Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


From Congress to the Courts

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry,

It wasn’t want the American people wanted – but it’s what they got.  President Obama – with a last minute deal to secure the necessary votes – agreed to issue an Executive Order on the abortion funding issue in the health care plan.

The reality is that the Executive Order doesn’t change a thing.  It doesn’t trump the legislation that was approved – legislation that becomes law with the President’s signature.  This legislation contains the language that clears the way for federal funds to be used for abortion.  That’s what becomes law – that’s the controlling language – not some promise put in an Executive Order.

Even abortion rights supporter Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo) said she doesn’t have a problem with the Executive Order because “it doesn’t change anything.” 

And, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) – who traded his vote for the president’s promise – admitted today that the Executive Order is fragile and told FOX News that there’s nothing – as he put it – that would stop this president from a month from now, a year from now, ten years from now, of repealing this Executive Order.

If an Executive Order is so effective, why didn’t President Obama just draft one up on the whole health care issue and sign it?  That’s because it’s Congress – not the President – that has the constitutional obligation and authority to enact legislation – to create laws. 

What is clear is that the legal challenges are coming – and there will be many.   Nearly 40 states are lining up to file suit.  There will be direct challenges to the individual mandate that will force Americans to a buy a product they don’t want – in this case a health care plan. 

The individual mandate requirement violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and will affect a wide variety of Americans who opposed this package.  It will include pro-life Americans who understand that being forced to purchase a pro-abortion health care plan – something they reject – is unconstitutional.

We will be involved in the litigation challenging this health care package.  The constitutional issues at stake are significant.  And, it’s likely this ultimately will end up before the Supreme Court.

There’s also plenty of action on the legislative front where members of Congress are already working on bills to repeal this measure.  

Any way you look at it, Barry, this is a bad move that translates into bad law. 

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(120)
post a comment
Brian

posted March 22, 2010 at 5:13 pm


Something will stop “this” President from repealing the Executive Order. It’s called term limits.



report abuse
 

PK Wiley

posted March 22, 2010 at 5:30 pm


I reject organized religion and yet my tax money goes to the funding of ALL religions in the U.S. I don’t have kids in school, yet they take my property tax money to fund education. In America we all pay taxes for the greater good. I don’t know a single person who looks into the future and PLANS to have an abortion. Even insurance companies say that even though abortion riders are available, no one buys them. So stop whining, stop being greedy and stop being so self centered. Get over yourself.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 22, 2010 at 7:51 pm


Re: Brian
Who says the president wants to revoke the executive order?
Let the children live for God sakes….



report abuse
 

Brian

posted March 22, 2010 at 7:57 pm


I wasn’t saying he wanted to revoke it. I’m glad he did it, but I wish they would have put the prohibition into the bill. I was just point out a flaw in the blog entry. Obama can not be President in ten years.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 22, 2010 at 8:04 pm


What Barry,do you want to murder children? It is disgusting that you would act like killing children is a good and moral issue of choice….. What if somebody chopped you up and put you in the trash, for what do they call it, reproductive right? No, it is not a reproductive right at all. It ends the the reproduction..murdering children is what it is… I don’t care if you put it inside or ouside in a jar, those are people, Homosapiens… 14th Amendment Rights…..
human- A member of the genus Homo and esp. of the species H. Sapiens. A person.
Amendment 14 ———— All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State whrein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, withour due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 22, 2010 at 8:14 pm


Re: Brian
Thanks for the clarification….
I’m tired of them saying murdering children is somehow a right, while murdering children another ways is wrong…
A bit confusing….
Then they try and find some loop hole, of you guessed it, the child can’t survive on it’s own without the nurturing care of her body..
Like that is an excuse to let the murder take place,please?
Insane concepts, all the way…
Then they want to say, the cells are not what they are, because they are not completely in the visible form of the body part… Like that is a disqualification of them being what they are…
Meanwhile they can fully tell what they are when they are abstracting them out for the the science experiment, thus killing the little developing homosapiens, once again…
Like, making too many humans in a science lab is an excuse to murder the little people….
NOooooooooooo
Thank,
C



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 22, 2010 at 8:24 pm


What is clear is that the legal challenges are coming. Yeah, from a law firm headed by a lawyer who proudly teaches at a tier 4 law school, the worst and lowest rated law school on the planet, Regent University. Ooh, I’m sure the supporters of this bill are quaking in their boots now! Legal challenges from the most incompetent and dishonest law firm in the world! What will we ever do? Challenge away Sekulow. When you lose AGAIN, we won’t hear a thing about it from you on your show, here, your website, your sons’ tweets or anywhere else. We never hear or read about ACLJ’s many failures for some reason. Why is that Jay? Rhetorical question. We all know why. Your intellectual dishonesty makes other lawyers look almost respectable.



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 22, 2010 at 9:38 pm


Carabellum: “Amendment 14 ———— All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…”
That leaves out the unborn doesn’t it? …Yes, exactly as the SCOTUS found in ‘Roe. But, of course, Carabellum has a much better understanding of jurisprudence than Supreme Court Justices, so…
BWAH-HAH-Hah-hah. What a freaking joke! How do manage to take yourself seriously? Heh-heh. How’d the lobectomy go?



report abuse
 

xcvcd

posted March 22, 2010 at 10:11 pm


welcome to:
|?|?|?==http:www.famalegoods.com==|?|?|?
———-
50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale
and so on..
if you like to order anything you like.
More details, please just browse our website
Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.
enjoy yourself. thank you!!
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
|?|?|?==http:www.famalegoods.com==|?|?|?



report abuse
 

Brutus Beefcake

posted March 22, 2010 at 10:27 pm


The cost of Obammycare now, according to Obammy, himself, is $940 billion. We know that it’s gonna be almost $2.5 TRILLION.
So, call your congressional delegation and DEMAND that they stick to the Obammy promise that the cost will be $940 billion, and not one penny more. Tell them to vote for not one penny more than Obammy promised the system will cost.
We also know that time is quickening and that November is coming on fast. Then, January, when we take back Congress. Then, it’s on to The White House for a 2012 cleaning.
In the meantime, when Conservatives take back Congress, they can use the same methods to undo what the flaky, stupid, socialist Demoncrats did yesterday.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 22, 2010 at 10:35 pm


Carabellum: “Amendment 14 ———— All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…”
HG says:
That leaves out the unborn doesn’t it?
Mr. Incredible says:
No, it doesn’t. The Fourteenth Amendment defines what it means to be a citizen, not a person. A citizen is a person who is born. That means that there is a person before birth, but not a citizen.
Now, if the unborn person is separated from his mother prematurely, or alive, during an abortion, he is a citizen.
HG says:
Yes, exactly as the SCOTUS found in ‘Roe.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not quite.
SCOTUS ruled that there was no unborn person before the Court cuz the State didn’t bring an unborn person legal definition before the Court. The State brought everything but a legal argument for unborn person.
So, Justice Blackmun, in Roe, itself, says that, had the State brought even the suggestion of the [legal] establishment of “personhood,” the Court would have had to rule the other way. The State didn’t do that.



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 22, 2010 at 11:28 pm


Incred: “SCOTUS ruled that there was no unborn person before the Court cuz the State didn’t bring an unborn person legal definition before the Court.”
This is an incorrect statement. Kindly cite what, in the decision, makes you think this.
The court ruled “… that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”
That is the ruling, in quotes. Done, and done. It is precedent, no unless or until about it. Law, so long as the Union exists.
By the way Incredible, did you read that Cara finds you to be “an illusion of sorts.” ? Was she your ‘student’, or were you an alter ego of hers? -I wondered.
Incred: “So, Justice Blackmun, in Roe, itself, says that, had the State brought even the suggestion of the [legal] establishment of “personhood,” the Court would have had to rule the other way.”
This is also an incorrect statement. In Roe, the Court entertained the notion that IF “personhood” as applies in the Fourteenth did apply to the unborn, THEN the case would (obviously) be decided against Roe. This is NOT what the court found. Precedent, forever more. Solid law.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 12:03 am


Mr. Incredible says:
SCOTUS ruled that there was no unborn person before the Court cuz the State didn’t bring an unborn person legal definition before the Court.
HG says:
This is an incorrect statement.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, it is not. What I wrote is correct.
HG says:
Kindly cite what, in the decision, makes you think this.
Mr. Incredible says:
Roe.
HG says:
The court ruled “… that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s cuz the Fourteenth Amendment defines “citizen,” not “person.”
HG says:
That is the ruling, in quotes.
Mr. Incredible says:
As incomplete as the quote is.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, Justice Blackmun, in Roe, itself, says that, had the State brought even the suggestion of the [legal] establishment of “personhood,” the Court would have had to rule the other way.
HG says:
This is also an incorrect statement.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, it isn’t. It is absolutely correct.
HG says:
In Roe, the Court entertained the notion that IF “personhood” as applies in the Fourteenth did apply to the unborn, THEN the case would (obviously) be decided against Roe.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Fourteenth doesn’t apply to the unborn cuz the unborn cannot be citizens. The Fourteenth says that, in order to be a citizen, one must be born. That does not say that the unborn are not persons, rather, merely, not citizens. So, even if we get a definition of “person” to include the unborn, the Fourteenth says THAT person cannot be a citizen until he is born.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 12:06 am


As a matter of fact, Roe SCOTUS says that the appellant — “Roe” — agrees that, had legal “personhood” been brought, things would’ve been different.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 12:13 am


HG says:
…did you read that Cara finds you to be “an illusion of sorts.” ? [sic]
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, you misrepresent her and what she wrote. We’re not surprised. We expect this.
Here, for your correction, is the original post from that blog:

Your Name
March 18, 2010 9:21 PM
I came to realize Mr. Incredible is only an illusion of sorts.
Nobody is perfect. I would like to think there is a Mr. Incredible out there for me ……………………….

