|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Crooked Judges #1 Supporting BSG Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives agenda
| Crooked Judges #1 Supporting BSG Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives agenda [message #28387] |
Sa, 07 Mai 2005 04:59 |
|
========excerpted from the alt.battlestar-galactica thread: =========
==="The BSG Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004"=====
"Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
news:%il8e.3287$HK6.799 [at] newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AFk8e.7243$EX4.1661 [at] fed1read01...
>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
>> news:qXj8e.8707$716.2874 [at] newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:JNj8e.7236$EX4.6802 [at] fed1read01...
>>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
>>>> news:%if8e.8633$716.8603 [at] newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:A5c8e.7205$EX4.142 [at] fed1read01...
>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:df98e.3148$HK6.694 [at] newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:m288e.7168$EX4.467 [at] fed1read01...
>>>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:ir68e.8331$716.4228 [at] newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:Za68e.7164$EX4.2608 [at] fed1read01...
>>>>>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:pz_7e.2737$xI.687 [at] newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:9VZ7e.7117$EX4.2219 [at] fed1read01...
>>>>>>>>>>>>I take it you agree with the original post and that that is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>you chose not to attempt to dispute anything in the post.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for having the courage to agree with me, publicly. That
>>>>>>>>>>>> shows true grit, given the general level of courage here.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Politics
>>>>>>>>>>>> "e" <noone [at] some.domain> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5VW7e.4482206$Zm5.702222 [at] news.easynews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <RhT7e.7093$EX4.1495 [at] fed1read01>, "John Shocked"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make that a 24 pack of charmin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this clown is so full of shit it's eyes are brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind Battlestar
>>>>>>>>>>>> Galactica are
>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing Sodomy symbolisms in BSG is because they would
>>>>>>>>>>>> desperately like to reverse some of the following results which
>>>>>>>>>>>> they encountered in all 11
>>>>>>>>>>>> states in the US on November 3 2004 (US election day) which
>>>>>>>>>>>> had Ballot
>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions (plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling
>>>>>>>>>>>> their own
>>>>>>>>>>>> state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage agenda.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So if you are watching your favorite science fiction show and
>>>>>>>>>>>> then you
>>>>>>>>>>>> notice something in the script which does not make sense, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> may be that it
>>>>>>>>>>>> was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the Hollywood Homosexuals
>>>>>>>>>>>> who are using the script as their advertisement vehicle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since around 1992,
>>>>>>>>>>>> when Clinton
>>>>>>>>>>>> (and Jerry Brown) ran for President the first time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even though they have been pushing their agenda hard for all
>>>>>>>>>>>> these years,
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are yet to win a single statewide vote.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton took homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was
>>>>>>>>>>>> inaugurated
>>>>>>>>>>>> started to implement policies that he was bought and paid to
>>>>>>>>>>>> implement --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gays In The Military, in 1993. This was an intensely unpopular
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>>>>>>> initiative, shocked the public, and resulted in the Democrats
>>>>>>>>>>>> losing both
>>>>>>>>>>>> Houses of Congress in 1994,
>>>>>>>>>>> What is your evidence for this? Because something occurs after
>>>>>>>>>>> something else does not imply cause and effect. Did not Newt and
>>>>>>>>>>> his Contract with America have the major effect? Can you prove
>>>>>>>>>>> it did not?
>>>>>>>>>>>> and started a series of investigations into
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his Impeachment
>>>>>>>>>>>> in 1998.
>>>>>>>>>>>> John Kerry (Democrat 2004 Presidential Candidate) again took
>>>>>>>>>>>> homosexual
>>>>>>>>>>>> money in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have many
>>>>>>>>>>>> sources of
>>>>>>>>>>>> money, representing the poorer segments of society. Since
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kerry was from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the state of Massachusetts, a state which earlier in 2004
>>>>>>>>>>>> legalized Homosexual Marriage through a corrupt bribed
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence of this?
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, here is some:
>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/1204/ 120504-marshall.
htm
>>>>>>>>>> ===========================================
>>>>>>>>> This is not evidence. This says someone submitted a bill. Was it
>>>>>>>>> passed? What is the evidence and was it reviewed?
