engaging in terrorist activities won't lead to jail time. If that weren't the case, just about every good ol' boy from the backwoods of North Carolina would be in jail today, to say nothing of anyone who's ever purchased a copy of "The Turner Diaries".

Of course, if you have actively supported terrorist activities, expressing an anti-government opinion might be a good way to tip your hand.

As the Yankees like to say, "I'm not saying, I'm just saying,"

What is amazing to me is that I have found not just one, but two men who will not take an unequivocal stance that infanticide is wrong.

Yes, that's right. Terrorism GOOD, abortion BAD. Is that what they taught you in the militia?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.


Cin-

Do you also believe that government employees are deserving of death?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.


I lost track, is the topic infanticide or abortion?

To religious anti-abortionists, they're the same thing, and I think that's the avenue of discussion "J" is trying to steer down.

Strictly speaking, infanticide has been common throughout human history, and has been tied more closely to resource availabilty than religious doctrine or moral absolutes.

The parent will instinctually want to protect the child in most cases, with some exceptions - in ancient Greece, the second female child was often killed by the parents. Similar things occurred in China, and other cultures. In places where there was no cultural pressure on the parent to kill and infant, the tribal leaders/government would make individual decisions based on food scarcity. If you were unlucky enough to have a baby in the late fall after a very dry summer, your "chief" may decide you should wait until next year to have a child, and that would be it for that baby.

Of late, the economies of food production and distribution pretty much ensure that infanticide need never really happen (at least in the "first-world",) so we have the luxury of applying a moral and religious laminate on what's really maternal instincts combined with zero resource pressure.

How's that for cold? (sorry:^)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 21, 2001.


J:

Luckily for you, you are perfectly free to define "wisdom" as repeating what you are told, being impractical, not thinking for yourself, failing to adapt, and believing whatever superstitions someone else has trained you to believe. You are free to look down on anyone who takes advantage of the gifts you work so hard to pretend were never granted to you. Clearly, you aren't about to let yourself be retrained (and apparently *can't* let yourself think independently). And this is fine.

But don't impose this on me, OK? What you do with your life is your business and I won't interfere with it. I'm not going to try to tell you how to live your life either. If you're comfortable with the crutch of absolute rights and wrongs according to someone else, fine. Live by them. Don't make me live by them. I prefer to figure out how to live my own life. I won't force anything on you, nor let you force anything on me.

And by the way, just because you repeat what you've been trained to believe doesn't make it right. If you could support your training it with something less tautological than "it's right because it's right", this would be the first step toward real understanding. Are you up to it?

Bemused:

Good observations. As I tried to say, even religious "absolute right and wrong" proscriptions are nothing but those practical approaches that worked for the society that invented the religion. But recognizing this takes intelligence, something J seems to fear and hate.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 21, 2001.


Tarzan,

The more that you post, the more apparent it is how deceitful and deceptive you really are. You have gone to great lengths trying to redefine the argument and reshape this thread, rather than just give a simple, straightforward answer to whether or not you think that infanticide is acceptable. You even go so far as to insinuate that I "have actively supported terrorist activities". After having given you ample opportunities to directly renounce infanticide, I will conclude that you, like Flint, feel that it is acceptable to kill babies.



Bemused,

The topic is infanticide, but the pro abortion, atheism twins have been so brainwashed into believing that a baby in utero doesn't have the right to life, that they can't bring themselves to believe that a baby has a right to life even after he or she has been born.

Infanticide is definitely different than abortion in my eyes, and that is not the avenue that I am trying to steer down, that they are equal. However, as you can infer from the thread, Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer are so adamant that abortion is right, and so afraid of putting themselves into a position that is inconsistent with abortion being right, that they can't bring themselves to admit that the killing of a newborn is wrong. It truly is pathetic.



Flint,

Tarzan at least sees the whole picture, and then tries to wriggle to a point in it that is most beneficial for him. You are so enamored with your god of intelligence, that you just blindly barge forward, confident that if your position is "intelligent", than what else must be considered?

Since you believe that you are so "intelligent", and therefore so "adaptable" to whatever is most "practical", I think that it is safe to say that if you deemed it the most advantageous, you would kill your children, spouse, parents, siblings, neighbors, and anyone else that stood in the way of your big brain making the "intelligent" choice for yourself.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

The more that you post, the more apparent it is how deceitful and deceptive you really are. You have gone to great lengths trying to redefine the argument and reshape this thread, rather than just give a simple, straightforward answer to whether or not you think that infanticide is acceptable. You even go so far as to insinuate that I "have actively supported terrorist activities". After having given you ample opportunities to directly renounce infanticide, I will conclude that you, like Flint, feel that it is acceptable to kill babies.