Quit being so dihonest.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 12:16 am


Let’s take this one statement at a time.
Roe says:

“A. The appellee and certain amici argue the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Mr. Incredible says:
The State of Texas says the fetus is a person, as contemplated by the Fourteenth.
Roe says:

“In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development.”

Mr. Incredible says:
The State of Texas doesn’t offer legal support for its definition, rather medical support, though “personhood” is not a medical question, rather a legislative question.
Roe says:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”

Mr. Incredible says:
Justice Blackmun says that, at the suggestion of “personhood” been legally established for the Court, the Court would have had to apply the Constitution to the unborn person.
Roe says:

“The appellant conceded as much on reargument.”

Mr. Incredible says:
“Jane Roe” agrees.
Roe says:

“51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Mr. Incredible says:
The State of Texas concedes that it had no law defining the fetus as a “person.”
However, again, Justice Blackmun, in effect, told the State of Texas, and everybody else, that, if they can establish, in law, a suggestion of “personhood,” the unborn person would then be protected by the Constitution.
Again, the Court did not reject any law that defines “personhood,” rather rejected the argument by the State of Texas for “personhood” based on something other than law.
So, all it takes is the Legislative to define “person” and VOILA!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 12:18 am


Quit being so dihonest. —-> Quit being so dishonest.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 12:22 am


Again, since the Fourteenth defines what it means to be a citizen and not a person, the Court says, in Roe, that the Fourteenth cannot be applied to the unborn not cuz the unborn are not persons but, rather, cuz they cannot be citizens UNTIL they are born. THAT’s why Roe SCOTUS says “personhood” of the Fourteenth doesn’t apply to the unborn; it’s just that they cannot be citizens.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 12:26 am


American abortion doctor George Tiller was gunned down in church last year. FOX host, Bill O’Reilly, asked Anne Coulter to condemn the killing.
Coulter said,

“I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester…I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t want to impose my moral values on others.”

EXCELLENT answer! Throws pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong choice fanatics’ “reasoning” right back in their faces! I love it!



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 23, 2010 at 12:47 am


Incred: “HG says:
Kindly cite what, in the decision, makes you think this.
Mr. Incredible says:
Roe.”
“Roe” is in the decision, but it is no reason to think there are Fourteenth Amendment protections in the Constitution.
Incred: “HG says:
The court ruled “… that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s cuz the Fourteenth Amendment defines “citizen,” not “person.””
Funny, the SCOTUS decision uses the word “person” as defined by the Fourteenth, and finds that it does not apply. Precedent.
Incred: “Mr. Incredible says:
The Fourteenth doesn’t apply to the unborn cuz the unborn cannot be citizens.”
No, the Fourteenth doesn’t apply to the unborn because they are not “people” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment according to the SCOTUS. Fact. Precedent. Stick yet ANOTHER fork in it.
Incred: “The Fourteenth says that, in order to be a citizen, one must be born.”
No, according to the SCOTUS, the Fourteenth does not include protection for the unborn. They are not “people” under the language of the Fourteenth. Your argument is forked.
Incrred: “That does not say that the unborn are not persons…”
Yes, it does.
Incred: “So, even if we get a definition of “person” to include the unborn, the Fourteenth says THAT person cannot be a citizen until he is born.”
We HAVE a SCOTUS definition of “people” under the Fourteenth which does not include the unborn. Forked.
Incred: “HG says:
…did you read that Cara finds you to be “an illusion of sorts.” ? [sic]
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, you misrepresent her and what she wrote. We’re not surprised. We expect this.
Here, for your correction, is the original post from that blog:
Your Name March 18, 2010 9:21 PM I came to realize Mr. Incredible is only an illusion of sorts.
Nobody is perfect. I would like to think there is a Mr. Incredible out there for me ……………………….
Quit being so dihonest.”
“WE” are not surprised? “WE”? How many people are you? …For my correction? What correction? What misrepresentation? I quoted accurately.
Where is your honesty in admitting that you want to delete one of The People’s secured Blessings of Liberty? Where is your honesty in admitting that you want to overturn ‘Roe’? Are you “an illusion of sorts” created by a schizophrenic? Are you Cara, and vice versa?
You each seem to have a cerebellum which is in abnormal proximity to your rectum, do you share one, or is it two?



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 23, 2010 at 1:05 am


Incred: “[sic]”
Ah-hah-hah-hah-hah-ha-hah. You don’t know much, and what little you “do” is a corrupt file. Soap. Soft-porn. Entertaining, without substance or fidelity to reality.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:02 am


HG says:
Kindly cite what, in the decision, makes you think this.
Mr. Incredible says:
Roe.
HG says:
“Roe” is in the decision…
Mr. Incredible says:
You asked for citation. “Roe” is the citation.
HG says:
…but it is no reason to think there are Fourteenth Amendment protections in the Constitution.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except the reason stated in Roe.
HG says:
The court ruled “… the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s cuz the Fourteenth Amendment defines “citizen,” not “person.””
HG says:
Funny, the SCOTUS decision uses the word “person” as defined by the Fourteenth, and finds that it does not apply.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s cuz the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t define the word “person.” It defines what it means to be a citizen.
In other words, one has to be a person who is born who is, then, a citizen.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Fourteenth doesn’t apply to the unborn cuz the unborn cannot be citizens.”
HG says:
No, the Fourteenth doesn’t apply to the unborn because they are not “people” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment according to the SCOTUS.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s cuz the Fourteenth doesn’t define “person.” It defines what it means to be a citizen. A citizen is a born person. A citizen is not an unborn person.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Fourteenth says that, in order to be a citizen, one must be born.
HG says:
No…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes.
HG says:
… according to the SCOTUS, the Fourteenth does not include protection for the unborn.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, now you’re making up an argument an argument against what you’ve made up. We understand.
I never said that the Fourteenth protects the unborn, for the simple reason that the Fourteenth defines what it means to be a citizen. A citizen is a born person. A citizen is not an unborn person. The Fourteenth doesn’t define “person.” Again, it defines “citizen.” You have a person who has been born who is then a citizen, in that order.
HG says:
They are not “people” under the language of the Fourteenth.
Mr. Incredible says:
You can’t discern between what the Constitution refers to as the “People” and “person,” or “persons.”
So, you are correct that the Constitution does not protect the unborn as “people.”
However, the Fourteenth Amendment defines what it means to be a citizen. It does not define what it means to be a person. However, in order to be a citizen, one must have been born. One is a person who is born who is a citizen. A person who is not born is not a citizen.
Mr. Incredible says:
That does not say that the unborn are not persons…
HG says:
Yes, it does.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, it doesn’t.
So, even if we get a definition of “person” to include the unborn, the Fourteenth says THAT person cannot be a citizen until he is born.
HG says:
We HAVE a SCOTUS definition of “people” under the Fourteenth…
Mr. Incredible says:
The word, “people,” referring to individuals, does not appear in that Amendment.
In the Constitution, it’s “The People,” or “persons,” “person.” The word “people,” in the Constitution, never refers to individuals, rather the collective.
HG says:
…which does not include the unborn.
Mr. Incredible says:
Therefore, the unborn is not a “people.” The unborn child is a person who, cuz is not yet born, is not yet a citizen.
HG says:
…did you read that Cara finds you to be “an illusion of sorts.” ? [sic]
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, you misrepresent her and what she wrote. We’re not surprised. We expect this.
Here, for your correction, is the original post from that blog:

Your Name March 18, 2010 9:21 PM I came to realize Mr. Incredible is only an illusion of sorts.
Nobody is perfect. I would like to think there is a Mr. Incredible out there for me ……………………….

