Posted on 01/13/2008 1:51:13 PM PST by wagglebee
"A third of my generation is dead because of politicians like Giuliani." -- Steven Pokorny, age 28, at Giuliani during meeting in Miami, Sunday, Jan. 13
MIAMI, Jan. 13 /Christian Newswire/ -- Rudy Giuliani was rattled by pro-life advocates and canceled his speech at his first bus-tour event Sunday in Miami. Activists have planned confrontations with Rudy for every stop of his Florida bus tour. Photos available online.
On Sunday, Jan. 13, at approximately 12:15 PM, pro-life activists were in the crowd at The Green Street Cafe (located at 3110 Commodor Plaza, Coconut Grove Florida, just outside Miami) waiting for Giuliani to begin his Florida Bus Tour.
When Rudy Giuliani arrived, Joseph Landry (age 26) was within 5 feet of the candidate, and began yelling: You are a baby killer! You are a baby killer! Florida is pro-life! Rudy wants public funding for abortion!" See news report. Law enforcement officials immediately escorted Mr. Landry from the area, while Mr. Landry continued his monologue.
Within Minutes, Steven Pokorny, age 28, stood to his feet and cried out, "A third of my generation is dead because of politicians like Giuliani! Giuliani wants to kill children and have you pay for it!" Law enforcement did not stop Mr. Pokorny.
At that point, Giuliani left the building, without addressing the crowd.
Mr. Pokorny was able to follow Mr. Giuliani for more than a minute, yelling out about Rudy's pro-choice, pro-homosexual agenda. Again, Mr. Pokorny was not interrupted by police.
Giuliani officials had no idea how many pro-lifers were in the crowd, and how many more times Giuliani would be confronted. This might explain why Mr. Giuliani did not make any remarks - and left the meeting without addressing supporters.
Pro-lifers have scheduled confrontations with Rudy on every stop of his Florida Bus tour.
Video footage of the confrontations with Rudy is available upon request.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots
and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."-- Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Ultrasound machines in cpcs are not going to stop abortion..
Just thought I'd make sure you happened to see this thread. I can't imagine you wouldn't want to take the opportunity to go over there and tell those people who support, for example, offering ultrasound at crisis pregnancy centers that their efforts are worthless and not up to your standards.
I find it deplorable that the Pope was put in this position and, under the circumstances, found it necessary to cancel his speech at the university.
Rudy CHOSE not to speak--or even try. He was not prevented from doing so by less than a handful of activists following him on the parade route and chanting some less than favorable comments about his record on abortion.
What are your thoughts (using your logic above) on the Pope CHOOSING not to speak---or even try. [Pope Cancels Visit "La Sapienza" University in Rome (Leftist Hecklers' Veto).] He was not prevented from doing so by less than handful of activists writing a letter and saying some less than favorable comments about his beliefs and world view.
I guess the MANNER and METHOD of their protest effected the decision of the Pope. The MANNER and METHOD of a protest WERE NOT what was the point. Please see calcowgirl’s excellent post to you, at #504 to refresh your memory.
Give it a rest, JAG.
BTTT
From your link:
...These narrow-minded little brats are probably being pushed by aging hippies, communists, and sexual deviants. Much of the protest seems focused on how "homophobic" Pope Benedict is. ...Sorry--I reject stuff like this outright as an objective basis upon which to make an opinion. It may be a perfect report of the incident--but I won't rely on it to form a comment. Also, I am not Catholic nor am I familiar with ordinary practices or levels of debate--hence I am not qualified to provide an opinion.
Thanks, nic. JagMan... you never did respond to that one.
Give it a rest, JAG.
BUMP!
LOL! I just noticed that one. But what's to dress? (Hair?) ;-)
So wrong.
Let me make note here, first, that I am using caps back at nic solely b/c he seems to think they are necessary. I will also being using his phrase "MANNER and METHOD" to make my point.
MY point, FROM THE BEGINNING, was exactly this and nothing else: that the MANNER and METHOD of the protest at issue here was NOT helpful.
That may not have been what YOU wanted to discuss. And, certainly, you still have not gotten through your head that that was what *I* was discussing. But guess what? YOU don't get to determine MY point. You only get to engage it or ignore it.
YOU don't get to say that that wasn't what *I* was talking about simply because that wasn't what YOU were talking about or what YOU wanted to talk about. Or YOU didn't understand what *I* was talking about. Or YOU wanted the thread to be about something else.