The more that you post, the more apparent it is how deceitful and deceptive you really are. You have gone to great lengths trying to avoid the argument and redirect this thread this thread, rather than just give a simple, straightforward answer to whether or not you think terrorism is acceptable. You even go so far as to insinuate that I "support infanticide". After having given you ample opportunities to directly renounce terrorism, I will conclude that you, like McVeigh and Rudolph, feel that it is acceptable to kill those you disagree with.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.


Tarzan,

Are you mistaken, or are you lying?

Earlier in this thread, I said, "For the record, I do not support terrorism".

I have yet to see you give a similar, unequivical statement renouncing infanticide.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

Earlier in this thread, you saidEarlier in this thread, I said, "For the record, I do not support terrorism".

Yet later, when I asked if it was acceptable to kill BATF agents, you said:

I believe that if anyone, government agent or otherwise, opens fire on a building full of women and children, then they shouldn't be surprised if they are killed by return fire.

Then, when I pointed out what a dodge this is, you said:

I answered your question. Surely you didn't expect me to say something that could lead to jail time, did you?

I think your thoughts on terrorism, and your support of it, are abundantly clear.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.


Tarzan,

As a general rule, it is unadvisable to kill anyone, government agent or otherwise. However, if anyone, government agent or otherwise, proceeds to try and murder (as in killing unlawfully) a person, then I think that said person is justified in using deadly force to counter the murderous intent. A government badge puts no man above the law. I hope that clarifies things for you.

Now, once again, do you think that it is acceptable to kill infants? A simple yes or no will suffice.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

As a general rule, it is unadvisable to kill anyone, government agent or otherwise.

Inadvisable?

However, if anyone, government agent or otherwise, proceeds to try and murder (as in killing unlawfully) a person, then I think that said person is justified in using deadly force to counter the murderous intent.

So who was trying to kill Tim McVeigh? How about Eric Rudolph? You called them patriots. Are you now also saying that, in addition to being patriots, they were acting as an arm of the law?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.


Tarzan,

Inadvisable?

No, unadvisable.

Just because you don't know the word, that does not mean that it does not exist.

The next time that your false sense of arrogance prompts you to try and belittle someone, you should pause. For when you try to impress the world with your intelligence, and then fall miserably short, you make yourself out to be a complete ass.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

Bemused:

I know that J responded that the topic was infanticide, but the topic of this thread was abortion until J presented his "slippery slope" argument and TRIED to turn it into a thread on infanticide. I'm going to start another thread on "slippery slope" logic, but I want to get my links in order before I do.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.


The next time that your false sense of arrogance prompts you to try and belittle someone, you should pause.

Actually, I was underscoring your hypocrisy regarding the worth of life and I misread your equivication as "inadvisable" rather than unadvisable.

For the record, I think you're a hypocrite whose use of faux-military speak and easy defense of terrorists as patriots makes me believe you are a member of a para-military group. This doesn't make you stupid of course. But it does make you a hypocrite.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 21, 2001.


Anita,

Actually, it was Flint who brought up infanticide. I was merely trying to prove the point that state intervention in our lives is actually desirable in certain instances, when he said that he wasn't sure if an infant was entitled to state protection at birth. His main point (with which I disagree) was that a child wasn't entitled to state protection in utero, but his choice of words also made it perfectly clear that he was not sure if state protection should start at birth, either.

Even though you are so assured that I was trying to work a "slippery slope" backwards from the evil of infanticide to the evil of abortion, you are wrong.

I will admit that arguing abortion is a no-win situation for either side, as your side believes that a woman's right of privacy or right to pursue happiness outweighs any rights that her unborn baby might have, and my side believes that an unborn baby's right to life outweighs any rights (excepting the mother's right to life) that the mother may have. Your side sees it as a blob of tissue; my side sees it as a baby. This is the fundamental argument that goes nowhere.

