From: none@none.com   
      
   On 10/25/2011 5:31 PM, Clave wrote:   
   > "Peter Franks"  wrote in message   
   > news:j87je1$svv$1@dont-email.me...   
   >> On 10/25/2011 12:48 PM, Clave wrote:   
   >>> "Peter Franks"   wrote in message   
   >>> news:j872f7$9h9$2@dont-email.me...   
   >>>> On 10/25/2011 12:06 PM, Clave wrote:   
   >>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty"    wrote   
   >>>>> in   
   >>>>> message news:4EA7068E.7050005@blackhole.nebulax.com...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> <...>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Whiny-ass titty-baby Republican writes disapproving op-ed about   
   >>>>> Democrat.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> *yawn* and boo-fucking-hoo.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I hope those lying anti-woman brownshirts get their asses handed to   
   >>>>> them.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Just curious -- what is the 'anti-woman' part?   
   >>>   
   >>> Who do you think are the primary beneficiaries of Planned Parenthood?   
   >>   
   >> Definitely not unborn children.   
   >>   
   >> Where is gov't handouts to PP constitutionally authorized?   
   >   
   > You people never tire of that childishness, do you?   
      
   At least we ain't executing them.   
      
   > It's called promoting the general welfare.   
      
   That isn't a power.  It is a condition on powers delegated elsewhere.   
      
   So, back to the original question: what is the 'anti-woman' part?   
   Specifically?  Being against PP isn't anti-woman, it is anti PP.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)