Quit being so dihonest.”
HG says:
“WE” are not surprised?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes.
HG says:
“WE”?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes.
HG says:
How many people are you?
Mr. Incredible says:
How many does “Mr.” tell you?
HG says:
For my correction?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes.
HG says:
What correction?
Mr. Incredible says:
The correction that apparently went over your head.
HG says:
What misrepresentation?
Mr. Incredible says:
The call out of the misrepresentation that apparently went over your head.
HG says:
I quoted accurately.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, you misrepresented the quote. Something we expect.
In other words, you made it appear that it was something it is not. I provided the entire thing so that everyone can see that you misrepresented.
HG says:
Where is your honesty in admitting that you want to delete one of The People’s secured Blessings of Liberty?
Mr. Incredible says:
What, the honest in admitting something I want not to do??
HG says:
Where is your honesty in admitting that you want to overturn ‘Roe’?
Mr. Incredible says:
I’ve already said that I want not to overturn it. It’s too valuable to pro-life, for the reasons I’ve outlined already.
As I say, Roe is a gift to pro-life cuz it tells us what we have-ta do it order to comply with what the Roe SCOTUS says it needs to rule the other way.
HG says:
You each seem to have a cerebellum which is in abnormal proximity to your rectum, do you share one, or is it two?
Mr. Incredible says:
Hey, don’t take it out on us just cuz you ran outta food stamps.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:05 am


CORRECTION
the honest in admitting something I want not to do?? — — > the honesty in admitting something I want not to do??



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:10 am


HG says:
I quoted accurately.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, you quoted outta context.
As I say, you INTENDED to take the phrase out of context, in order to give the impression that she is saying something that she did not.
In other words, the words you quoted ARE in the message, though they are only a part of the message, a small part. Again, as I say, you INTENDED to use the phrase to make it seem as though she is saying something that she didn’t say. That’s dishonest. Expected, but dishonest.
Actually, what she said is a compliment. Thanks, Cara!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:14 am


HG says:
You don’t know much…
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“You don’t agree with me, and so, that must mean you don’t know much.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:16 am


The Constitution says that no one may be “deprived” of life without Due Process of law.
Abortion deprives one of life.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:21 am


Those embryos frozen at clinics are persons. They were born — that is, they were separated from their mothers. They, also, are protected by the Constitution. To kill them would be to deprive them of their lives. Such deprivation violates the Constitution.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:46 am


Whether the fetus is declared a person from a scientific, religious, or legal perspective, this would not necessarily mean that abortion is wrong. A woman could assert a right to control her body such that even if the fetus is a person, it has no legal claim to use it. Could an adult claim a right to being hooked up to someone’s body? No — it might not be ethical to refuse the use of one’s body to save the life of another, but it couldn’t be forced by the law.
So Incredible, your argument that if fetuses are declared persons they can’t be aborted fails absolutely. ROFL!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:55 am


Boris says:
Whether the fetus is declared a person from a scientific, religious, or legal perspective, this would not necessarily mean that abortion is wrong.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Constitution protects persons and the People.
Boris says:
A woman could assert a right to control her body such that even if the fetus is a person…
Mr. Incredible says:
Not according to justice Blackmun in Roe, itself.
Boris says:
Could an adult claim a right to being hooked up to someone’s body?
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant.
Boris says:
No — it might not be ethical to refuse the use of one’s body to save the life of another, but it couldn’t be forced by the law.
Mr. Incredible says:
It doesn’t have to be enforced by law. There are plenty of volunteers. More than enough.
Boris says:
So Incredible, your argument that if fetuses are declared persons they can’t be aborted fails absolutely.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that I’m going by what Roe SCOTUS says, and the Court says that, had “personhood” been before the Court in Roe, the Court would’ve had rule the other way.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:32 am


Woulda coulda shoulda just don’t cut it loser. You lost the debate because your only argument just blew up in your face. Be a man and admit defeat and that you’re a lonely loser with whom not one sane person has ever agreed with.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:41 am


Boris says:
You lost the debate…
Mr. Incredible says:
Hardly.
Boris says:
Because your only argument just blew up in your face.
Mr. Incredible says:
You’d like to think so.
Boris says:
Be a man…
Mr. Incredible says:
You need to stay away from barnyard animals.
Boris says:
…and admit defeat…
Mr. Incredible says:
Don’t need to admit something that hasn’t happened.
Boris says:
… and that you’re a lonely loser…
Mr. Incredible says:
You’ve been sniffin’ trash dump fumes again, huh.
Boris says:
… with whom not one sane person has ever agreed with.
Mr. Incredible says:
So what?
I understand that you’re staring in a new movie, “Bore of the Words.” I know you’ll be a hit.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:49 am


CORRECTION
staring — — > starring



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 4:02 am


“Bore of the Words” should be “Bore of the Worlds”



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted March 23, 2010 at 5:27 am


This topic pulls out some glaringly stupid analyses and (see above) strange comments.

There will be direct challenges to the individual mandate that will force Americans to a buy a product they don’t want – in this case a health care plan.

Uh, Jay, great numbers of Americans have health care plans and most who don’t wish they did. People go bankrupt because they don’t have health coverage. And of course lots of people die because they don’t have health coverage. What world are you living in?
This will be a much better country when this is signed than it is now.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted March 23, 2010 at 5:33 am


As for the abortion thing, Catholic Hospitals and Catholic nursing sisters came out in favor of it, saying it covers the abortion issue to their satisfaction. The only ones who said otherwise are the bishops and pope, most famous for covering up child molestation in massive numbers.
I think Stupak saw his position was untenable (too bad Jay isn’t so smart) and he and the President found a face-saving approach. Abortion coverage is a non-issue here except the conservative hate mongers and the Republican fear mongers want it to be one so the noise machine’s been turned up. You are turned up aren’t you, Jay?



report abuse
 

Lynn

posted March 23, 2010 at 6:59 am


Pardon me, Brian–but after the vote on health care what would cause you to believe that term limits is sacrosanct?



report abuse
 

Bill Nelson

posted March 23, 2010 at 8:41 am


@nnmns
“People go bankrupt because they don’t have health coverage. And of course lots of people die because they don’t have health coverage.”
Alot of people go “bankrupt” for alot of other reasons, so we should bend over for them as well? Your argument is nonsensical and circular



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted March 23, 2010 at 10:01 am


Bill are you a Christian? I ask because there may be some residual belief out there that Christians care about their neighbors and if you admit to being one that should help stamp it out.
I take it you are well enough off you aren’t worried about a breadwinner’s illness costing your family its home. Lucky you. But as the Bush recession has shown a lot of people who thought that way learned they were wrong the hard way.
It’s interesting that so many countries more secular than the US take care of their citizens while the US, which fancies itself more Christian, has gone for years not doing so. Is it Christianity or a failing of a lot of preachers?



report abuse
 

PLARENUTS

posted March 23, 2010 at 11:05 am


NNMNS
I am my brothers keeper! I do not want the Government to be mine.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted March 23, 2010 at 12:09 pm


Or apparently anyone else’s.
There are a lot of people out there whose brothers and sisters don’t keep them very well or who just don’t exist. And if your brother needed an expensive operation what reason do we have to think you’d still keep him?
No thanks, I’ll take a government agency charged with caring for people, including me. I find Medicare works just fine. Perhaps you’ve told your parents to stay off Medicare; that you’ll take care of them? Did they believe you?



report abuse
 

Steve

posted March 23, 2010 at 12:39 pm


The issue on abortion is that we don’t want to be forced to pay by the government in any way so that any fetus will be aborted. Gonzalez v. Carhart established “the Government’s legitimate interest in protecting fetal life” and this act violates that. It should be challenged in the federal courts as a violation that that recognized government interest. Obama may not share this government legitimate interest at all. But Congress does, and including abortion in the health care insurance programs the government will approve is a step backward and needs to be addressed immediately.
This should be done in addition to legal challenges to the abortion program in the act.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:00 pm


Steve if that were true why did all those Catholic nursing sisters and the Catholic hospitals association endorse it? And Bart Stupak?
You are being used to try to make a mountain out of a molehill.
And remember this will get pre-natal help to a lot of mothers and fetuses.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:10 pm


nnmns says:
Bill are you a Christian? I ask because there may be some residual belief out there that Christians care about their neighbors…
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Care” about them in what way and for what, biblically speaking?
nnmns says:
I take it you are well enough off you aren’t worried about a breadwinner’s illness costing your family its home.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Is THAT wht the Word of God tells us is “caring” about our neighbor?
nnmns says:
Lucky you.
Mr. Incredible says:
No such thing as “luck.”
nnmns says:
But as the Bush recession has shown a lot of people who thought that way learned they were wrong the hard way.
Mr. Incredible says:
Much the same way those of you who voted for Obammy are disappointed.
nnmns says:
It’s interesting that so many countries more secular than the US take care of their citizens while the US, which fancies itself more Christian, has gone for years not doing so.
Mr. Incedible says:
Oh, we get it. You want this to follow the Great Nations like North Korea and Cuba and China and be a nanny state.
nnmns says:
Is it Christianity…
Mr. Incredible asks:
In what way would the fault be with Christianity?
nnmns says:
…or a failing of a lot of preachers?
Mr. Incredible says:
That is certain.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:19 pm


nnmns says:
There are a lot of people out there whose brothers and sisters don’t keep them very well…
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Keep them” how, for what purpose, biblically?
nnmns says:
And if your brother needed an expensive operation what reason do we have to think you’d still keep him?
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Keep him” how, for what purpose, biblically?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:33 pm


First of all, this coming November, we will undo the 2008 election, vis-à-vis Congress. It will be a make good. A major, mid-course correction.
Then, beginning in January, we will do whatever’s necessary to undo this piece of c r a p legislation, line by line. Could be that we try the Democrats’ methods. After all, if reconciliation worked for the Democrats, it oughta work for us. We’ll see how THEY like it.
Then, we begin to examine the very many ways we can evict Obammy from The White House, in 2012.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:52 pm


Those who are born again cannot support, nor compromise on, abortion. [2 Corinthians 6:14]



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 2:54 pm


We may as well say 2 Corinthians 6:14-17.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:01 pm


If we are, as 2 Corinthians 6:1 says, “workers together with Him,” and He is the author of life and liberty, and, as Amos 3:3 says — that is, that we walk with Him only if we agree with Him — those who are born again cannot possibly support, nor compromise on, abortion.
Therefore, there cannot be any such thing as a so-called “pro-life Democrat.”



