"wd" <server57.5 at hatmail.com> wrote in message
news:uut8vsomk27b10 at corp.supernews.com...
>> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
> news:hMwH9.22398$K64.640887 at news2.west.cox.net...> <snip>
>> > >
> > > Fail to answer, and strike 3 you are out.
> > >
> > > ~wd
> > >
> > You already got an answer, it's just that you didn't like it.
>> No, you failed to answer.
> > This was a STUPID position for these women "justices" to take. Most
> > Americans DISAGREE with that STUPID position and agree to this day with
> > men justices. Even the men involved disagreed with that decision. Even
> > Thomas Jefferson proposed that rapists be castrated
> > http://christianparty.net/jefferson.htm and most Americans agree with
> > to this day as much as they DISAGREE with the current crop of
> > BOTH men and women.
>> But this is not about rape is it?
> Its about castrating a man for having children, but he is unable tyo pay
> A huge difference son.
Most of the "news" coverage about the castration issue was about rapists who
agreed to be castrated rather than be imprisoned.
If women are such moral minors that they have children they can't even
afford to raise--then they shouldn't have children, should they? Why didn't
these brilliant women "justices" think of that?
> > Of course STUPID feminazis and "liberals" and other muds "think" that
> > right, but most Americans DISAGREE with you. That should tell you
> > something, at least.
>> Muds? Let me gues. You are a skinhead or the equal of.
> > You take a case where women "justices" were on the wrong side of
> > the wrong side of public opinion, the wrong side of Christianity, the
> > side of economics and the taxpayer, and the wrong side of the "victims"
> > themselves, and expect us to praise the STUPID women who wrote it? No.
>> The original conversaation was about "Men" who are the only ones who can
> dish out equal
> justice. Remember?
> It amazes me how many people simply cannot stay focused.
Look who's whining about "focus". The subject of this thread is blasphemy,
something you haven't even addressed. You diverged from the issue of
blasphemy by Sandra Day O'Connor in her rulings about abortion to some
obscure issue about how great women "justices" are because you like their
ruling about something that's utterly trivial compared to 42 million dead
Getting back on topic, there's nothing that every woman "justice" in the
entire world could do to make up for 42 million *murdered* [in the eyes of
57% of Americans] babies.
> > Trusting your phony feminazi "compassion" is what got this putative
> > Christian nation into the huge moral abyss that we're in now, and now
> > want to be praised for it? No. What feminazis have done to this
> > Christian nation ought to be a capital crime, not a source for praise.
>> I dont disagree with this at all.
> However, the women SCJ's were on the side of right and on the side
> of reasonability this time. Dont you think?
They're so dead wrong so consistently and so often that it's not even worth
commenting on the issue. Even IF it was on topic, even IF they might have
been on the right side of the issue (something that would be hard to agree
to just by the fact that they are women), even IF they were able to present
their case far better than Sandra Day O'Connor or Ruth Bader Ginsberg ever
have http://christianparty.net/vmi.htm , you can bet that their ulterior
motive wasn't nearly as pure as you seem to think it was.
They've cried wolf too many times.
> > We know why you "think" that "women's intuition" is a superior form of
> > "reasoning", but we also know that if there were a single thing about it
> > that was workable, that American 12th grade girls wouldn't have scored
> > last in TIMSS. But 32% of their responses were not statistically
> > significant, 23% were statistically significant because they scored
> > than if they'd just guessed, and of the 45% that was statistically
> > significant, the amount by which they scored lower than boys was
> > statistically significant on 24.4%, by which they scored higher than
> > was statistically significant on 2.6%, and the difference between boys
> > girls was not stastically significant on 18%.
> > http://christianparty.net/timssphysics.htm> >
> > "Intuition" my butt. And what these "justices" did is just as bad if
> > worse than what Sandra Day O'Connor wrote:
> > In keeping with our rejection of the common law understanding of a
> > role within the family, the Court held in Danforth that the Constitution
> > does not permit a State to require a married woman to obtain her
> > consent before undergoing an abortion. 428 U. S., at 69
> > http://christianparty.net/sandradayoconnor.htm> >
> > BUT--such a law could only work of women were NEVER allowed to be
> > judges, justices, or lawyers. There have been far, far too many justice
> > system errors since they were permitted into the field. It was because
> > them that our incarceration RATE increased ten fold at the VERY SAME
> > that the murder rate almost tripled--which took a real heavy dose of
> > "women's intuition" to achieve.
> > John Knight
>> You take drugs huh..
Yup. About twice a year. Aspirin.