For the record, here is a history of my posts on this thread proving that, from START TO FINISH, MY point went to how the MANNER and METHOD of this protest, in my view, hindered rather than helped the pro-life cause.
You will see that, from my first post at #49 all the way to my last post, I NEVER departed from my initial point regarding the MANNER and METHOD of the protest. That was indeed MY point and it's your problem if you continually posted to me without understanding the distinction between MY point and whatever it is that YOU wanted to expound upon.
So, for the record (as I'm sure you don't dare read through these and see the, um, obvious theme), here are my posts on this thread:
#49 - this [protest] is not helpful [MANNER and METHOD] for the cause of the pro-life movement. Sorry.
#54 - The form [MANNER and METHOD] of this protest will . . .
#57 - there is quite a difference between “accepting” abortion and being smart [MANNER and METHOD] about how one tries to advance the cause of life.
#66 - Do you not understand the difference between the various times, places and manners {MANNER and METHOD] in which one might tell the truth?
#71 - the teaching that not everything that is allowed is beneficial or helpful or edifying [MANNER and METHOD]
#78 - You know very well it's not an issue of what is allowed, or an issue of someone's "rights," but an issue of what is appropriate, helpful, beneficial and useful. [MANNER and METHOD] . . . address the actual question---do you think it adds to the political process to have candidates shouted down to the point of being unable to speak, or do you think it only matters what the point of the protest is? .. . [MY point has] nothing to do with one's rights to protest.
#90 - . . . And, besides, [MY POINT IS]this is not about what is legal or constitutional. It’s about what is helpful or beneficial to the pro-life cause. [MANNER and METHOD] I’m sure you have some teaching somewhere that just because something is “allowed,” that does not mean it is good to do it. [MANNER and METHOD]
#116 - I said it wasn'tt helpful. [MANNER and METHOD] . . .
#123 - Please re-read what I wrote. You totally missed [MY] the point. . . . what is the point of doing something within the political process that is counter-productive to the goals of your movement? {MANNER and METHOD]
#127 - How do you get from numerous comments that these protests are viewed as counter-productive [as to MANNER and METHOD] to someone telling you the First Amendment is toast and America is Marxist China?
#138 - those cheering on these counter-productive [as to MANNER and METHOD] tactics . . .
#152 - what, exactly, was accomplished to FURTHER the pro-life movement with these protests? [How was their MANNER and METHOD helpful?]
#154 - And being rude bullies [MANNER and METHOD] . . . there’s no upside except harassing [MANNER and METHOD] a failing candidate.
#164 = [quoting another poster] Who cares if you think it is benficial or helpful or edifying ??? . . . Thank you for proving my point perfectly. . . . what they think they gain for the cause of life by acting this way [MANNER and METHOD]. I am askign them to tell me why THEY think it is beneficial or helpful or edifying [MANNER and METHOD] . . .
#174 - All I said was that this particular form of protest [MANNER and METHOD] was counter-productive under all the circumstances. . . . If you don’t agree with those who find them unhelpful, {MANNER and METHOD] fine. But don’t claim they want them “prohibited.”
#182 - Stating one’s opinion that another’s conduct-—in this case, in protesting-—is not helpful [MANNER and METHOD], is just that: an opinion offered for the sake of influencing behavior. . . . If . . . you believe that such tactics (”being rude bullies”) [MANNER and METHOD]are not helpful to the cause of life, why don’t you speak up against them? And why are you arguing with people who are willing to speak up agains them?
#185 - The choice is not between worthless protests [MANNER and METHOD] such as these and doing “nothing.” . . .Of course, we should not do “nothing.”
#193 - Just because some feel these protests were counter-productive under all the circumstances,[MANNER and METHOD] you take from that that somehow this encompasses “totally abandoning the pro-life platform.”
#316 - . . . I could care less if Rudy gets to talk to a crowd. I am concerned that ill-advised protests [MANNER and METHOD] will set back the cause of life. . . . Do you join me in that [MANNER and METHOD] concern? I realize in this instance you and I disagree on what constitutes an ill-advised protest, but as a matter of principle, are you also against ill-advised protests? [STILL trying to get nicmarlo to talk about MY point re the MANNER and METHOD of the protests]
#317 - [quoting nicmarlo] Somehow, I think in the scheme of things, God is more concerned about the murder of innocent babies than Rudy having his 5 minutes
. . . I completely agree. However, are you extrapolating from this fact that God approves of these exact protests [MANNER and METHOD}today? Or do you think there may be room for discussion about how [MANNER and METHOD] to advance the cause of the unborn?