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:11 pm


MI you talk a lot, you waste a lot of electrons and a very few people’s time but you accomplish little.
2 Corinthians 6:14 “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”
a) you are yoked with us as fellow citizens of the US and fellow inhabitants of the world. If you can’t accept that you should go find a “Christian nation” somewhere. Maybe the Vatican.
b) that has nothing to do with abortion. In fact it’s not at all clear there’s anything in the Bible that has to do with abortion. Jesus never even used the word if we are to believe the Bible (foolish, but I’m guessing you do.)



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:34 pm


nnmns says:
MI you talk a lot…
Mr. Incredible says:
There’s a lot t’say.
nnmns says:
…you waste a lot of electrons…
Mr. Incredible says:
There are plenty to go ’round.
nnmns says:
…and a very few people’s time…
Mr. Incredible says:
If anybody is twisting anybody’s arm to read my posts, tell them I told you to tell them to tell the arm-twister to stop it.
nnmns says:
…but you accomplish little.
Mr. Incredible says:
Says who?

2 Corinthians 6:14 “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”

nnmns says:
a) you are yoked with us as fellow citizens of the US and fellow inhabitants of the world.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, you misrepresent what the verse says.
nnmns says:
If you can’t accept that you should go find a “Christian nation” somewhere.
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m already in a Christian nation.
nnmns says:
Maybe the Vatican.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Vatican is not a “nation.”
nnmns says:
b) that has nothing to do with abortion.
Mr. Incredible says:
According to the way YOU see it. THAT’s the problem.
nnmns says:
In fact it’s not at all clear there’s anything in the Bible that has to do with abortion.
Mr. Incredible says:
There is, but you won’t accept that there is.
There isn’t anything in the Constitution that has anything to do with “privacy,” either. Yet, SCOTUS “found” “privacy.” Imagine that.
There isn’t anything in the Constitution that says “separation of Church and State.” Yet, SCOTUS “found” “separation of Church and State.” Imagine that, too.
Gee, politics is imagination, we guess.
nnmns says:
Jesus never even used the word…
Mr. Incredible says:
Jesus was God on Earth.
In Deuteronomy 30:19, God advises us to choose life.
God, as Jesus, came to Earth to save us through life.
Done and done.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:37 pm


CORRECTION
Gee, politics is imagination, we guess. — — > It’s all imagination, we guess. They imagined it all into the Constitution.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:41 pm


nnmns says:
Jesus never even used the word [abortion]…
Mr. Incredible says:
Funny how we can understand what a person says without that person using a particular word.
Funny how we can describe something without using a particular word, and the listener, or reader, can know exactly what we’re talking about and, then, come back and confirm what he heard by using the word.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:46 pm


Funny how SCOTUS can hear description, then take the word “privacy” and plop it right down into the Constitution and make it say what pro-choice = pro-abortion = wrong-choice fanatics want it t’say.
Funny how you people can take the First Amendment to the Constitution and make the words therein into “separation of Church and State,” making it say what you want it t’say.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:48 pm


nnmns says:
If you can’t accept that you should go find a “Christian nation” somewhere.
Mr. Incredible says:
If you can accept that this is a Christian nation — that is, Founded on Christian principles — you should go find a secular nation.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:49 pm


CORRECTION
nnmns says:
If you can’t accept that you should go find a “Christian nation” somewhere.
Mr. Incredible says:
If you can’t accept that this is a Christian nation — that is, Founded on Christian principles — you should go find a secular nation.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 4:00 pm


Funny how, when a man tells a woman of about his feelings for her, and she interprets all of what he says and condenses it into one word — love. He doesn’t have-ta say the word, “love,” and she doesn’t need it said, and she understands precisely what he said.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 23, 2010 at 4:02 pm


controlling my post….
What are you afraid of?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 4:04 pm


So, yes, God/Jesus didn’t use the word, “abortion.” But so what? Those who know the Word — after all, KNOW the Truth and the Truth will set you free — know exactly what He is talking about. Scoffers just don’t get it [1 Corinthians 2:14].



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 23, 2010 at 5:34 pm


Incred: “American abortion doctor George Tiller was gunned down in church last year. FOX host, Bill O’Reilly, asked Anne Coulter to condemn the killing. Coulter said,
“I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester…I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t want to impose my moral values on others.”
EXCELLENT answer! Throws pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong choice fanatics’ “reasoning” right back in their faces! I love it!”
Ann-hole Coulter doesn’t seem to have any better reading comprehension than you and Carabellum. In the Roe decision the court found “(c) for the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
The State can and does regulate killing someone in their “203rd trimester”, there’s a guilty moron rotting in jail who can attest to that fact. You object when an abortion is performed but cheer when a full grown person is murdered? Odd wiring you have.
Incred: “HG says: Kindly cite what, in the decision, makes you think this.
Mr. Incredible says: Roe.”
I asked you to cite something IN the decision, you couldn’t, because there is nothing in the decision to bolster your argument.
“Mr. Incredible says:
The word, “people,” referring to individuals, does not appear in that Amendment.”
However, the word “person” does. From the Court decision: “…the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” That is case law and legal precedent.
Incred said: “That does not say that the unborn are not persons…”
HG says: Yes, it does.
Mr. Incredible says: No, it doesn’t.”
It means that the unborn are not persons under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment because that is what is exactly what it says. It isn’t my fault that you have such low reading comprehension.
Incred: “HG says:… according to the SCOTUS, the Fourteenth does not include protection for the unborn.
Mr. Incredible says: So, now you’re making up an argument an argument against what you’ve made up. We understand.”
I’m not making up an argument, I’m QUOTING the Roe decision to drive a stake throught the heart of your pitiful argument. I can only show you the words, I can’t give you the brainpower required to comprehend their meaning.
Incred: “HG says: Where is your honesty in admitting that you want to delete one of The People’s secured Blessings of Liberty?
Mr. Incredible says: What, the honest in admitting something I want not to do??”
But you do. You won’t admit it, because you are dishonest even with yourself. Abortion is a constitutionally protected right under the Roe decision. It is a secured Blessing of Liberty which you want deleted. You are a dreadful liar to deny it.
Incred: “HG says: Where is your honesty in admitting that you want to overturn ‘Roe’?
Mr. Incredible says: I’ve already said that I want not to overturn it. It’s too valuable to pro-life, for the reasons I’ve outlined already.
As I say, Roe is a gift to pro-life cuz it tells us what we have-ta do it order to comply with what the Roe SCOTUS says it needs to rule the other way.”
The Roe decision states unequivocally:
“…the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”
AND
“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
Precedent in law as ruled by the SCOTUS. Done deal, your argument is forked. Abortion is legal in this country and will remain so forever under this precedent. There is no latitude for any ruling “the other way”–EVER. I showed you this, but it only hurt your feelings because you have been (wrongly, hilariously) convinced for twenty years that you had a possible hope of reversal imbedded in the Roe decision. NOT.
Incred: “Your Name March 18, 2010 9:21 PM I came to realize Mr. Incredible is only an illusion of sorts.
Nobody is perfect. I would like to think there is a Mr. Incredible out there for me ……………………….”
You say I quoted Cara out of context? I don’t see that. I see Cara saying very clearly what I quoted…
“I came to realize Mr. Incredible is only an illusion of sorts.”
It sounds to me as though she thinks you are “not real” (which you take as a compliment?), and she could only “wish” that someone like you might exist. I think it was an admission that you are but a fragment of her damaged brain.
Incred: “HG says: You don’t know much…
Mr. Incredible says: Translation: “You don’t agree with me, and so, that must mean you don’t know much.”
Actually that was in reference to your improper use of “[sic]”, the single word entry (quoting you) I made preceeding my assessment of your limited brain power–which was apparently too difficult for you to recognize.
I love debating with smart people who disagree with me, that’s when I have the best opportunity to learn something…but uneducated turnips like you and/or Cara don’t qualify.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 24, 2010 at 2:01 am


Mr. Incredible says:
American abortion doctor George Tiller was gunned down in church last year. FOX host, Bill O’Reilly, asked Anne Coulter to condemn the killing. Coulter said,

“I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester…I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t want to impose my moral values on others.”