>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>> Of course it is evidence. I assume the Massachusetts legislature is
>>>>>>>> gearing up for hearings on the matter.
>>>>>>> That's exactly your problem. Someone introduces a bill and you
>>>>>>> assume the legislature is doing something about it. It probably is
>>>>>>> not. In any case, you have presented no evidence that it is or what
>>>>>>> the outcome of any such hearings would be. All you've got is that
>>>>>>> someone is unhappy and introduced a bill.
>>>>>>>> You cannot impeach a judge on a whim.
>>>>>>> No one has been impeached. You can introduce any sort of bill you
>>>>>>> was.
>>>>>>>> JudicialWatch also thinks there is corruption in the Massachusetts
>>>>>>>> judiciary.
>>>>>>>> Now it must be true.
>>>>>>> Why must everything this organiztion think is true be true?
>>>>>> That was a sarcastic statement, but some Conservative and
>>>>>> Hollywood Homosexuals like JudicialWatch.
>>>>>>> Nor do they say anything about corruption. You are just lying again
>>>>>>> because you need. to.
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>> Straight up: are you being paid for your services on this forum
>>>>>> by any media organization or have you ever held a job in the media ?
>>>>>> Your services here are extraordinary; against all odds, losing
>>>>>> on every single point, you keep fighting.
>>>>>> Your services deserve to be compensated.
>>>>>> I just hope Hollywood Homosexuals are making this right for you.
>>>>>> Politics
>>>>> Now you are getting really desperate. You know you work for the
>>>>> Hollywood Homosexuals and are trying to make them ridiculous. Take the
>>>>> one point above to make it easy. How does someone introducing a bill
>>>>> provide evidence.
>>>>> Bill
>>>>
http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/06_june/062104_indicem ent_of_marshall_
II.htm
>>>> Indictment of
>>>> Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall and
>>>> Associate Justices John M. Greaney,
>>>> Roderick L. Ireland and Judith A. Cowin
>>>> Count #1
>>>> Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall Did Encourage, Aid and Abet
>>>> Atty. Mary Bonauto and GLAD in Bringing the Lawsuit,
>>>> "Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health"
>>>> In Violation of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct
>>>> Politics
>>> 1. This is not any sort of true indictment. It is just something someone
>>> wrote.
>>> 2. It has nothing at all to do with corruption (taking bribes) which was
>>> your charge.
>>> 3. This is no different that Scallia, for example, saying he is for the
>>> death penalty in a public setting.
>>> In short, you have still provided no evidence for your charge that the
>>> Mass. court came to their decision because of corruption.
>>> Bill
>>
>>
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/5_May/052003_mn_margar et_marshall_know
s.shtml
>>
>> ==================================
>> Sidebar:
>> Margaret Marshall Knows
>> an Ethics Complaint Has Been Filed Against Her
>> Main Story: What's It Like to Tell Six Judges of the Supreme Court that
>> They Are Breaking the Law?
>>
>> MassNews Staff
>> May 20, 2003
>> Margaret Marshall knows that an Ethics Complaint, to remove her from both
>> cases about homosexual marriage, has been filed with the Commission on
>> Judicial Conduct because of the judge's close friendship and association
>> with Atty. Mary Bonauto, the homosexual lawyer for the plaintiffs in the
>> Goodridge case, as well as other partisans in the case...................
>> ===================================
>> Politics
> You are totally obtuse.
> 1. This has nothing to do with corruption as you claimed and you know it.
> 2. All this is is someone filing a charge. Which is no different than you
> making a charge.
> You continue to not support your claims.
> Bill
It certainly does deal with corruption. Ex Parte contact with the attorneys
representing one side of a pending case without the attorneys representing
the other side present is illegal and is grounds for removal of the judge.
In addition, appearing a events representing a partisan cause for which
cases are pending (like the case which resulted in thiscrook legalizing
Homosexual Marriage is also a violation of court rules and is grounds for
impeachment and removal of the judge.