However, I had never encountered anyone on the pro- abortion side that had even hinted at the acceptability of infanticide until Flint typed his infamous words. Since then, you and Tarzan have both supported Flint, and neither of you have said anything that would lead me to believe that you think any differently than he does. In fact, your own words were: "I feel he was correct in stating that he didn't know at what age an infant acquired rights"...

If an infant doesn't acquire his or her rights at birth, Anita, just when does he or she acquire those rights?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

Tarzan,

Ah yes, the world of Tarzan. It is much like the world of Flint. It is a world where Tarzan says, "For the record, I think you're a hypocrite"... and then he concludes, "But it does makeyou a hypocrite".

In Tarzan's own little world, whatever he thinks, is reality.

Just for the sake of hypothetical discussion, what would happen if Tarzan's world and Flint's world were to collide?

LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

J:

The law states that the unborn has no rights and that the born does. However, you WILL notice in the new thread I started on the "Slippery Slope", the rights of infants are not honored in our society. The state attempts to honor the rights of children being molested by the likes of folks by Koresh, but folks like YOU scream "foul" and claim that the state had no business interfering. Which is it? [My preference would be that you'd respond on the new thread, because this one is not only too long, but has gone too far afield of the original topic.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.


J:

[If an infant doesn't acquire his or her rights at birth, just when does he or she acquire those rights?]

But this is a very simple question. People acquire what rights their government chooses to grant, at a time of their government's choosing. You can bitch and moan about this all you like, but that's the way it is.

It's for this reason that we in this country place so much value on a representative government, rather than some king ruling by "divine right". We know who has the lawyers, guns and money, and we want some influence over them. That way we can at least approximate such rights and timings as being the will of the people, rather than handed down arbitrarily from on high because someone with power decides what's right and what's not.

It has always been natural for governments of all descriptions to feel they know what's better for us than we do, and to act against what we consider our best interest "for our own good". So we value a form of government that permits trial and error, and lets us drop or drastically modify programs that make too many people unhappy.

If there's one thing your contentions make clear, it's that you lack any sense of flexibility, any willingness even to *consider* other viewpoints. You are RIGHT, dammit. You spend post after post repeating the same words and sputtering at how you own the moral high ground without any question in your mind whatsoever. And when you are met with skepticism rather than cheerleading, you don't even think of questioning your slogans. Everyone else just makes you sick instead. High density, fer shure.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 21, 2001.


Just for the sake of hypothetical discussion, what would happen if Tarzan's world and Flint's world were to collide?

This thread is beyond scarey now. Lol.

-- As the thread turns (Tis@gonna.happen), March 21, 2001.


Anita,

Just because you cite some shoddy D.C. area police work involving the deaths of children, that does not equate to "the rights of infants are not honored in our society". Even if you start your very own thread on the matter, it still does not make it true. Even if you put the word "WILL" in all caps for emphasis, it still does not make it true.

Are you saying that because one police department has done a poor job prosecuting the deaths of children, then that makes infanticide acceptable in your eyes? Because if that is not the point that you're getting at, it would be nice of you if you would clarify just what your point is.

As far as your assinine comments about the Waco situation, let me clarify for you.

The Texas agency in charge of child welfare did investigate alleged child abuse claims, but found no evidence to support such claims. Should they have created evidence to support those claims, Anita?

What the state had no business doing was incinerating women and children. Is that too hard for you to understand?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

Hi, Heavy D! You fatboy-militia-member-baby-trader! Long time no see!

"No, unadvisable. Just because you don't know the word, that does not mean that it does not exist."

And just because you utilize a neologism (look it up, Heavy D), that does not mean that the word is applicable. Grow up, Dense.

"The next time that your false sense of arrogance prompts you to try and belittle someone, you should pause."

The next time YOUR false sense of arrogance prompts you to try to belittle someone, perhaps YOU should pause.

"For when you try to impress the world with your intelligence, and then fall miserably short, you make yourself out to be a complete ass."

And that's precisely what you've done, Dense Fatboy. Can I come over for a bracing bowl of rice and beans, or have you eaten them all already?

"If an infant doesn't acquire his or her rights at birth, Anita, just when does he or she acquire those rights?"

There are a number of rights that are not invested until 18, or even 21. Depending on the state of residence, there are other rights that may invest at other ages. For example, in the state in which I grew up, I was legally able to declare myself an emancipated minor at age 13. I did do so at age 17. If there's anything else you want to know about invested and imputed rights, Dense, then just ask. But bear in mind that when you try to impress the world with your intelligence, and then fall miserably short, you make yourself out to be a complete ass.

You have just fallen short.

Again.

-- Malcolm X In The Middle (redbeans.rice@hamburger.helper.yuk), March 21, 2001.


Flint,

"But this is a very simple question. People acquire what rights their government chooses to grant, at a time of their government's choosing. You can bitch and moan about this all you like, but that's the way it is".

Of course you can't see this yourself, but you are wrong yet again.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

Malcom X,

Yo, home boy. Just chillin' at your crib? You see, I know full well what a neologism is. The problem is that even though you tried to use the word, you obviously don't know what the word means. I also question whether or not you know what the word "unadvisable" means, since you believe that it wasn't applicable.

I appreciate your post, though. The irony of your false sense of arrogance while you tried to correct me made for a great laugh.

Ah yes, my little Johnny Cochran wannabe, do you think that the right to life is one of those invested at the age of 18? LOL.

You have just fallen short.

Black Power.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

"Malcom X, Yo, home boy. Just chillin' at your crib?"

Ah, Dense. Your feeble attempt at black slang further paints you as the racist militia member you are. I might be WHITE, fool. I might be ASIAN. I might be HISPANIC. But you just don't KNOW, do you? If you will stick to what you know, rather than what you think, you will make less of a fool of yourself. You will also make conversations with you far shorter, as you don't appear to know much at all, as your posts of the last couple of years indicate.

"You see, I know full well what a neologism is."

Irrelevant. You simply tacked the wrong prefix onto a word, used it, and then tried to pass your mistake off as knowledge beyond the capabilities of anyone else here. You're a human being, Dense, and just as capable of error as anyone else here. If you'd recognize that, then you might find people here treating you more politely. But when you screw up and then take others to task for pointing it out, you simply make yourself into a larger arrogant ass. And your arrogant ass is plenty large already.

"The problem is that even though you tried to use the word, you obviously don't know what the word means."

Dense. You applied the wrong prefix. Simple linguistic mistake. Grow up. Get over yourself.

"I also question whether or not you know what the word "unadvisable" means, since you believe that it wasn't applicable."

Dense. You applied the wrong prefix. Simple linguistic mistake. Grow up. Get over yourself.

"I appreciate your post, though. The irony of your false sense of arrogance while you tried to correct me made for a great laugh."

As your level of arrogance is giving me. Anyone who would try to turn their linguistic mistake into bragging rights is in need of therapy and medication.

"Ah yes, my little Johnny Cochran wannabe, do you think that the right to life is one of those invested at the age of 18? LOL."

YOU asked when rights were received, if not at birth. I answered your question with considerably more specificity than you used in asking it. Period. Get over yourself.

"You have just fallen short."

No, I just kicked your ass. And like the headless chicken, you don't even know it yet.

"Black Power."

Better not let your fellow Klavern members see this post. They might tar and feather you.

-- Malcolm X In The Middle (Malcolm X In The Middle (redbeans.rice@hamburger.helper.yuk), March 21, 2001.


Malcolm X,

Actually, "home boy", "chillin'", and "crib", are all examples of a neologism; not that I thought that you would have figured that out, though.

First, you misuse the word "neologism" (taunting me to look it up, no less), then when I throw it back in your face, you say that it is "irrelevant". LOL.

Now you are trying to backpedal away from your misuse of the word "neologism" by saying (over and over), "You applied the wrong prefix. Simple linguistic mistake", when that is not the case at all.

I didn't know that you had such a difficult time with context, or I would have asked my question much more specifically. You did, indeed, give a specific answer. It is just too bad that it was completely out of context in this particular thread.

I will give you a little advice since you are way in over your head here:

"Grow up. Get over yourself".

LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

"Actually, "home boy", "chillin'", and "crib", are all examples of a neologism; not that I thought that you would have figured that out, though."

Actually, Heavy D, I did not correct you on the use of THOSE neologisms, as they were correctly applied. However, you did misuse one, and have tried to paint your error as wisdom. You're busted, fatboy.

"First, you misuse the word "neologism" (taunting me to look it up, no less), then when I throw it back in your face, you say that it is "irrelevant". LOL."

What's so laughable is your misapplication of a prefix, and then your attempt to claim that it only LOOKS like an error to others because we're somehow less intelligent than you. THAT is a great big LOL, Dense.

"Now you are trying to backpedal away from your misuse of the word "neologism" by saying (over and over), "You applied the wrong prefix. Simple linguistic mistake", when that is not the case at all."

Do you not understand what a neologism IS, Dense? Any coined word can be a neologism, yet what you have done is simply call a grammatical mistake evidence of wisdom. That's pitiful, Olsen. There's no backpedaling going on here. You are claiming that your linguistic mistake is a neologism. That is indeed irrelevant.

"I didn't know that you had such a difficult time with context, or I would have asked my question much more specifically."

When asking a question about rights and the law, one is obliged to be specific. I didn't know that you had such a difficult time with legal matters, or I would have offered to help you further.

But then again, we all know about your legal problems of last year.

"You did, indeed, give a specific answer. It is just too bad that it was completely out of context in this particular thread."

Pffffft. You just don't like the answer. The answer is eminently applicable to the question you asked. Not my fault if your question came out wrong. Perhaps you have more problems with English than you let on.

"I will give you a little advice since you are way in over your head here: "Grow up. Get over yourself".

Age before wisdom, Heavy D. You go first. Besides, I'm already kicking your ignorant ass all over the board. Good to see you back.

-- Malcolm X In The Middle (redbeans.rice@hamburger.helper.yuk), March 22, 2001.


Malcolm X,

The more that you post, the more glaring your ignorance becomes. Or is it stupidity?

Considering that the word "unadvisable" has been around for a long time, and that its meaning has always meant, "not advisable", it is hardly considered a neologism.

The heart of the matter is that you heard a big word at school, thought that you understood what it meant, and now you are immersed in a situation where you are trying to save face by trying to deflect the spotlight away from your glaring inability, and onto some imagined inability of mine.

You are in way over your head, boy. Grow up, and get over yourself.

Oh, and say "hi" to Johnny Cochran for me. LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

I think spelling and grammar flames are lame, however, unadvisable is not actually a word, according to Merriam Webster.

I think you've lost this round.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.


One more thing, for any of the curious.

The word neologism is in Merriam-Webster. It's got French origins, and means to coin a new word, usage, or expression. It also means, "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic".

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.


Tarzan,

That's interesting. You see, I also have a Webster's dictionary, and mine clearly states that unadvisable is a word.

Maybe the reason that you don't like spelling and grammar flames is that you don't know how to use your dictionary. Try reading the complete definition under the entry un- .

I have obviously won this round.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

That's interesting. You see, I also have a Webster's dictionary, and mine clearly states that unadvisable is a word.

I'm sure it does. But for those of us who don't have access to your dictionary, here's a link.

Merriam-Webster

The dictionary works on a cgi/bin system, so there's no way to link directly to the definition, or in this case, lack thereof. Here's what they say when you try to look up the word "unadvisable":

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for unadvisable: 1. inadvisable 2. unadvisedly 3. indefeasible 4. indivisible 5. unadvised 6. undigestible 7. inadmissible 8. indissociable 9. uneducable 10. ineducable

Maybe the reason that you don't like spelling and grammar flames is that you don't know how to use your dictionary. Try reading the complete definition under the entry un- .

That's right, keep digging. Take all your aggression out on this board. Whatever you do, try to resist the urge to blow up Franklin Electronic Publishers. I assure you, the fact that they do not have "unadvisable" in their dictionary is in no way part of a government plot to make you look stupid.

Here you go:

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.


BTW- is your special dictionary the one that lists "patriot" as a synonym for "terrorist"?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.

I have a Webster's New World Dictionary, copyright 1970 (yeah, pretty old) and it does have the word unadvisable :)

I also have an American Heritage Dictionary, copyright 1982 and it does not have the word.

So it looks like older dictionary's carried the word and was dropped somewhere down the line.

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), March 22, 2001.


Tarzan,

Big brained Tarzan has staked his argument on some abridged online dictionary, and yet he has the audacity to say that I look stupid. LOL.

When you get your hands on a real dictionary, then (assuming you can understand how to use it) you will see who looks, nay is, stupid. At that point, I would expect a gentleman to issue a public apology.

In your case, I won't hold my breath.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

Peg,

I don't think that is the case, as my Webster's New World College Dictionary was copyrighted in 1997.

Nonetheless, your input is greatly appreciated. By me, of course, but probably not by Tarzan. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

Peg-

My American Heritage is circa 1998, and it doesn't list unadviseable either.