#346 - Pro-lifers should act as badly [MANNER and METHOD] as the other guy!! /s
#350 - The sad part is this thread got started with some people observing that, in their view, these protests were counter-productive [MANNER and METHOD] to the cause of life. . . . This was then met with accusations that, simply because the posters disagreed with the means [MANNER and METHOD] of moving toward a certain end (advancing the pro-life agenda), . . .
#352 - I stated from the beginning that I thought these protests were counter-productive [MANNER and METHOD] to the pro-life cause. And that’s what I meant and all I meant. . . .You can freep Rudy Giuliani until he drops off the face of the planet for all I care. I just don’t think these types of protests [MANNER and METHOD] on the issue of abortion-—whether they are lodged against Rudy or anyone else . . . I just don’t think they work well [MANNER and METHOD] . . .
#358 - . . . [MY point of] Disagreeing with someone's conduct (here the conduct of a particular protest) [MANNER and METHOD] is not telling them "what to do, how to act, or when to protest."
#365 - . . . I am all for protesting candidates-—but in a way and at a time [MANNER and METHOD] that makes sense and is not likely to backfire.
#372 - . . . No one, at least not me, is saying give Rudy a pass on anything. I’m saying, please, if you think these protests are going to get played out for good [MANNER and METHOD] in the larger media, you need to reevaluate.
#377 - It’s about proceeding in such a way [MANNER and METHOD] as to advance the cause of life, . . . This is not a zero sum proposition-—either the pro-life movement conducts this particular protest [MANNER and METHOD] against X today or it does nothing at all, ever.
#389 - . . . However, you have had several posts that have gone to the issue of it being someone’s “right” to protest, yet [MY point] I have been addressing whether, in political terms, it was a good idea to protest the way [MANNER and METHOD] these guys did. That latter issue [on MANNER and METHOD] is what you seem to have failed to address, or at least I have missed it. . . . You sound just like the Dixie Chicks wailing about how they had the “right” to say what they said and no one should say that it wasn’t a good idea to say what they said when and where they said it. [MANNER and METHOD]
#401 - . . . Not every thing that comes into someone’s head is going to be helpful. [MANNER and METHOD] All I am saying is, “let’s ask ourselves, honestly, if this is helpful or not?” [MANNER and METHOD] . . . They protested in support of a good cause in a dumb way [MANNER and METHOD] (politically speaking). That’s all.
#404 - [quoting nicmarlo] It is not my place or right to tell other people what to do, how to act, or when to protest. That is their right.
So here we are at post #332 and you are still talking about what you said was not what you were talking about---about how it is "their right" to protest (i.e., it is "allowed"), therefore . . .
Therefore, what? It is their "right," therefore they "should" do it? [MANNER and METHOD] Or what? What is that you are talking about beyond "it is their right"?
Ugh, and this smug DixieChixian "no one has a right to criticize my protest" [MANNER and METHOD] line of reasoning is really getting annoying.
#406 - But it is rather concerning that you view someone disagreeing with you on the best way to go about [MANNER and METHOD] advancing a cause as the same thing as telling you to “be quiet.”
#415 - Your excellent post bears repeating: Fanantical, wacko behavior [MANNER and METHOD] is fanatical, wacko behavior and is perceived as such, regardless of the message being promulgated.
#418 - . . . And this point is especially true if the type, time and manner of protests, [MANNER and METHOD] as well as the response of those protested, backfires on the pro-life movement instead of advancing it.
#421 - Many have been saved by grass-roots activism. . . . Grass-roots activism also brought us, most recently, a Supreme Court that is better at interpreting, not inventing, the Constitution. . . . You’re really loopy if you think two dudes making fools of themselves at a pit stop for a lower-tier candidate [MANNER and METHOD] is more important than what the grass roots has accomplished over the years.
#429 - Do you not agree that some protests are more helpful than others? [MANNER and METHOD] Do you not agree that sometimes a protest might backfire and, rather than helping the cause, set it back? [MANNER and METHOD]
#436 - [2 direct questions never answered by nicmarlo] . . . not everyone thinks these protests are a good idea. [MANNER and METHOD] . . .
Which is exactly what I said constituted DixieChixism. Will you address that, please?
(1) Please explain HOW discussing whether an act of speech has a positive or negative effect [MANNER and METHOD] constitutes “impos[ing] YOUR will on others.”
(2) Please explain HOW discussing whether an act of speech has a positive or negative effect [MANNER and METHOD]constitutes “wanting to FORCE others to shut up.”