EXCELLENT answer! Throws pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong choice fanatics’ “reasoning” right back in their faces! I love it!”
HG says:
Coulter doesn’t seem to have any better reading comprehension than you and Carabellum.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, she does!
HG says:
You object when an abortion is performed but cheer when a full grown person is murdered?
Mr. Incredible says:
You don’t know the difference between “guilty” and “innocent.”
HG says:
Kindly cite what, in the decision, makes you think this.
Mr. Incredible says:
Roe.
HG says:
I asked you to cite something IN the decision…
Mr. Incredible says:
I did. You rejected it. But so what?
HG says:
…you couldn’t…
Mr. Incredible says:
I could. I did. You rejected it. But so what?
HG says:
…because there is nothing in the decision to bolster your argument.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that there is, and I presented it. You rejected it. But so what?
Mr. Incredible says:
The word, “people,” referring to individuals, does not appear in that Amendment.
HG says:
However, the word “person” does.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, you wrote that the word “people” is the word. I report that it isn’t. Of course, I’m correct… again.
HG says:
From the Court decision:

“…the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

Mr. Incredible says:
The Court also says that, if the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood” is brought before the Court, the court will issue a different ruling, that the unborn person gets the protection of The Fourteenth Amendment.
Mr. Incredible says:
That does not say that the unborn are not persons…
HG says:
Yes, it does.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, it doesn’t.
HG says:
It means that the unborn are not persons under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment…
Mr. Incredible says:
However, Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself, that if the suggestion of “personhood” is established in law and brought before the Court, the Court will have to apply The Fourteenth Amendment to the unborn person. That’s cuz only persons have Rights.
HG says:
It isn’t my fault that you have such low reading comprehension.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s not my fault that that’s your perception… an erroneous perception, at that. It could be all those wine coolers you consume.
HG says:
… according to the SCOTUS, the Fourteenth does not include protection for the unborn.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, now you’re making up an argument an argument against what you’ve made up. We understand.
HG says:
I’m not making up an argument…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, you are. You just don’t perceive it. Not even aware of it.
HG says:
I’m QUOTING the Roe decision…
Mr. Incredible says:
So am I.
HG says:
…to drive a stake throught the heart of your pitiful argument.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “Y’see, I gotta persuade myself that everything you say is wrong and that I’m right.”
HG says:
I can only show you the words…
Mr. Incredible says:
I can only show you the words, too.
HG says:
…I can’t give you the brainpower required to comprehend their meaning.
Mr. Incredible says:
Neither can I give YOU the brainpower required to comprehend their meaning.
HG says:
Where is your honesty in admitting that you want to delete one of The People’s secured Blessings of Liberty?
Mr. Incredible says:
What, the honest in admitting something I want not to do??
HG says:
But you do.
Mr. Incredible says:
But I don’t.
HG says:
You won’t admit it…
Mr. Incredible says:
I can’t admit something that isn’t true.
HG says:
…because you are dishonest…
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “You don’t agree with me, and, so, you must be dishonest.”
HG says:
… even with yourself.
Mr. Incredible says:
In Christ, I cannot be dishonest with anyone, including myself. Your problem with me is that I AM honest.
HG says:
Abortion is a constitutionally protected right under the Roe decision.
Mr. Incredible says:
In Casey, SCOTUS says that abortion is NOT a constitutional Right, that privacy is, even though the Court cannot point to it in the Constitution. We suppose that it’s right next to the part that says “separation of Church and State.”
HG says:
It is a secured Blessing of Liberty which you want deleted.
Mr. Incredible says:
It is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.
HG says:
You are a dreadful liar to deny it.
Mr. Incredible says:
I cannot admit that something is there where it isn’t.
HG says:
Where is your honesty in admitting that you want to overturn ‘Roe’?
Mr. Incredible says:
I’ve already said that I want not to overturn it. It’s too valuable to pro-life, for the reasons I’ve outlined already.
As I say, Roe is a gift to pro-life cuz it tells us what we have-ta do it order to comply with what the Roe SCOTUS says it needs to rule the other way.
HG says:
The Roe decision states unequivocally:

“…the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself, that had “personhood” been presented to the Court, the Court would’ve had ruled the other way and give Fourteenth Amendment protection to the unborn person.
HG says:
Abortion is legal in this country…
Mr. Incredible says:
Until SCOTUS is presented with what it requires in Roe, itself — that is, “personhood.”
HG says:
… and will remain so forever under this precedent.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, as Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself, if somebody brings legal “personhood” before the Court, as he says, the Court will have to reverse itself.
HG says:
There is no latitude for any ruling “the other way”–EVER.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, as Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself, when a party presents the Court with legal “personhood,” as he says, the Court will have to rule the other way.
HG says:
I showed you this…
Mr. Incredible says:
And I showed you what I showed you. You rejected it. But so what?
HG says:
…but it only hurt your feelings…
Mr. Incredible says:
You can’t hurt my feelings.
HG says:
…because you have been (wrongly, hilariously) convinced for twenty years that you had a possible hope of reversal imbedded in the Roe decision.
Mr. Incredible says:
Justice Blackmun gave us that hope in his gift in Roe, itself. He says that all we have to do is bring legal “personhood” before the Court, and that the Court will rule the other way.

Your Name March 18, 2010 9:21 PM says:
I came to realize Mr. Incredible is only an illusion of sorts.
Nobody is perfect. I would like to think there is a Mr. Incredible out there for me ……………………….”

HG says:
You say I quoted Cara out of context?
Mr. Incredible says:
I did, and you did.
HG says:
I don’t see that.
Mr. Incredible says:
We already know you don’t. That’s no surprise.
HG says:
I see Cara saying very clearly what I quoted…

“I came to realize Mr. Incredible is only an illusion of sorts.”

Mr. Incredible says:
However, you purposely failed to include the rest of the message which clears up what she means by the statement you took out of context. Of course, we all know that is dishonest. But that’s no surprise.
HG says:
It sounds to me as though she thinks you are “not real” (which you take as a compliment?)…
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course it sounds that way to YOU. You’ve been outside touching live wires all day. So, it’s no wonder.
She is saying that she agrees with me so much that it seems, to her, to be unreal, or surreal, not possible.
HG says:
…and she could only “wish” that someone like you might exist.
Mr. Incredible says:
Might exist for HER. In other words, she wishes that she could find someone with whom she agrees as much as she agrees with me and I with her.
HG says:
I think it was an admission that you are but a fragment of her damaged brain.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course you must persuade yourself to have that erroneous perception in order to carry on with the caricature that you become. You have an image to maintain. A cartoon image.
HG says:
You don’t know much…
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “You don’t agree with me, and so, that must mean you don’t know much.
HG says:
Actually that was in reference to your improper use of “[sic]”…
Mr. Incredible says:
I used it correctly:

“[sic] So: thus — Used in written material to indicate that a passage, phrase, or word, is as it was in an original”

HG says:
… the single word entry (quoting you) I made preceeding my assessment of your limited brain power–which was apparently too difficult for you to recognize.
Mr. Incredible says:
Is THAT the kinda stuff they’re teachin’ you people in special ed??
HG says:
I love debating with smart people who disagree with me…
Mr. Incredible says:
Thanks for the compliment!
HG says:
…that’s when I have the best opportunity to learn something…
Mr. Incredible says:
Too bad you haven’t.
HG says:
…but uneducated turnips like you and/or Cara don’t qualify
Mr. Incredible says:
Say, aren’t you away too long from your job sellin’ flowers in front of the night clubs?



report abuse
 

Steve

posted March 24, 2010 at 8:41 am


Sorry, I had to work, nnmn. As far as the Catholic nuns, it was violation of church and state for Wasserman-Smith to cynically seek to undermine the authority of the Catholic Bishops. She attempted to show support for abortion from the Catholic Church by citing anonymous nuns who cannot speak for the church. That is the state (Wasserman-Smith for the Democrats in the House) establish a religion (choosing the expressions of “faith” of anonymous, politicized nuns. Let’s have one of these nuns appear here and advance the theological basis of their position.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 24, 2010 at 9:13 am


If you compare the language of Blackmun in Roe (“State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life”) and the language in Carhart (“the Government’s legitimate interest in protecting fetal life”) you see a striking difference. It’s “the potentiality of human life”, by Blackmun who refused to grant humanity to mere potentiality and “fetal life”. The latter language recognizes the life, the former the mere potentiality.
Let’s strategize (and I’m woefully uninformed about current laws and legal challenges on abortion, please inform me). Is this case, the Stupak abortion deal case THE case to bring the abortion to the Supreme Court? Or is there another one?
Assume this is the current case on abortion. What’s the case? I see three parts. First, the takings clause of the 5th Amendment, does the government have the right to take our money to pay for abortions, and what is the basis of that claimed right? Second, are the states being forced to undertake costs to support abortion, and are there any rights states have to regulate this issue through their police powers that are compromised by the federal action? Third, did the Democrats deem and pass in approving the Senate bill, does the incorporation by reference of the executive order and its purpose manifest an intent by the House to alter the language or intent of the Senate language on abortion? If so, what part of the bill would be affected? (and that might be just the abortion funding part, but it could be the practice adopted by the House and Obama and the whole bill might be struck down; as Clinton v. City of New York 1998 showed, standing needs to be established to challenge the signing of the bill into law)