Big brained Tarzan has staked his argument on some abridged online dictionary, and yet he has the audacity to say that I look stupid. LOL.

Hey, if you can actually produce a dictionary that lists unadviseable as a word, I'll happily take a look at it. Until then, forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

When you get your hands on a real dictionary, then (assuming you can understand how to use it) you will see who looks, nay is, stupid.

Translation: If it doesn't have my word in it, it's not a dictionary. What an ego!

At that point, I would expect a gentleman to issue a public apology.

I'll say it again. Produce a dictionary that has your word in it.

On another note, I must say that I admire the way you've tried to cover up for your support of terrorism and the fact that you believe abortion is murder and murder itself is only unadviseable. I guess this means that you're out of the hardcore right-to-life camp.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.


Correction, my American Heritage is circa 1996.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.

Unadvisable

unadvertised unadvisable unadvised

-- (the@end.of it), March 22, 2001.


Just for grins and giggles, and while sitting on a long conference call, I checked a variety of on-line dictionaries. Not a one of them carried the word unadvisable.

Cambridge International Dictionary of English

Newbury House Online Dictionary

American Heritage Dictionary

Wordsmyth Educational Dictionary and Thesaurus

Random House Webster's College Dictionary

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.


Try this one.

Unadvisable (Un`ad*vis"a*ble) a. Not advisable; inadvisable; inexpedient. Lowth. — Un`ad*vis"a*bly, adv.

-- (the@end.of it), March 22, 2001.


Is J married?

-- (uh@just.wondering), March 22, 2001.

1913?!?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.

1913?!?

Didn't know the net was that old?

;)

-- (the@end.of it), March 22, 2001.


LOL!

Actually, I think it may have been a common use word at one time which as fallen out of common use. For instance, the word ain't was once considered grammatically correct but has since been discarded. It's possible that "J" is just using an anachronistic term (say that five times fast), but I think it's more likely that he just misspoke and has now been put in the position of defending himself.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.


Well, there we have it. The poster known as "the@end.of it" has been so kind as to have posted not one, but two, online dictionaries. I have referenced my Webster's New World College Dictionary, copyrighted 1997 (which of course doesn't count in Tarzan's eyes because I must be lying), and Peg has referenced her Webster's New World Dictionary, copyrighted 1970.

With no less than three (again, to Tarzan, I must be lying) examples cited, one would think that Tarzan would readily acknowledge the existence of the word unadvisable , and quickly issue a public apology.

Of course, no such apology is forthcoming. Instead, in an effort to try and weasel out from under his own mistake, we are treated to yet another one of Tarzan's accusations. Unfortunately, these actions are but par for the Tarzan course. A course where honor and integrity are obviously not in the ground rules.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

Jesus H. Christ, can we move on? Some dictionaries have the word, some don't. Dennis, they can hear your shrill screeching all the way to Fargo. Tarzan, this fish is fried.

-- Jesus (martinez@mexico.gov), March 22, 2001.

Some dictionaries have the word, some don't.

Correction. One dictionary, circa 1913, has the word, most don't.

Dennis won't move on because I have pinned him to the wall on his support of terrorism. He must now whine and moan about how I don't play fair to cover up the fact that Timothy McVeigh is a patriot in his world and his victims are villians. If I were a betting man, I'd put a lot of money on continued rage from Dennis about this topic.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.


Did you hear that, Peg? Tarzan says that you are a liar, too.

Now you owe Peg an apology, too, Tarzan.

Sore losers. LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

J,

Tarzan doesn't owe me anything.

As a matter of fact, I owe him something, my thanks. My thanks for helping women that are in need.

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), March 22, 2001.


"The more that you post, the more glaring your ignorance becomes. Or is it stupidity?"

Heavy D, are you not the same Dennis Olsen who once said that "going to college doesn't make you smart?" Or words to that effect? What is glaring is your lame attempt to paint your piss-poor use of a word as Wisdom Beyond Any Of Us Here. Your two dictionaries notwithstanding, "unadvisable" is NOT in common usage, and indeed, the dictionaries cited as supporting evidence for you appear to indicate that the word is no longer used. Tarzan got you dead to rights.

