André Jute, extreme, unsuitable for purpose, dangerous, dull, overpriced

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 21:01:08 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT"
wrote in message ...
[...]
Sorni, you just posted some material I wrote - see above.

You may have me killfiled, but you're quoting me and possibly reading
me. And you're writing about me.

So it's only appropriate that I write about you and ask you
questions. If you can't deal with that, or my questions annoy or
frighten you so much, you really should at least stop posting
material from me.

You are not Johnny-Twelve-Point, you are Johnny-One-Note.

ROTFL Poor ol' Flogger just doesn't get plonking. I only see his words if
someone replies to them.

In other words, you sometimes see my words.

I'm not going to SELECTIVELY DELETE (hint, hint)
all his crap and comment on the replies, as that would remove -- WAIT FOR
IT -- /context/.

In other words, you sometimes see my words.

Still Just Me... wrote:

He trimmed my post! He trimmed my post!

Whiner.

Still Just Me... wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:21:05 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Prediction: no answer to this. I noticed Still Me (and I assume
Flogger?) never replied to your post quoting the H.E. article.

The silence spoke volumes.

BS

I never respond to Ed with any goal except exchanging humor. If you
think he's serious about anything he posts you are doltish. He's
trolling for fun, and you're very easily hooked.

Nice try. He posted a serious response to your request for a citation --
not his own bluster but quoting the FACTS you asked about -- and you didn't
have the courage to comment.

I'll go retrieve it if you're too dishonest to deal with a direct answer to
/your/ request. I'll even give a name to the logical fallacy you're
employing to dodge/deflect/misdirect.

BS (called yet again)

Still Just Me... wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:21:05 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

{NOTE ALL CONTEXT REMOVED SO A NEW READER IS AS CLUELESS AS STILL
CLUELESS -- NO MEAN FEAT}

Prediction: no answer to this. I noticed Still Me (and I assume
Flogger?) never replied to your post quoting the H.E. article.

The silence spoke volumes.

BS

I never respond to Ed with any goal except exchanging humor. If you
think he's serious about anything he posts you are doltish. He's
trolling for fun, and you're very easily hooked.

OK, give this a go:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant
Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term
abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant
Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S.
House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who
survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies
who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention."

"But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in
committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary
Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted "present." At
the second he voted "no."

The bill was then referred to the senate's Health and Human Services
Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in
2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind
the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies' being born alive and
left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant
Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support
of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony "did not faze" Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, "I brought pictures in and presented
them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal
resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show
them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being
treated if they were wanted!"

"And those pictures didn't faze him [Obama] at all," she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois
State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being "very clear and forthright,"
but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested "doctors really don't
care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life
because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would
watch an infant that is viable die." He told her, "That may be your
assessment, and I don't see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is
to create one more burden on a woman and I can't support that."

What about the above do you dispute?

BS

Still Back to Clueless and Dishonest.. wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:54:45 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

{ABOUT WHAT?!?}

Of course, they NEVER take things out of context. Oh, wait, who am I
dealing with? The MASTER of "snip and obscure Usenet posting" LOL
Context is yet another concept Flogger just can't grasp.

He trimmed my post! He trimmed my post!

You know, after your "oh-so-sincere" apology for making a false accusation
about me, I thought maybe there was hope for debating or arguing ISSUES with
you in a respectful and HONEST manner.

But I see you're no better than Flogger (a lying weasel of the first order),
so I'll just have to plonk yet another manifestation of your cowardly
anonymous user name. I'm sure you'll change it again soon enough.

I will wait a short bit, however, to see if you reply to the Human Events
article quoted twice now, as I'm genuinely curious as to what you'll say (if
anything).

And then...Buh-bye.

BS

On Jun 9, 12:45*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

Still Back to Clueless and Dishonest.. wrote:

Pot ... kettle ... drunk ... black.

http://www.minnesotarecovery.info/li...e/drydrunk.htm

Still Just Me... wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:45:10 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

You know, after your "oh-so-sincere" apology for making a false
accusation about me, I thought maybe there was hope for debating or
arguing ISSUES with you in a respectful and HONEST manner.