#439 - Please, I really want to know how you conclude that the not condoning something [MANNER and METHOD] is the same thing as dictating that it cannot be done.
#443 - I’m simply asking pro-lifers to ask themselves whether this type of protest [MANNER and METHOD] is positive or negative under all the circumstances. . . . How is just asking that question turn me into a pro-abortionist?
#460 - When are you going to quit repeating how it is someone’s right to make an arse out of themselves and tell us your view on the real issue upon which people can disagee: whether today’s protests were an effective [MANNER and METHOD] making of an arse out of oneself. . . . You hold up something about which there is ZERO (just for you!) controversy-—that is, that the Constitution protects some freedom of speech . . . We know each person has a right to speak their mind . . . That has NOTHING . . . to do with [MY] point [THAT I HAVE BEEN MAKING AND YOU HAVE BEEN POSTING, THOUGH NOT RESPONDING TO, SINCE #49] that is in controversy: whether this act of speech had a positive or negative overall effect. [MANNER and METHOD] . . . Some people think it was positive, some negative. That [MANNER and METHOD] is what the discussion is about [IF YOU CHOOSE TO POST TO MY POINT, WHICH I MADE STARTING IN #49] . Not about how, in your mind, the very fact that people discuss this point is “forcing people to shut up.”
#463 - Yes, these dudes had the right to protest Rudy Giuliani or whoever else they wished to today. But the rest of us have the right to decide whether or not we think their protest was likely to have a positive or negative effect [MANNER and METHOD] on the pro-life movement, and, therefore, to decide whether or not we want to support those type of protests.
It only took 300+ posts going to [YOUR POINT ON ]recitations of the Bill of Rights and what the Constitution "allows" for us to get to the further point of saying, hey, regardless that they have the right to do it, the rest of us have the right to, in effect, shout back at them. [MANNER and METHOD] Hallelujah!
#469 - . . . contrary to your endless repetition, it is not about "restricting" a person's right to speech.
We have every right to support or criticize these protests [MANNER and METHOD]--or say nothing.
#475 - Please explain how you have concluded that I “seek to silence” the right to free speech [WHEN MY POINT CONSISTENTLY HAS BEEN ABOUT THE MANNER AND METHOD OF THESE PROTESTS]. That’s a quite serious charge and you owe your evidence on that.
#478 - And unfortunately no one is helped more than Giuliani by MSM images of him basically saying “screw you” to “wacky” (their view) members of the “religious right.” [MANNER and METHOD]
#487 - But to even ask “was this negative?” or to state such (as I have, as that’s my view) [MANNER and METHOD] has been interpreted as wanting to silence protest, accept abortion, crown Rudy Giuliani, and crush the pro-life movement. And worse. . . . What a waste. . . . continue to be stymied so long as those who support it will not honestly evaluate their course [MANNER and METHOD] and make adjustments as appropriate.
#489 - I do and will speak out for them. But I will try to do so in a way [MANNER and METHOD] that maximizes the chance for success, for a positive impact.
I will continually evaluate if what I am doing is helpful and beneficial, or how I need to change to make my speaking out for the unborn better addressed to my audience. [MANNER and METHOD]
That’s what I am advocating here. But by giving my opinion that these protests were not effective,[MANNER and METHOD] and were not positive-—an opinion upon which we may disagree-—I have been pilloried as a pro-abortionist, a Rudy supporter, a fascist, and so on into la-la land.
#492 - I began with a very simple observation-—as you so succintly put it-—a concern about effectiveness, [MANNER and METHOD] but that was viewed as some rant against the pro-life movement and a screed for Rudy Giuliani. Sad.
#494 - . . . Finally, however, let me say this: my point has never been about what people have the right to do. It has been about asking ourselves (those who care about the pro-life movement) what is an effective way to protest in these circumstances and what isn’t.[MANNER and METHOD]
#498 - . . . I then added a comment intended to convey that my view was that it wasn't important what was "allowed"---we all know free speech is protected by the Constitution---but it was important to evaluate how [MANNER and METHOD] we exercise our free speech. Was this protest something that had a positive effect on the pro-life movement or a negative effect?
Now THAT [MY point] would have been a helpful discussion. Instead, for merely suggesting that we ask ourselves that simple question, people who have no clue who I am or what I have done in relation to the pro-life movement or who I am supporting for president called me an abortion supporter, a fascist, and so on.