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 24, 2010 at 9:33 am


Regarding this issue about “person”. The Roe decision was based on a finding that “privacy” gave a woman authority to make a decision beyong the authority of the state. The decision does not say the fetus is an extension of her body. It says that she has a privacy right as against the state, and fetus has no rights because the fetus is not a person. That is an artifice, of course. Even if the fetus is a person, the fetus cannot speak, and cannot represent himself in court because he is at best a minor. As such, the parents, both parents, would be responsible as the guardian for representing the interests of the fetus. So instead of having rights against the fetus, because he is a minor, the parents are actually responsible for protecting that person. For instance, if a company sold a product that damaged the fetus, the mother or father should, I believe, have standing to bring an action for damages against that company. It wouldn’t be for damaging the woman’s body or her own health (that would be a separate issue), but because she has a legal right in the potential life or, as Carhart held, “fetal life” which she bears). So it was disingenuous for Blackmun to hold that just in a case where the fetus is being destroyed, the legal relationship would somehow be different, and create a whole new view of the respective rights and responsibilities of the parents and the fetus. It’s legal gibberish.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 24, 2010 at 3:33 pm


Re: your name
People usually murder privately, and your point is?
That involves another body when you murder someone.
—————————————————-
I am RH- in blood type, which means in pregnancies if the father of the child has a blood type which is RH+, I need a shot so the baby does not reject my body or blood type.
So this argument that it is a blob of tissue has to stop. We know by now, regardless of the point in the pregnancy, that these are people developing.
C



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 24, 2010 at 5:41 pm


Your Name says:
http://Cara
We know by now, regardless of the point in the pregnancy, that these are people developing.
Mr. Incredible says:
You bring up a critical point.
The development of the human creature begins at conception. Everything moves forward from that point. Development is a process. That process does not begin at birth.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 24, 2010 at 5:58 pm


Your Name says:
Regarding this issue about “person”. The Roe decision was based on a finding that “privacy” gave a woman authority to make a decision beyong the authority of the state.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, the Court ruled that cuz the State of Texas did not bring a legal definition of “personhood” to the Court. The Court cannot make the case for them.
Therefore, the only “person” before the Court was Roe, and only persons are protected by the Constitution.
Enter Justice Blackmun who says — and the Roe side agreed — that, had the “personhood” of the unborn been before the Court, the Court woulda had ruled the other way. THAT is the gift.
Your Name says:
The decision does not say the fetus is an extension of her body.
Mr. Incredible says:
The unborn person has it’s own DNA and its own blood type. If you prick the unborn person with a pin, it isn’t the mother who feels it.
Your Name says:
It says that she has a privacy right as against the state…
Mr. Incredible says:
And that a law against that is an undue burden on her.
However, if “personhood” is brought before the Court, in the Court rules the other way, as predicted by Justice Blackmun, a burden that was undue becomes due. A due burden.
Your Name says:
… and fetus has no rights because the fetus is not a person.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, current law treats the unborn as a person. The law calls this a “jural person.” Corporations are jural persons. If we can refer to corporations as “jural persons,” we can refer to unborn children as “jural persons.”
Your Name says:
Even if the fetus is a person, the fetus cannot speak, and cannot represent himself in court because he is best a minor.
Mr. Incredible says:
Here’s a word for you: ad litem.
Your Name says:
As such, the parents, both parents, would be responsible as the guardian for representing the interests of the fetus.
Mr. Incredible says:
Correct. The parents, or the guardian, or guardians, or guardians ad litem, would act in the

BEST INTEREST

of the unborn person who is, by his nature, incompetent. We would treat him as we would any incompetent person.
Your Name says:
So instead of having rights against the fetus, because he is a minor, the parents are actually responsible for protecting that person.
Mr. Incredible says:
That is correct. The unborn child is an incompetent person. A person, nevertheless.
Your Name says:
For instance, if a company sold a product that damaged the fetus, the mother or father should, I believe, have standing to bring an action for damages against that company.
Mr. Incredible says:
In Los Angeles — or, should I say Lost Angeles — recently, POlice arrested a man on a charge of murder. He killed an unborn child.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 24, 2010 at 6:00 pm


CORRECTION
The unborn person has it’s own DNA — — > The unborn person has its own DNA



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 24, 2010 at 7:06 pm


Everyone, I’m sure, notices that, everywhere this cartoon character, Boris, goes, he damns up and redirects the message-posting stream in the direction and for the purpose of his God-hating, Jesus hating and Christianity-hating agenda. It’s all hate coming from that fugitive from a state hospital. Apparently, the shock treatments didn’t work. Touching live wires outside his trailer all day hasn’t worked, either. Somebody needs to take his shoelaces and belts away for his own safety.
We can never have a decent conversation about the subject of a particular blog without his showing up and joyfully displaying his hate, with the support of HG, and giving us insight into how his daddy — we’re still trying to find out which one of his mamma’s five boyfriends is his daddy — treated him so badly on the off time whichever one is his daddy was home and not usin’ and dealin’ and stumblin’ drunk down the thoroughfares.
However, one thing is sure; the moderator here doesn’t discriminate — he’ll let even the incompetent Boris, with an IQ-to-teeth ratio of one-to-one, post here.



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 24, 2010 at 7:55 pm


Incred: “…with the support of HG,…”
An honorable mention. Wow. Flattery will get you, well, probably farther than you’ve gotten heretofore.
No hatred of Christianity for my part; but I do get peevish when forced to contribute to the collection plate, or Pledge my Allegiance to my country under an imaginary being, or permit the power of government to be used for religious purposes, or when I read someone advocate the removal of constitutionally protected Liberties which others gave their lives to establish. Aside from that, I say have a nice day.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 24, 2010 at 8:13 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
… with the support of HG…
HG says:
An honorable mention.
Mr. Incredible says:
You can take it that way, but, believe us, you’re makin’ it out to be what it isn’t.
HG says:
Flattery will get you, well, probably farther than you’ve gotten heretofore.
Mr. Incredible says:
Too bad you can’t tell the difference between what I wrote in the fantasy in your mind. That’s the problem you have in your posts.
HG says:
No hatred of Christianity for my part…
Mr. Incredible says:
However, you’re on the side that hate Christianity.
Now, it doesn’t diminish what we have in Christ.
HG says:
…; but I do get peevish when forced to contribute to the collection plate…
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody forces you to contribute anything. Nobody has a gun to your head. If somebody is twisting your arm, tell them I told you to tell them to stop it.
HG says:
… or Pledge my Allegiance to my country under an imaginary being…
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody is forcing you to say the words. While everybody else is Pledging, you can sing to yourself, “Strawberry Fields Forever,” for all anybody cares. However, we’re not interested in your imposing your views on us not to have, in the Pledge, what WE wanna say. If YOU wanna say something else, we don’t care.
HG says:
… or permit the power of government to be used for religious purposes…
Mr. Incredible says:
What “religious purposes”? Which ones? Be careful to include atheism, too.
HG says:
…or when I read someone advocate the removal of constitutionally protected Liberties which others gave their lives to establish.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, you have a problem with somebody advocating something. You ever hear of The First Amendment?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 24, 2010 at 8:16 pm


CORRECTION
Too bad you can’t tell the difference between what I wrote in the fantasy in your mind. — — >
Too bad you can’t tell the difference between what I wrote and the fantasy in your mind.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted March 25, 2010 at 1:36 am


Mr. Incredible.
You really are moronic to insist that atheism is a religion. Clearly it isn’t. You know the part where atheists don’t believe in gods, goddesses or any other assorted nonsense, maybe that oughta tune you in to the fact that it is not a religion. But, I suppose your current immersion in your cult has addled your brain to the point where you can only repeat the stupid stuff that you have heard.
However, you do reinforce everything I understand about religious people. Good job, people like you are hastening the demise of your cult.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 25, 2010 at 3:01 pm


Re: Rich
religion- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. So being an atheist can be a religion. Atheism is a doctrine of believing in no god or gods. Which can be believed in principle or activities pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. —— C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 25, 2010 at 3:13 pm


Well, seeing how the child within the womb can carry a completely different blood type than my own, so much so that I need a shot to possibly carry the baby to term so the baby doesn’t reject my blood. Therefore understanding this, this would indeed indicate that the body within is completely different with different DNA and can have a different blood type then the parent. Of course taking in consideration the genetic make-up of both parents in the DNA structure from the time of conception on.
Thus personhood is attained at conception.
C



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 25, 2010 at 3:45 pm


Carabellum: “Thus personhood is attained at conception.”
Unless you’d rather listen to the Supreme Court instead of Carabellum. The Supreme Court has ruled “…the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” A very different viewpoint from Carabellum’s, and one which carries ever so much more weight, imho. Their examination was very complete, much more so than Carabellum’s.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted March 25, 2010 at 4:57 pm


