Re: VP Sarah Palin


rich hammett sent the following on 9/3/2008 3:32 PM:
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Jim Gysin:

The BorgMan sent the following on 9/3/2008 10:30 AM:
Jim Gysin <jimgysin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:zChvk.24198$Mh5.9654
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

rich hammett sent the following on 9/2/2008 11:38 AM:
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, The BorgMan:
James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschrumpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns9B09EFC0EFFA8jaschrumpfcomcastic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Quiet, "Randolph M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting
rage.

David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:11:04 -0400, "Randolph M. Jones"
<rjones@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


James Schrumpf wrote:

Quiet, rich hammett <bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm
transmitting
ra
ge.

Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Edward M. Kennedy:

"David Loewe, Jr." <dloewe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin


And this is the woman that's supposed to be president in a
few
mo
nths
when McCain keels over from pure meanness?

"She admits that she used marijuana when it was legal in
Alaska,
but
says that she did not like it."

Geez. How sad.


It worked for Bill Clinton...


Except all the fucktards don't seem to remember Clinton broke
the l
aw,
whereas Palin didn't.

It's actually a fascinating topic. When Alaska legalized pot,
the feds didn't bother to enforce the federal bull***. You
know, Stat
e's
rights and all that. Reagan got a few things right despite
his
dum
bass
war on drugs. It was under Bill Fucking Clinton, and
perpetuated b
y
George Fucking Bush, that State's right to legalize pot was
blind s
ided.


Palin intentionally created a child with Down's Syndrome.
That's
musta been some good pot to get her to do something THAT stupid
and evil.


"Intentionally"? That's a new brain-dead low, even for you.

You misplet "didn't kill a baby that tested positive for Down's
Syndr
ome."
Do you think that all Down's kids should be killed?



Cool, now we can do this whole entire thread over again.

Since Hammet seems to enjoy dancing around this instead of
stating
it
directly, here's a hint for everyone: (I surmise that) Hammet
does
not

consider a fetus to be a "child", a "baby", a "kid", or a
"person".
S
o
for him, killing as fetus with Downs Syndrome is not the same
thing
as

killing a person with Downs Syndrome. And for him, it takes an
extra
act of intention to allow a zygote/embryo/fetus with Downs
Syndrome
to

become a person with Downs Syndrome (assuming you know before
he/she i
s
born that he/she has Downs Syndrome).

And just to toss it out there, I tend to agree with him.
So much for the famed liberal compassion...

This position is extremely compassionate, if you agree with the
premises. But you knew that.
Even granting everything you state above, why should people with
Down's Syndrome be prevented from being born?
No people are prevented from being born. A non-person would be.
Now you've ticked off the condom-haters. Condoms certainly
prevent a person, or millions of them, from being born.
Your continuing pretense of not knowing the difference between
contraception and abortion only embarrasses you. At least I hope it's
a
pretense...

You do realize that the birth control pill (by far the most used form of
contraception in the United States) only sometimes prevents fertilization
- at other times it prevents pregnancy by preventing implantation of the
already fertilized egg... right?

Irrelevant. Your own attempt at diversion makes it clear that you
understand the difference. Perhaps you can explain it to Rich.

You won't say what the difference is. Condoms prevent a person
from being born, nearly as effectively as an abortion. I
prefer condoms to abortions. What are you confused about?

The issue isn't prevention of birth, but it's obvious that you're still
too confused to understand.

--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
.

Loading