But I see you're no better than Flogger (a lying weasel of the first
order), so I'll just have to plonk yet another manifestation of your
cowardly anonymous user name. I'm sure you'll change it again soon
enough.

I will wait a short bit, however, to see if you reply to the Human
Events article quoted twice now, as I'm genuinely curious as to what
you'll say (if anything).

And then...Buh-bye.

I don't care to debate abortion with you. We disagree on when life
begins - at conception or at the point defined by the Supreme Court.
We also disagree that later term abortions are sometimes necessary for
sincere reasons. We also disagree that anyone would have a late term
abortion without sincere analysis, and difficulty confronting, a very
difficult set of circumstances.

With that in mind, I don't see any point in debating the issue with
you.

What a coward. I posted something about Obama, and you asked for a citation
or reference. I replied in my own words, giving you "search terms"; and
Dolan provided a link and quotes from an article about it. THEN you decide
you don't want to discuss it.

I, too, have no desire to debate abortion. That isn't the point. You asked
for a citation as if what I said was false or made up, and I and another
gave it to you. Now you're hiding, deflecting, playing games.

Guess I should have expected as much from "Just A Stillborn Brain", given
your track record.

You're really dishonest and cowardly.

*PLONK*

"Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:54:45 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

READ IT, FLOGGER!!!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced
Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived
late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born
Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15
members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate
unanimously on a voice vote.
Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for
babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion
and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving
medical attention."
"But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed
it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in
the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he
voted "present." At the second he voted "no."

The bill was then referred to the senate's Health and Human Services
Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went
Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a
vote.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover
behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies' being born
alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the
Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the
U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony "did not faze" Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, "I brought pictures in and
presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my
neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association,
trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the
same age were being treated if they were wanted!"

"And those pictures didn't faze him [Obama] at all," she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the
Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being "very clear and
forthright," but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested
"doctors really don't care about children who are being born with a
reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their
pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable
die." He told her, "That may be your assessment, and I don't see any
evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden
on a woman and I can't support that." "
Anyway, I just took another look at the humanevents home page. Every
story above the fold is commentary, not news.

So look again and maybe you will begin to SEE something.

I'm not about to waste time critiquing right-wing commentary with a
smattering of facts mixed in. It's like the helmet article you
posted - that was an opinion piece, not news and not reporting.

The article quoted above has next to no commentary at all. It is just
a simple recitation of what transpired.

I just read it. Compare the structure, in term so amount of quotes,
to a proper news article, or to an article at a website like
talkingpointsmemo.com. It's not news -- it's opinion or argument
structured to mislead you.

It is the best news that it is possible to get because it does in fact
provide direct quotations - or do you think the quotations are being made
up? I don't think you know the diffenrce between a news story and
propaganda - which is why the country is in the mess it is in.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Still Just Me..." wrote in message
...
[...]
I don't care to debate abortion with you. We disagree on when life
begins - at conception or at the point defined by the Supreme Court.
We also disagree that later term abortions are sometimes necessary for
sincere reasons. We also disagree that anyone would have a late term
abortion without sincere analysis, and difficulty confronting, a very
difficult set of circumstances.

If I were wrong on all counts, I would not want to debate anyone either.

Life begins when science says it begins, not the Supreme Court. Late term
abortions are never necessary except to save the life of the mother and even
then very many will gladly take that risk. Women get abortions, late term or
early term, for the most trivial of reasons. There are no "circumstances"
when a human life is at stake - you nincompoop!

Mr. Sornson has got you pegged perfectly, just another cowardly liberal who
has all the morality of a murderer.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Still Just Me..." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:21:05 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Prediction: no answer to this. I noticed Still Me (and I assume
Flogger?)
never replied to your post quoting the H.E. article.

The silence spoke volumes.

BS

I never respond to Ed with any goal except exchanging humor. If you
think he's serious about anything he posts you are doltish. He's
trolling for fun, and you're very easily hooked.

Ed Dolan the Great is sometimes serious and sometimes not. It takes
intelligence to discern the difference. This lets you out as you are nothing
if not an ideologue. It must be nice to go through life with all issues
settled by a single all-encompassing ideology. It means you never have to
think. Lucky you!

By the way, there is no one on these newsgroups that Mr. Sornson has not got
figured out perfectly, most particularly you!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota