Discussion:
Crooked Judges #1 Supporting BSG Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives agenda
(too old to reply)
John Shocked
2005-05-07 02:59:50 UTC
Permalink
========excerpted from the alt.battlestar-galactica thread: =========
==="The BSG Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004"=====
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
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?
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_indicement_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_margaret_marshall_know
s.shtml
==================================
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
Bill
2005-05-07 19:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Shocked
========excerpted from the alt.battlestar-galactica thread: =========
==="The BSG Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004"=====
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
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?
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_indicement_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_margaret_marshall_know
s.shtml
==================================
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.
Loading...