Only your own, well-documented arrogance would be sufficient cause to continue arguing this particular lost cause. You lost, Dennis. And I didn't even have to post dictionary links. The rest of The Gubmint Conspiracy came to my aid in order to embarrass you. We're all paid by lesbian lovers Hillary Clintax and Janet Reno (Waco! WACO!!!!), you know.

Silly-ass ignoramus. You can't think, you can't reason, and you can't debate, either. And once again, we see your dislike of anyone more educated than you. Been tripping GED recipients on the street again, Dense?

"Considering that the word "unadvisable" has been around for a long time, and that its meaning has always meant, "not advisable", it is hardly considered a neologism."

Considering that it's not in common usage, and considering that you didn't post your rather weak "evidence" right away, it's pretty safe to say that you just fucked up (by using the wrong prefix) and are simply trying to explain away your error. You see, Dense, you're such an arrogant shit that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to say "oh, yes, I should have said 'inadvisable,' my mistake." You just can't do it. Your inordinate drive to be right at all costs is why you keep getting your ass whipped on these threads -- you dash around like a bull after a red rag, and you never actually GET anywhere.

Meantime, we're all LAUGHING at you, Dense. Poking fun at the fat kid who never got picked for dodge-ball. Get the picture?

"The heart of the matter is that you heard a big word at school,"

The heart of the matter is that you simply fucked up, and aren't enough of a man to say "okay, I was wrong." You ego won't let you do it.

"thought that you understood what it meant, and now you are immersed in a situation where you are trying to save face by trying to deflect the spotlight away from your glaring inability, and onto some imagined inability of mine."

My face is fine. Yours is red, as is your titanic ass. Mostly from the kicking it has received.

"You are in way over your head, boy."

You are wrong, fatboy, and you have been busted.

"Grow up, and get over yourself."

Grow up, slim down, and get over YOURself, arrogant baby-trading egomaniac.

"Oh, and say "hi" to Johnny Cochran for me. LOL."

So, Dennis, what did the sheriff say when he came to your house for the infant? I bet you wish you had Johnny Cochran on your side then, you fat, race-baiting, rice-and-beans-hoarding, non-dictionary reading shit-for-brains. As big as you are, I bet the only time you ever run is when you're either on your way to the dinner table or the toilet.

"Did you hear that, Peg? Tarzan says that you are a liar, too."

Please show me precisely where Tarzan called Peg a "liar." I believe you are mistaken once again, fatboy.

"Now you owe Peg an apology, too, Tarzan."

I do not think that Tarzan called either of you a "liar." Now YOU owe Tarzan TWO apologies, fatboy. Be sure not to work up a sweat doing it. You know what the doctor said about your blood pressure. And don't forget to apologize to any who posted a dictionary link that contradicted you. You said that those weren't "real" dictionaries, right, lardass hypocrite?

"Sore losers. LOL."

Better look in the mirror, Heavy D, because that sore loser is looking right back at you. It is indeed a sad person who has to lie about being called a "liar."

-- Malcolm X In The Middle (redbeans.rice@hamburger.helper.yuk), March 22, 2001.


The word unadvisable can be found in all three of the dictionaries I checked: Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, second edition (the best of the lot), Universal Dictionary of the English Language, and Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary. Only the oldest of the three listed it as a word in its own right; the other two carried it in large lists of words starting with un.

-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), March 22, 2001.

Malcolm X,

LOL.

I waver between you being more pathetic, or more comical. You are certainly both, but I think that you are more comical. LOL.

Listen up, home boy, and I will let you in on something. I have never said that "going to college doesn't make you smart", or any words to that effect. You fancy yourself a smart boy, see if you can figure it out. LOL.



dandelion,

Careful there. What you have just posted is the truth, but that is not what people around these parts want to hear. It will not be safe for you if the Tarzan faithful decide that you are supporting my cause.

Tarzan himself will just ignore your facts, and try to turn the thread into a "but you ruin people's lawns" debate.

His cohort, Malcolm X, will make up some urban nickname for you, something like, "Weedy d". Because your truth is not that which he wants to hear, he will try to shout you down, probably with something like this: "That isn't the truth, you immobile, soil-loving, nutrient-robbing, lawn-wrecking, real-flower-wannabe".

Oh yes, and no matter how much urban slang he throws at you, if you use any of it when replying to him, then you're a racist. Automatic. Done deal.

As you can see, the risks are great, so be careful. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 23, 2001.

"Malcolm X,"

Heavy D,

"LOL."