You [nicmarlo] really, really got stuck on proving your point that the First Amendment applies to political rallies. But that's obvious. [MY POINT] . . . really had nothing to do with what K. had written and I don't know how you got there from here. Or why you stuck to that for so many posts.
I agree with you that you are not qualified to state an opinion.
Truer words were never spoken.
I sincerely believe you have confused me with someone else. I have ONLY responded to the "interrupt" concept when you and your ilk kept asking me to.
nicmarlo asked me 124 and I responded 211.
So what? It was never central to my point, which I finally decided to set out for the record at 691.
I continually restated that my focus was NOT on what was allowed in terms of free speech, 227,, yet nicmarlo came back anyway, 228, and demanded that somehow I had to address a statement made by a poster whom I had never even heard of before and who was making a point that was completely irrelevant to my own point on MANNER and METHOD.
The next thing I know nic is claiming, 319, that because I posted to him when he responded to the guy who made the "interrupted" comment, that I "twisted" the discussion by . . . talking about something else?
Well, duh. I made my own point, a different point, one that had nothing to do with what K. said, but with what nicmarlo said.
Seems like a pretty normal way for a thread to develop, but . . .
There are no other even peeps out of me about the "interruption" issue you now claim I have been solely focused on. Until, that is . . .
You of all people then jumped in and claimed, 387, that:
You have twisted this every which way except as posted by the originator of the argument (KeithCu) who posted:
The first amendment gives you the right to stand in line and ask a question, but not to interrupt!!
Yes, or No: Do you agree with KeithCu's statement?
I mean, don't you find that ridiculous looking at it now? Who are you to demand that I state whether or not I agree with a statement I never made and, further, repeatedly said was completely irrelevant to my point?
The only thing you said that made sense was when you acknowledged that, of all I had posted, I had not posted whatever was said by "the originator of the argument."
Okay.
The "originator of the argument"? Don't you know that threads are called threads because, as people add their VARIOUS points of views, all kinds of different ideas get woven together?
Frankly, your post, demanding that I declare whether I agreed with a stranger's post, struck me as wacko. Nevertheless, I went ahead and answered you on the basis that I thought you might at least be sincere, if off track.
I referred you back to my original statement, 389, which I did not elaborate on because I am the one who didn't want to keep "focusing on" the "interruption" point. I made a different point and if people wanted to talk about that, fine.
But I thought, and obviously still do think, that it was really crazy and rude for you and nicmarlo to keep picking a fight with me over something someone else said and which I repeatedly said had nothing to do with my point.
But that wasn't good enough for you! YOU, certainly not me, had to keep that fight going!
You came right back, 485, and demanded a better answer. Really, I have to laugh. You have no idea how foolish that post was, though I know you probably didn't intend it to be.
You see, very few questions in the law are "yes" or "no," and that is even more true for questions pertaining to the operation of the First Amendment. Thousands and thousands of cases have been decided that establish all kinds of nuances in this area of the law.
But there you were stamping your foot for a "yes" or "no" answer. How ignorant!
Plus, re-read the rest of your post. You went on to give me, a lawyer admitted to the United States Supreme Court for almost 30 years, a lesson on how the First Amendment works and then, most amazingly, you wrote two very large paragraphs detailing why you were "very, very offended" at whatever it is that other poster whoever he was had said.
Hello! I had nothing to do with what he said and I certainly never "focused" on his remark as you now claim I have.
I did react to nicmarlo's repeated statements that his view that the protests were allowed was the end of the matter, because I disagree that that's all we should ask. We agree the protests were allowed. Duh. What I was positing was a discussion, for those who cared to join it and only those who cared to join it, on the manner and method of protesting in effective ways.
Nevertheless, I patiently answered you, 494, even though I never made the initial remark and it was never relevant to my point.
YOU, who, apparently because you were so "very, very offended" by whatshisname's remark, came back again to me, 497, and "focused" on the "interruption" point. I mean, that's just crazy!
YOU argued factual matters that were irrelevant to a question about what, in general, the law says.
Sigh. This is why I try to avoid legal discussions in these type of settings.
Finally, after much badgering by nicmarlo as well as you, I addressed the "interruption" remark, 498, and explained, again, how it had nothing to do with my further point. (Which, by the way, you actually got in your previous post when you disagreed with me on the effectiveness of the protest. That's what we're here for is discussion. And that's why it seems nutty when a people keep posting to me about something I never said and they refuse to engage what my actual point.)
So I again responded to you, 502, in a further effort to resolve the issue you were "focused" on.