Cara,
Well, not only are you delusional and fixated upon abortion, now we know you are a dishonest liar. The worst sort actually, willing to distort the truth beyond all recognition to try and advance a point that you know it false. I always wonder about you religious folks and your constant dishonesty. Oh well, you all seem to be the same to me.
I am, of course, referring to you selective use of definitions. Here is the definition of religion as defined by Oxford, a reasonable if not the ultimate source for English definitions:
• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
#3, the one you choose to use, is clearly not the primary definition but rather an idiom, a less than preferred usage and one not to be confused with the precise definition. In the sense used here, I could say something like “For Joe, golfing every Sunday morning is his religion”. That doesn’t actually make golf a religion, it is just something Joe does with zeal, it is just a way to add extra emphasis to Joe’s lust for golfing by borrowing some of the connotations of religious devotion.
Actually, I think you know all that already by you chose to be a liar. After all, why did you omit the 1st and 2nd definitions if it wasn’t to deceive for your cult.
Simply astounding!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 28, 2010 at 7:31 pm


HG- Unfortunately you are for giving people the honor of killing the person in development. I am sorry that The Supreme Court has not taken in consideration the fact that the body within the womb is of another identity other than that of the mother or father. Thus indicating a different blood type from the very beginning of the conception of the child. Your right the Supreme Court has not protected these children devoping. I am not saying that all have ruled in favor of Roe vs. Wade. So the point I am trying to make here is that I am RH – which like I indicated before, if the other parent of the child is RH + , I need a shot so the baby is not rejecting my blood type. Seeing how the baby could have a blood type with RH +, that would indicate that the child is not of my body. This trait is from the very point of conception. So your point is what HG, you want to murder children? because obviously the children developing in my womb, were not my body. I needed a shot because the father of the children was RH positive. CARA



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 28, 2010 at 7:44 pm


RE; Rich
NO I am not a liar, just because you don’t like the definition I used from The American Heritage College dictionary. Yes, I know that there are other definitions of the word, religion. My point is that you can devote your life to a godless society just as rigidly. Your quite adamant about all your beliefs, right Rich?
No, I am not stuck on abortion. I am fighting for the children who you find to be so irrelavent to murder for choice, quite selfish, I might add. Of course your focus may be on your personal bank account or your material wealth. So, I will continue to fight for children who can not defend themselves against governments and views as yourself who find them to be worthless. Disgusting human beings! What I mean by that is, that you find yourself to be superior over another, that is why we are in the mess we have today. People making themselves their own gods… a godless society of sorts. I am not saying that the church is not strong. It is.
C



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 28, 2010 at 8:39 pm


Cara: “Your right the Supreme Court has not protected these children devoping.”
Yes, I know.
Cara: “So the point I am trying to make here is that I am RH – which like I indicated before, if the other parent of the child is RH + , I need a shot so the baby is not rejecting my blood type. Seeing how the baby could have a blood type with RH +, that would indicate that the child is not of my body.”
The fetus would still be reliant upon placental function for survival. The fact that your Rh factor interacts placentally indicates the fetus is indeed of your body.
Carabellum: “So your point is what HG, you want to murder children?”
Not the case at all, and I have never suggested it.
Cara: “I needed a shot because the father of the children was RH positive. CARA”
Rh immune globulin shots can prevent sensitization and resultant anemia; erythroblastosis is no laughing matter. I hope everything went well.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted March 28, 2010 at 9:52 pm


Cara,
Sorry but you are a liar. A Christian liar at that. You deliberately tried to mislead everyone by using a non-preferred definition of the word religion. You knew what you were doing. Trying to mislead people is a form a lying.
You, it turns out, are an unrepentant liar.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 29, 2010 at 3:45 pm


Rich,
Just because you don’t like the definition that I used, does not make me a liar…
You of course, by stating in your last blog that I am, makes you one.
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 29, 2010 at 3:53 pm


HG,
Yes, my children are of my body…
This does not however make them my body…
They are a reproduction of my body and another person…
So your point is what….?
So we all know by know that abortion is not a reproduction of anything… In fact it is a killing of the developing child while forming….
So, like I wrote before, you are for killing developing children, while I am for protecting are developing children from mindsets of people killing them…. Hence Posterity need to be let born as part of their fundamental rights of liberty as the Constitution states…
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 29, 2010 at 3:57 pm


Correction
are-our
We need to start treating these children like they are our children..
Not, some aliens from outerspace beings in the wombs of mother’s around the globe, which are viewed as Unidentified objects or something.C



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 29, 2010 at 5:12 pm


Carabellum: “…that would indicate that the child is not of my body.”
Cara: “Yes, my children are of my body…”
You see the difficulty in discussing things with you? You make self-opposing statements.
Cara: “Your right the Supreme Court has not protected these children devoping.”
Carabellum: “I am not saying that all have ruled in favor of Roe vs. Wade.”
Cara Carabellum are you schizophrenic? Are you off your meds? Do you suffer from hallucinations, auditory and/or visual? Headaches? Double vision? Depression?
Carabellum: “(Rich) You of course, by stating in your last blog that I am, makes you one (liar).
Oh SNAP, the old ‘I’m rubber, you’re glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!’
Carabellum: “We need to start treating these children like they are our children.”
(Now you sound Catholic!) I don’t see it that way.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 30, 2010 at 4:30 am


Rich says:
Cara,
Sorry but you are a liar.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, she is not.
Rich says:
A Christian liar at that.
Of course, again, she is not.
Rich says:
You deliberately tried to mislead everyone…
Rich says:
“Deliberately”? “Tried”? How do you know?
She misled no one. Just cuz she leaves YOUR head swirling…
Rich says:
… by using a non-preferred definition of the word religion.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“You need to use MY definition!”

Rich says:
You knew what you were doing.
Mr. Incredible says:
She knew that what she was trying to do is to educate. She’s doing a fine job. Too bad you’ve precluded yourself from an education.
Rich says:
Trying to mislead people is a form a lying.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then stop doing it.
Rich says:
You [Cara], it turns out, are an unrepentant liar.
Mr. Incredible aks:
By the Devil’s standard? So what?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 30, 2010 at 4:34 am


CORRECTION
Rich says:
Cara,
Sorry but you are a liar.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, she is not. We cannot lie in Christ.
Rich says:
A Christian liar at that.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, again, she is not. We cannot lie in Christ
Rich says:
You deliberately tried to mislead everyone…
Mr. Incredible says:
“Deliberately”? “Tried”? How do you know? In any case, we cannot lie in Christ.
She misled no one. Just cuz she leaves YOUR head swirling…
Rich says:
… by using a non-preferred definition of the word religion.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“You need to use MY definition!”

So, just cuz it’s “non-preferred” by YOU???
Rich says:
You knew what you were doing.
Mr. Incredible says:
She knew that what she was trying to do is to educate. She’s doing a fine job. Too bad you’ve precluded yourself from an education.
Rich says:
Trying to mislead people is a form a lying.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then stop doing it.
Rich says:
You [Cara], it turns out, are an unrepentant liar.
Mr. Incredible aks:
By the Devil’s standard? So what?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 12:16 am


Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t use fear. Neither does God. Neither does Jesus.
Boris says:
Well coming from someone who hasn’t actually read the Bible…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?
Boris says:
… I would expect that stupid answer.
Mr. Incredible says:
You have consented to your ignorance.
Boris says:
What does the Bible say is the beginning of wisdom?
Mr. Incredible says:
H3374 says it is “reverence.”
Boris says:
Who told you the Bible was true?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, you’ve accused me of being homosexual, and, now, you say I’m homophobic. Which is it? Of course, I’m neither.
Boris says:
Both, just like Catholic priests and every other overly religious male.
Mr. Incredible says:
Can’t be both. If a person is homosexual, he can’t be homophobic. If a person is homophobic, he can’t be homosexual.
That electric shock therapy isn’t workin’ for you, is it. Maybe you oughta try a little Prozac and get somebody to tap you on the head polo mallet.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 12:18 am


CORRECTION
head polo mallet — — > head with a polo mallet



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 1, 2010 at 2:14 am


Mr. Hutaree
Any homosexual that is unhappy with his homosexuality is homophobic. If you’re trying to hide the fact that you’re not both of these things by feigning ignorance I can tell you you’re doing a very poor job of it. Flame on Flamer.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 3:25 am


Butt-sniffer Boris says:
Any homosexual that is unhappy with his homosexuality is homophobic.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, he isn’t. “Unhappy” does not translate to “fear.” And, of course, you know it.
Butt-sniffer Boris says:
If you’re trying to hide the fact that you’re not both of these things by feigning ignorance I can tell you you’re doing very poor job of it.
Mr. Incredible says:
The fact is that one who claims to be homosexual cannot be homophobic. Since you’re not homophobic… well…



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 2, 2010 at 12:18 am


The fact is that one who claims to be homosexual cannot be homophobic.
Boris says: Millions of psychologists disagree with you and millions of Catholic priests prove you wrong. Why don’t you read the scientific literature on the subject before you expose your ignorance AGAIN for us all? Oh that’s right. Science that was invented by the Catholic Church is now from the pit of hell. Contradict yourself much do you? You’re like a small retarded child with one shoe nailed to the floor who keeps going around in circles and can’t figure out why he isn’t going anywhere.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 3, 2010 at 5:47 pm


who says he is like a small retarded child boris,,,,you? like we would take any of your opinionated garbage as a reputable source…it is obvious to us how biased you are in regards to people being murdered as children…so why would anything you have to say be of value after that….obviously you are for the destruction of human life which would indicate a lack of respect towards others and their abibility to survive….who is your leader? …..i could answer that one for you, but your not of mine….c



