IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.law-enforcement, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.revisionism, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.politics.immigration, alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns   
   XPost: misc.survivalism, soc.culture.usa, alt.survival   
   From: I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.   
   BI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov   
      
   > David Hartung  wrote in   
   > news:gaSdnTiygcceT4PInZ2dnUVZ5rWdnZ2d@giganews.com:   
   >   
   >> On 04/03/2015 11:20 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:   
   >>> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 11:45:26 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>> On 04/03/2015 09:01 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
   >>>>>        Excuse me? You think religion should be a defense   
   >>>>> to letting a child die?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> More Holman dishonesty, you deleted this part:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> ALERT!  Another Reading Comprehension Failure By DAFFY Hartung!!!   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> "The court would be perfectly within its rights to rule that the   
   >>>> government has a compelling need to protect the life of defenseless   
   >>>> children, and to order the child receive care."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Now, tel [sic] me again what is wrong with this.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> What is WRONG, Hartung, is that was NOT Mitchell's question.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> THIS *is* Mitchell's question:   
   >>>   
   >>>      "Excuse me? You think religion should be a defense   
   >>>      to letting a child die?"   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> The response you gave has *NOTHING* to do with the question you were   
   >>> asked.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Mitchell asked you, DAFFY, if religion SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE USED   
   >>> AT ALL as a defense against letting a child die.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Do YOU or do YOU NOT believe a *religious DEFENSE* should be   
   >>> permitted in the case of a child's death?!   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Well, DAFFY?   
   >>   
   >> I have answered the question, you simply do not wish to accept the   
   >> answer. The fact that I see it as proper for a judge to override   
   >> religious views and to compel medical treatment should tell you that I   
   >> do not see religion as an excuse for letting children die.   
      
      
      
   What happened to that "RIGHT TO DIE" in Washington State? Liberals   
   believe people should be able to die.   
      
   Then you add that to the Liberal idea that children down to 10 or 12 are   
   able to determine that they want an abortion with NO parental   
   notification.....  So when you put the two Liberal ideals together we   
   have kids that can decide to kill another human life, but they can't   
   decide to reject medical care for themselves until they are 18?   
      
   Under Liberalism we will get Parents that have no control over their   
   kids. And the problem we already have with kids is that they have become   
   parent-less as the government interferes where parents once did the job   
   of parenting.   
      
      
   Doesn't that seem to be a contradiction.  Shouldn't children be able to   
   get assisted suicide at 10 and 12 years old without parental   
   notification....  Or shouldn't a 10- 12 year old need parental consent   
   to get an abortion.   
      
      
   Liberalism contradicts its self and it's self destructive.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
    That's Karma   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)