See? I KNEW you'd see it my way if you just looked in the mirror!

"I waver between you being more pathetic, or more comical. You are certainly both, but I think that you are more comical. LOL."

Well, what you think doesn't matter much to me, but it sure is fun poking your fat ass and watching you twitch. What's sad is the fact that you have seized on this dictionary argument as a way to distract attention from YOURSELF and YOUR SUPPORT of terrorism. You were only too happy to have something else to talk about, weren't you, Dennis?

"Listen up, home boy, and I will let you in on something. I have never said that "going to college doesn't make you smart", or any words to that effect."

Oh, I believe you have.

"You fancy yourself a smart boy, see if you can figure it out. LOL."

Nothing much to figure out there. It's a case of he said-he said. See if you can figure that out. LOL.

"dandelion, Careful there. What you have just posted is the truth, but that is not what people around these parts want to hear."

Dennis, it is utterly amazing to me how frequently you engage in doublethink. Tarzan posts evidence that you are wrong, but it doesn't count, right? Dandelion posts evidence, and that is the TRUTH, which no one else will accept? Only posts that agree with you are TRUTH?

What a fucking nutball.

"It will not be safe for you if the Tarzan faithful decide that you are supporting my cause."

Considering that Dandelion is you, I don't see where that's a problem. Besides, wouldn't it be safer to be on the side of the militia-member terrorist supporters like Dennis? After all, if you don't agree with them, they'll just blow up your workplace and call themselves "heroes" and "patriots."

Kind of like Dennis claiming he's "won" on this thread.

"Tarzan himself will just ignore your facts,"

And Dennis himself will ignore Tarzan's facts.

"and try to turn the thread into a "but you ruin people's lawns" debate."

Ruining people's lawns is a far cry from supporting domestic terrorism and the killing of innocent people. You ought to be ashamed, Dennis. Do you think of people as weeds if they don't agree with you?

"His cohort, Malcolm X, will make up some urban nickname for you, something like, "Weedy d".

I already made up a nickname for Dandelion. It's "Heavy D." You must have missed that.

"Because your truth is not that which he wants to hear, he will try to shout you down,"

Much like you do, Dennis. Because Tarzan's truth is not what you want to hear, you will try to shout him down. You also like to put words in people's mouths, setting up straw men so you can knock them down. This is what I mean by you being unable to debate. Stand by for an example.

"probably with something like this: "That isn't the truth, you immobile, soil-loving, nutrient-robbing, lawn-wrecking, real-flower- wannabe".

There's that example. If you say so, Dennis. In any event, the real issue is how you support domestic terrorism, and the murdering of innocent men, women and children. You should be ashamed.

"Oh yes, and no matter how much urban slang he throws at you, if you use any of it when replying to him, then you're a racist. Automatic. Done deal."

Only if you assume I am black. Which you did. Racist.

"As you can see, the risks are great, so be careful."

How much risk did you assume in preparing for Y2K, Dennis? Did any of your rice and beans get eaten by pests? Or did you eat it all real fast?

"Did you hear that, Peg? Tarzan says that you are a liar, too."

Please show me precisely where Tarzan called Peg a "liar." I believe you are mistaken once again, fatboy.

"Now you owe Peg an apology, too, Tarzan."

I do not think that Tarzan called either of you a "liar." Now YOU owe Tarzan TWO apologies, fatboy. Be sure not to work up a sweat doing it. You know what the doctor said about your blood pressure. And don't forget to apologize to any who posted a dictionary link that contradicted you. You said that those weren't "real" dictionaries, right, lardass hypocrite?

"Sore losers. LOL."

Better look in the mirror, Heavy D, because that sore loser is looking right back at you. It is indeed a sad person who has to lie about being called a "liar."

-- Malcolm X In The Middle (redbeans.rice@hamburger.helper.yuk), March 23, 2001.


Malcolm X In The Middle,

I am not J(Y2J). Most of my posts in the past discussed Dave and Eve's two chess games. My library has better dictionaries than Tarzan had available.

dandelion

-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), March 23, 2001.


Tarzan doesn't owe me anything.

As a matter of fact, I owe him something, my thanks. My thanks for helping women that are in need.

No thanks necessary. Happy to be of assistance.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 23, 2001.


malcom x was a commie asshole,so are you,you need a pipe in your head!!

-- Hanky (zoe@heet.com), March 25, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