You again came back, 504, claiming that I, not you, was the one "focused" on the "interrupt" concept! Wow!
You then spent several large paragraphs telling me what whatzhisface said, why it was in your view wrong, why it offended you so much, and so on. Of course, I would be concerned also if I thought someone was actually saying people didn't have a right to protest. I didn't think he said that; you did. But I wasn't focused on what he said; I was focused on nicmarlo continually arguing since the protesters had a right to protest, the rest of us can't discuss the protest.
What does what whatzhisface said have to do with what *I* said and the points *I* made?
Which were:
1. The issue is not simply whether speech is allowed.
2. It's good to also consider whether the MANNER and METHOD of speech is effective under all the circumstances.
Pretty simple.
Unfortunately, this whole thing came about because nicmarlo (and somehow you jumped on the bandwagon) refused to recognize that, golly, sometimes people post points that go in different directions but are still very much on topic. 514 .
If you or he did not want to discuss my point, that's fine. But to claim I had some responsiblity for whatever whatzhisname said and for you, not me, to continually "focus" on what whatzhisname said in your posts to ME is pure wackiness.
Thank you.
Me (again): I am not debating with you the manner and method by which someone could be more effective or less effective in their speech. As I first mentioned in about post #44 or so, the right to speech is what is protected and which you seek to silence, unless it is according to YOUR personal preference.
So what is the logical relationship between my question, "show me the evidence upon which you conclude that I am seeking to silence free speech," and your answer that you refuse to debate the manner and method of effective speech?
Are you once again equating talking about what's an effective way to speak with the right to speak at all?
Are you not ashamed to make accusations, such as that I "seek to silence free speech," and then when asked for your evidence, you whine that you "refuse" to debate me on a totally separate issue?
That's like accusing someone of stealing out of the cookie jar and, when asked for your evidence, you piously state that you "refuse" to debate them on whether chocolate chip cookies are better than lemon bars. Idiotic. Well, if you ever get up the gumption to try to back up your wild accusations with evidence, let me know. I know once you start thinking about it, it's quite embarrasing to realize that equating someone's disagreement with the manner and method of speaking with "seeking to silence constitutionally protected speech" gives you DixieChix brain, but there you go. And, come to think of it, since you disagree with me so vehemently (well, at least you disagree with even debating my point), under your logic, you are seeking to silence my free speech. That's not nice! But don't worry. Unlike you, I don't equate disagreement with speech with prohibition of speech. So, I'll be here if you ever want to try to make good on that big accusation you made.
From this thread:
To: fightinJAG; Balding_Eagle; wagglebee; calcowgirl; Delphinium
I was called a fascist and a pro-abortionist for simply questioning whether a pro-life heckler might be more effective protesting in a different way.
Um, no you weren't. Give it a rest already.
Um, no I wasn't?
How about these posts, some of which are under your screename?
Calling soldiers who serve as clerks in the U.S. Army "peons," 118 ; Calling people fascist, 115, ; 380 .
And so on.
For the many times and ways in which I was called a pro-abortionist, check any post from Tennesee Nana, including the one in which she said I had done no more for the pro-life movement by adopting my children than Rosie O'Donnell had done.
What do you call a person who makes statements and then denies making them?
I wouldn't comment on surgical procedures of the brain either. Some would.
Truer words were never spoken.
Grow up and take your snide comments elsewhere.
"Ilk"? What a quaint term./s Nice rewrite of history, too.
... You of all people then jumped in and claimed, 387, that: You have twisted this every which way...
Yep, you did. After watching you go on for over 100 posts, completely ignoring the heart of the disagreement initially between KeithCu and nicmarlo (and others)--engaging in the argument nonetheless and misrepresenting others words--I asked you a simple question yes or no question in 387. No demands whatsoever... just a question. When you claimed to have answered it (but clearly hadn't), I asked again in 485. All of your links to posts made by others, or posts you made that preceded my question, are pretty superfluous.
So what? It was never central to my point...
Now there is the problem. I was not interested in your central point but notwithstanding I did respond to your two posts directed to me about your central point (My post #497 responded to your #384/#494).
When you learn how to have a civil, honest discussion without personally insulting and attacking others, get back to me. Or not. It matters little.
Sigh...
Still misrepresenting...
Have a nice day.
_________________________________________________________ I know nothing about you and you have yet to state your “way of fighting abortion”
Well, you said you know what "my way" is:
Of course your way berought abortion to a screeching halt first time it was tried
(As, apparently, did "your way.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.