=====================================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Crooked Judges #1 Supporting BSG Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives agenda [message #28462 ] |
Sa, 07 Mai 2005 21:58 |
|
In article <IaWee.6415$D91.3871 [at] fed1read01>,
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> ========excerpted from the alt.battlestar-galactica thread: =========
> ==="The BSG Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004"=====
>
> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
> news:%il8e.3287$HK6.799 [at] newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:AFk8e.7243$EX4.1661 [at] fed1read01...
> >> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
> >> news:qXj8e.8707$716.2874 [at] newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:JNj8e.7236$EX4.6802 [at] fed1read01...
> >>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
> >>>> news:%if8e.8633$716.8603 [at] newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:A5c8e.7205$EX4.142 [at] fed1read01...
> >>>>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:df98e.3148$HK6.694 [at] newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> >>>>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:m288e.7168$EX4.467 [at] fed1read01...
> >>>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:ir68e.8331$716.4228 [at] newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >>>>>>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:Za68e.7164$EX4.2608 [at] fed1read01...
> >>>>>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:pz_7e.2737$xI.687 [at] newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>> news:9VZ7e.7117$EX4.2219 [at] fed1read01...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>I take it you agree with the original post and that that is why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>you chose not to attempt to dispute anything in the post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for having the courage to agree with me, publicly. That
> >>>>>>>>>>>> shows true grit, given the general level of courage here.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Politics
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "e" <noone [at] some.domain> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:5VW7e.4482206$Zm5.702222 [at] news.easynews.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <RhT7e.7093$EX4.1495 [at] fed1read01>, "John Shocked"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> make that a 24 pack of charmin.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this clown is so full of shit it's eyes are brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind Battlestar
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Galactica are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pushing Sodomy symbolisms in BSG is because they would
> >>>>>>>>>>>> desperately like to reverse some of the following results which
> >>>>>>>>>>>> they encountered in all 11
> >>>>>>>>>>>> states in the US on November 3 2004 (US election day) which
> >>>>>>>>>>>> had Ballot
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Questions (plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling
> >>>>>>>>>>>> their own
> >>>>>>>>>>>> state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage agenda.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So if you are watching your favorite science fiction show and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> then you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> notice something in the script which does not make sense, it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> may be that it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the Hollywood Homosexuals
> >>>>>>>>>>>> who are using the script as their advertisement vehicle.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since around 1992,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> when Clinton
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (and Jerry Brown) ran for President the first time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Even though they have been pushing their agenda hard for all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> these years,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> they are yet to win a single statewide vote.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton took homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was
> >>>>>>>>>>>> inaugurated
> >>>>>>>>>>>> started to implement policies that he was bought and paid to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> implement --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gays In The Military, in 1993. This was an intensely unpopular
> >>>>>>>>>>>> policy
> >>>>>>>>>>>> initiative, shocked the public, and resulted in the Democrats
> >>>>>>>>>>>> losing both
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Houses of Congress in 1994,
> >>>>>>>>>>> What is your evidence for this? Because something occurs after
> >>>>>>>>>>> something else does not imply cause and effect. Did not Newt and
> >>>>>>>>>>> his Contract with America have the major effect? Can you prove
> >>>>>>>>>>> it did not?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and started a series of investigations into
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his Impeachment
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in 1998.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> John Kerry (Democrat 2004 Presidential Candidate) again took
> >>>>>>>>>>>> homosexual
> >>>>>>>>>>>> money in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have many
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sources of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> money, representing the poorer segments of society. Since
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kerry was from
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the state of Massachusetts, a state which earlier in 2004
> >>>>>>>>>>>> legalized Homosexual Marriage through a corrupt bribed
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence of this?
> >>>>>>>>>> Sure, here is some:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/1204/ 120504-marshall.
> htm
> >>>>>>>>>> ===========================================
> >>>>>>>>> This is not evidence. This says someone submitted a bill. Was it
> >>>>>>>>> passed? What is the evidence and was it reviewed?
> >>>>>>>>> Bill
> >>>>>>>> Of course it is evidence. I assume the Massachusetts legislature is
> >>>>>>>> gearing up for hearings on the matter.
