Leaving the community

"Corky Scott" wrote in message Whatever
Clinton did, it FOR SURE did not result in war or the death
of anyone. Sure, he showed a lack of fidelity towards his marriage,
but that's IT and it's his and Hillarie's problem, not the nations'.



BULL$HIT Corky, Every time BC got in trouble he chucked a missle at someone.

"Trent Moorehead" wrote in message
...

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

snip
Whatever Clinton did, it FOR SURE did not result in war or the death
of anyone. Sure, he showed a lack of fidelity towards his marriage,
but that's IT and it's his and Hillarie's problem, not the nations'.
snip

I don't agree. He lied under oath and that's pretty serious. The president
of the United States commited PERJURY.
Oh, lordy, another evangelickle pantie-sniffer. He's being deposed in the
fabricated PJ case charging sex harassment and asked if he had sex with
Monica (whom he didn't harass) and he denies it. Give us all a break from
your sanctimony. He didn't have sex; he didn't screw her. He got a
blow-job. Aren't you envious, though? You don't know the definition of
perjury either. Lying under oath is not always perjury. Do you also get
off on Bob Livingston's crotchless leather panties and Henry Hyde's
homewrecking adultery?

I heard it between 6:20 and 6:30am CST 11/11/04 on NPR's Morning Edition.
I'm sure the archive is available at NPR.org.


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Gig Giacona" wrote


And according to NPR this morning they find Sarin in Falluja. Sounds like
a
WMD to me.

I have been unable to find any reports on the internet, on this subject.
Anyone have any more info?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

" jls" wrote in message
.. .

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not
less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)



--
Bob Noel

He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

There is a movement among religious pharmacists to refuse to fill
prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Watch this absurdity grow and
fester, including the belief of many religious that a human life begins at
the instant of conception.

My lawgivers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St. Paul. (E. M.
Forster)



Well in the Peterson case in of all places the People's Republic of
California he is charged with the murder of his wife and unborn child. He is
hardly the forst to be charged with this. The law seems to be the
embryo/fetus is a human when the mother says it is.

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:33:22 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
wrote:

BULL$HIT Corky, Every time BC got in trouble he chucked a missle at someone.

Gig, you'll have to explain where you're going with this because I'm
not seeing the connection with what I've written.

Corky Scott

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:47:26 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief,
what
is
it?

It's an innate desire, not a religious belief. It's basic biology. We
come
pre-wired to desire happiness.

Again, why? And please understand, I am not some wild-eyed creationist; I
accept evolution as scientific fact. However, I fail to see a strong
selective advantage in a sack of chemicals wanting to be happy.

Self aware and self determination; Being happy feels better than
unhappy. Hence we do our best to do the things that make us happy.
There is an ingrained force for like to band together and to shun or
destroy what is different. That is true throughout the animal kingdom.
Being happy, or content is a survival trait for the species.

Religion is basically a common belief. Having faith gives most people
comfort, be it in a god, God, or a pet rock. The definition of
religion has changed over the years, but in general is based on the
belief in a god, or the supernatural. If you have an old enough
dictionary (over 50 years) look up cult and occult. The definitions
were much broader back then and did not exclude orthodox religions.

If someone comes along with a different belief that makes them happy,
it threatens the belief of the other. When each says they are the
only way then one must be wrong. What once was making us feel good
now makes us feel threatened even if only at the subconscious level.
Some one who's belief system is strong can discuss opposing views
calmly. Those who get excited, argumentative, and even aggressive do
so because they feel threatened (Psychology 101)

It matters not what the differences, be it, or they, physical, or
philosophical. If they are different then they are perceived as a
threat to our happiness.

Whether it be the neighbors land, resources, car, wife, belief
system... What ever we see as desirable we want so we can be happy.
Sooo...The logical conclusion is we end up fighting wars mot because
we enjoy fighting, but because we want to be happy.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

jls wrote:

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:


Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)



--
Bob Noel


He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.


Matt

Gig Giacona wrote:

I heard it between 6:20 and 6:30am CST 11/11/04 on NPR's Morning Edition.
I'm sure the archive is available at NPR.org.

Yes. Check http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....te=11-Nov-2004 and
cycle down to the story "U.S. Forces Meeting Less Resistance in Fallujah". That's
audio, but the reference to Sarin is very early. They found vials labels "Sarin-V"
and thought, at first, that they had found vials of the gas itself. That's what
caused the early reports. Tests showed, however, that the vials are part of a test
kit to test for the presence of Sarin gas. There is, of course, speculation as to why
the insurgents would have test kits for a gas that isn't available.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
jls wrote:

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:


Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not
less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)



--
Bob Noel


He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human
being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.


Matt


Ah, my poor klutz, I was using the original uncorrupted Latin spelling:

fetus also foetus (fê´tes) noun
plural fetuses
1.The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural
resemblance to the adult animal.
2.In human beings, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after
conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

[Middle English, from Latin.]

C J Campbell wrote:


"Frank" wrote in message ...
snip
I'd add that even if the Iraq invasion was justified it was bungled
badly.
The administration ignored its own experts and we lost lives because of
it.
For that reason alone they don't merit being returned to office.

If it was bungled so badly, why do the military and veterans
overwhelmingly support Bush instead of Kerry?

Marketing.


Why did Kerry participate in this supposed lie? For a long time, there, he
was Bush's biggest critic for not invading Iraq sooner than he did. Kerry
was the biggest hawk in the country. How come you do not think Kerry was
lying?

I wasn't addressing Kerry's role. His role as a senator is largely
irrelevant to me. Nor did say anything about lying. In fact, my point was
that even if the necessity for the war is stipulated there is/was ample
reason not to re-elect Bush.

Kerry's truthfulness has nothing to do with Bush's bungling.
--
Frank....H