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 4, 2010 at 9:12 am


Mr. Incredible says:
The fact is that one who claims to be homosexual cannot be homophobic.
Boris says:
Millions of psychologists disagree with you…
Mr. Incredible says:
So what?? Why are you letting other people tell you what to say?
Boris says:
… and millions of Catholic priests prove you wrong.
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Millions”???
Boris says:
Why don’t you read the scientific literature on the subject before you expose your ignorance AGAIN for us all?
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“Why don’t you read the biased, uncorrupted ‘scientific literature’ I have read?”Boris says:
Oh that’s right. Science that was invented by the Catholic Church is now from the pit of hell.
Mr. Incredible says:
I never said that the Catholic Church “invented” Science. Again with the misrepresentations.
Boris says:
Contradict yourself much do you?
Mr. Incredible says:
The only contradictions are in your two heads.
Boris, he of the state hospital, says:
You’re like a small retarded child with one shoe nailed to the floor who keeps going around in circles and can’t figure out why he isn’t going anywhere.
Mr. Incredible says:
You got time to post while doin’ your job as the popcorn boy at K-Mart?
Again, your many psychoses have been duly noted.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 4, 2010 at 9:13 am


CORRECTION
Boris says:
Why don’t you read the scientific literature on the subject before you expose your ignorance AGAIN for us all?
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“Why don’t you read the biased, uncorrupted ‘scientific literature’ I have read?”

Boris says:
Oh that’s right. Science that was invented by the Catholic Church is now from the pit of hell.
Mr. Incredible says:
I never said that the Catholic Church “invented” Science. Again with the misrepresentations.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 4, 2010 at 9:14 am


CORRECTION AGAIN
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:
“Why don’t you read the biased, corrupted ‘scientific literature’ I have read?”



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 4, 2010 at 1:28 pm


Boris says:
Millions of psychologists disagree with you…
Mr. Incredible says:
So what?? Why are you letting other people tell you what to say?
Boris says: If they’re qualified in a particular field that I am not why shouldn’t I? Why did you let OTHER PEOPLE convince you the Bible was true? No one knows any more about any God than a third grader does. Now pull your foot out of your big fat lying mouth again loser. ROFL!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 4, 2010 at 1:44 pm


Rich, HG and the rest of the people having so much fun at Mr. Hutaree’s expense:
Do you ever wonder if Mr. Hutaree is really what he claims to be? Doesn’t it seem likely that this character is not a Christian at all but a very angry ex-Christian who is going out of his way to make Bible believing Christians look really, REALLY stupid, dishonest, delusional, immoral, unethical, superstitious, mean, nasty and just plain evil. I mean do you really think someone this stupid could find his way home at night, let alone hold a job to find his way home from? Could this just be a poser? I mean this guy knows he’s losing all of his arguments and badly too. He might very well be doing this on purpose. Why bother though? We already know just how stupid Bible believers are.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 4, 2010 at 2:15 pm


Happy Easter, fellow living beings. The day Jesus gave birth to a warren-full of rabbits! He wanted to build a park called “Coneyland” where people could gather and have kosher hotdogs, maybe watch some of their neighbors get stoned. It would have been great, but one of his investors crossed him.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 5, 2010 at 3:32 am


Not all Jews are pushy. They exhibit degrees of pushiness. Idiot Boris, who says he’s a Jew, is on the extreme end of rude pushiness.
Well, idiots like him don’t know any better, just like the gorillas he says are his relatives. It’s no wonder, then, that those who claim to be homosexual look to the animal kingdom, particularly the ape, for agenda support.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 5, 2010 at 3:37 am


Boris says:
Millions of psychologists disagree with you…
Mr. Incredible says:
So what?? Why are you letting other people tell you what to say?
Boris says:
If they’re qualified in a particular field that I am not why shouldn’t I?
Mr. Incredible says:
If they are qualified in a particular field that I’m not, why shouldn’t I listen to others who teach me?
Boris says:
Why did you let OTHER PEOPLE convince you the Bible was true?
Mr. Incredible says:
Which “Bible”?
Boris says:
Now pull your foot out of your big fat lying mouth again loser.
Mr. Incredible says:
You are a vandal. A tagger. Vandals and taggers don’t think, either.



report abuse
 

tammy

posted April 8, 2010 at 2:13 am


Who will try to change the way we figure our chronological date now? You do know Jesus was born 2010 years ago, don’t you? Do you think someone will challenge how we figure time now? Wouldn’t doubt it, especially if it has to do with Jesus, huh?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 8, 2010 at 2:50 am


Jesus Christ never existed. Go look for some secular accounts of this person or something he did or someone he knew and get back to me when you find them. You won’t be back. ROFL! The calendar is based on a guess. A bad guess.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 11, 2010 at 7:28 pm


boris, haven’t you learned anything by now?
you can just go back in history to find that one to be false….



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 11, 2010 at 9:35 pm


Yes I went back and looked for contemporary secular accounts that spoke of Jesus Christ, anything he supposedly did, his disciples, trial, crucifixion or anything else mentioned in the gospels. There is not one word written within SIX TO EIGHT DECADES of the year Jesus supposedly died. Not a word. Check it out for yourself.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 6:45 pm


Boris says:
Yes I went back and looked for contemporary secular accounts that spoke of Jesus Christ, anything he supposedly did, his disciples, trial, crucifixion or anything else mentioned in the gospels. There is not one word written within SIX TO EIGHT DECADES of the year Jesus supposedly died. Not a word.
Mr. Incredible says:
I witnessed an accident ten years ago. I am, just now, getting around to writing about it. My witnessing is not diluted. The relevant point is that I was there and I saw it. http://thumbsnap.com/oglol6YD



report abuse
 

payday loans toronto

posted July 26, 2010 at 9:31 pm


blog.beliefnet.com is great! For the removal of unforeseen outlays if they do not have sufficient funds then they can develop it by applying for online payday loans Online payday loans are short term cash advance provided for small reimbursement period which is secured for repaying on the due date



report abuse
 

Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.

posted September 8, 2010 at 4:05 am


Fine post. Thank for sharing. trndsnrdirytpnjtullkckjsistoeazogpp
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.



report abuse
 

online loans

posted September 21, 2010 at 6:09 am


Well, the post is actually the sweetest on this deserving topic. I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your incoming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the wonderful clarity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Good work and much success in your business endeavors!



report abuse
 

payday loans canada

posted September 21, 2010 at 5:54 pm


Greetings everyone, This webpage is excellent and so is how the matter was expanded. I like some of the comments as well although I would prefer we all keep it on topic in order add value to the subject. It will be



report abuse
 

faxless payday loans

posted September 22, 2010 at 4:57 pm


I must say that overall I am particularly taken with this web-site. It is apparent that you know you subject matter and you are passionate about it. I wish I had got your ability to write. I have bookmarked your web page and look forward to more updates. pvhrgwqmvfh



report abuse
 

loans online no fax

posted September 25, 2010 at 5:20 pm


Great concepts on this website. It’s rare these days to find websites with data you are seeking. I am happy I chanced on this webpage. I will certainly bookmark it or even register for your rss feeds simply to be updated on your new posts. Keep up the nice job and I’m sure some other folks researching valued information will actually stop by and benefit from your website for resources.



report abuse
 

loan for bad credit

posted September 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm


I am doing something of the same interest and will be taking note on this .Thanks.



report abuse
 

loan in british columbia

posted September 27, 2010 at 4:28 pm


Thanks for decent news! Your internet site is very useful for me. I bookmarked your web page!



report abuse
 

payday loan ontario

posted September 28, 2010 at 6:16 am


I’m doing something of the same interest and will be taking note on this .Thanks.



report abuse
 

loans bc in canada

posted September 29, 2010 at 5:31 pm


I’m happy to have found your especially perfect article! I agree with some of your readers and will eagerly look forward to your coming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the fantastic lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. Great work and much success in your business efforts.



report abuse
 

canadian loans

posted September 30, 2010 at 7:48 pm


Thanks for such a outstanding publish as well as the assessment, I am completely impressed! Keep stuff like this coming.



report abuse
 

losing weight

posted October 2, 2010 at 4:59 am


This is such a good resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. It is the old what goes around comes around routine. Did you acquired lots of links and I see lots of trackbacks??



report abuse
 

payday loan online

posted October 4, 2010 at 3:10 am


Do you have any more info on this?



report abuse
 

loans with bad credit

posted October 5, 2010 at 6:53 pm


I will post a link to this blog on my internet site. I’m sure my readers will find this info really awesome.



report abuse
 

payday loan online

posted October 12, 2010 at 3:08 pm


Greetings everyone, This webpage is excellent and so is how the matter was expanded. I like some of the comments too although I would prefer we all maintain it on topic in order add value to the subject.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.