> >>>>>>> That's exactly your problem. Someone introduces a bill and you
> >>>>>>> assume the legislature is doing something about it. It probably is
> >>>>>>> not. In any case, you have presented no evidence that it is or what
> >>>>>>> the outcome of any such hearings would be. All you've got is that
> >>>>>>> someone is unhappy and introduced a bill.
> >>>>>>>> You cannot impeach a judge on a whim.
> >>>>>>> No one has been impeached. You can introduce any sort of bill you
> >>>>>>> was.
> >>>>>>>> JudicialWatch also thinks there is corruption in the Massachusetts
> >>>>>>>> judiciary.
> >>>>>>>> Now it must be true.
> >>>>>>> Why must everything this organiztion think is true be true?
> >>>>>> That was a sarcastic statement, but some Conservative and
> >>>>>> Hollywood Homosexuals like JudicialWatch.
> >>>>>>> Nor do they say anything about corruption. You are just lying again
> >>>>>>> because you need. to.
> >>>>>>> Bill
> >>>>>> Straight up: are you being paid for your services on this forum
> >>>>>> by any media organization or have you ever held a job in the media ?
> >>>>>> Your services here are extraordinary; against all odds, losing
> >>>>>> on every single point, you keep fighting.
> >>>>>> Your services deserve to be compensated.
> >>>>>> I just hope Hollywood Homosexuals are making this right for you.
> >>>>>> Politics
> >>>>> Now you are getting really desperate. You know you work for the
> >>>>> Hollywood Homosexuals and are trying to make them ridiculous. Take the
> >>>>> one point above to make it easy. How does someone introducing a bill
> >>>>> provide evidence.
> >>>>> Bill
> >>>>
> http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/06_june/062104_indicem ent_of_marshall_
> II.htm
> >>>> Indictment of
> >>>> Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall and
> >>>> Associate Justices John M. Greaney,
> >>>> Roderick L. Ireland and Judith A. Cowin
> >>>> Count #1
> >>>> Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall Did Encourage, Aid and Abet
> >>>> Atty. Mary Bonauto and GLAD in Bringing the Lawsuit,
> >>>> "Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health"
> >>>> In Violation of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct
> >>>> Politics
> >>> 1. This is not any sort of true indictment. It is just something someone
> >>> wrote.
> >>> 2. It has nothing at all to do with corruption (taking bribes) which was
> >>> your charge.
> >>> 3. This is no different that Scallia, for example, saying he is for the
> >>> death penalty in a public setting.
> >>> In short, you have still provided no evidence for your charge that the
> >>> Mass. court came to their decision because of corruption.
> >>> Bill
> >>
> >>
> http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/5_May/052003_mn_margar et_marshall_know
> s.shtml
> >>
> >> ==================================
> >> Sidebar:
> >> Margaret Marshall Knows
> >> an Ethics Complaint Has Been Filed Against Her
> >> Main Story: What's It Like to Tell Six Judges of the Supreme Court that
> >> They Are Breaking the Law?
> >>
> >> MassNews Staff
> >> May 20, 2003
> >> Margaret Marshall knows that an Ethics Complaint, to remove her from both
> >> cases about homosexual marriage, has been filed with the Commission on
> >> Judicial Conduct because of the judge's close friendship and association
> >> with Atty. Mary Bonauto, the homosexual lawyer for the plaintiffs in the
> >> Goodridge case, as well as other partisans in the case...................
> >> ===================================
> >> Politics
>
> > You are totally obtuse.
> > 1. This has nothing to do with corruption as you claimed and you know it.
> > 2. All this is is someone filing a charge. Which is no different than you
> > making a charge.
> > You continue to not support your claims.
> > Bill
>
> It certainly does deal with corruption. Ex Parte contact with the attorneys
> representing one side of a pending case without the attorneys representing
> the other side present is illegal and is grounds for removal of the judge.
> In addition, appearing a events representing a partisan cause for which
> cases are pending (like the case which resulted in thiscrook legalizing
> Homosexual Marriage is also a violation of court rules and is grounds for
> impeachment and removal of the judge.
> =====================================================
>
> Politics
>
>
>
Please continue this discussion in at least one appropriate newsgroup.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:54:19 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04209 Sekunden |
