text:
I would (and ultimately is not my decision or yours) dread the the return where desperate women are forced into the back streets and dark corners to get such a procedure done. Nor would I be so bloody minded to suggest there is never an reason for such a procedure. Secondly, whilst on the hyperbole lets get real no one I am aware of is "promoting abortion".
This is how the push to the complete liberalisation of abortion started step by step.
At first there was the plight of women in distress either for medical or compulsory social reasons to avoid the so-called clandestine backstreet abortions. Although there certainly were abortions of this kind most hospitals and docters, even Catholic ones, provided abortions for medical reasons without objection. But the left needed a legal frame to push the envelope. In the first steps of legislation before the procedure was agreed upon the woman had to be counseled and given time for reflection and the abortion wasn't allowed to be carried out after the third month of pregnancy, except when the physical condition of the mother required it or if there was a risk of severe malformation of the foetus. Gradually these regulations were eased to the point that counseling was no longer needed and the time limit stretched to the period when the foetus was deemed livable outside the womb. Now we have reached the situation that pregnancy is considered something that is solely at the discretion of the woman and hers alone, the so-called feminist pro-choice ideal. Now even a married woman is given complete freedom and doesn't have to notify her husband regarding her pregnancy. And even when the pregnancy can no longer be hided she can always go to Spain where some 'docters' perform abortions until right before birth.
What's the next step? Euthanasia on new born babies when the mother isn't pleased with its appearance?
And to remove any doubt, I don't adhere to any religion at all.
Unfortunately you have utterly failed to grasp the broader point I am trying to make despite it being a rather simple concept in order to concentrate on debating selected issues and hurling abuse at me, but in doing so you actually prove my thesis to be correct.
Your wasting your time inviting Oigal to see "the point" BB. He sees it all as a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments he can rearrange to construct a Strawman.
You do make your point very well and it is a good observation put in an understandable way. The reasons folk like Oigal can not admit it, is already addressed in your commentary.
Oh give it a rest BB, attacks personally, mirror mirror Obviously if someone doesn't agree with you or simply ask that you at least make an attempt to justify the chicken little theory off gays, abortion, forced church closures then they are not reasonable thinkers or cool with abortion (wtf). Playing the victim is not a fair exchange for substance.
In fact, i am struggling to see where I attacked your personally, your over the top statements about hyperbole and otherss for sure but they were ducks on the first day of the season.
laugh you have Stevo on your team that should be enough to make you re-consider.
Huh? I am sorry ET. Where again is abortion available without counselling is not required. To the best of my knowledge both Australiia and the USA it is a legal requirement.
Of course, BB and yourself maybe correct and it is a leftist plot as its common knowledge only women of left seek abortions or use conceptives, as a famous commentator of the right pointed out just a week ago…the dirty sluts.
What was the term BB used again Hyer ,…
OK Oigal doesn't get it but perhaps others more prepared to listen calmly to a debate and with an open mind might understand if I put it in more concrete terms.
I refer to 'the day before yesterday', what do I mean by that?
Well let's go back say thirty years to 1982 when young BB was fresh out of high school, eighteen years old and ready to vote for the first time. Let us examine two issues we have already touched on and see what was left wing, what was right wing and what was centre ground.
Immigration, always a hot button issue. The right are absolutely clear they are against it, they don't want foreigners coming in and "taking over" their society, sponging off welfare and stealing our jobs, young BB rejects that as a nonsensical, extreme argument.
The extreme left? They say that actually a society that is too monoethnic, predominantly white to be more specific, is an unhealthy society, they actively want to bring foreigners in and dilute the ethnic make up to create a multi-cultural society. They're not particularly bothered how the immigrants get in, if they break the law arriving well no big deal, nor are they concerned about the socio-political background of the immigrants, whether they might actually be a threat to their new country. Furthermore when they arrive they should be entitled to all the benefits of the state despite not having contributed a cent to society and that anyone who objects to this theory should be branded a racist and face criminal prosecution (qv Oigal).
Hmmm, that's a bit too far for me, what's the centre ground?
Easy, immigrants should be welcome and face no discrimination but ultimately they should be welcomed at the discretion of the host nation and subject to the immigration laws. Their backgrounds should be thoroughly checked and any immigrant unwilling to assimilate or who poses a threat to the new society should be sent back to their homeland otherwise they should be free to raise their families in a peaceable manner, contribute to society and enjoy their new homeland.
Perfect, the moderate position suits me to the ground.
Abortion, the right are against it full stop, no compromise and under no circumstances, no exceptions. No, life isn't like that thinks I, there must be some other course.
The left, absolutely a woman's right to choose, no matter what, it's not really a human baby and can be killed without compunction even to the extent of a fully developed baby being partially "born" and having its head pierced with a fork to kill it before it has fully left the mother's womb. Furthermore any charity, hospital, school, religious institution or college which refuses to accept this should be deprived of any public funding whatsoever. If that means they shut, tough, shut them down, abortion must be provided under any circumstances (qv Oigal).
Gee whizz, that's almost totalitarian Marxism to me, too reminiscent of Mao's China and Stalin's Russia, no definitely not for me, what's the centre ground?
Abortion is an extremely sad measure, it should be allowed in restricted circumstances when there is a genuine, genuine, threat to the mother's life or where the conception is a result of rape or incest. It should be time limited and not simply used as a general method of birth control. If religious institutions, even those receiving funding from the state refuse to facilitate abortion on moral grounds that's fine, a woman can access abortion from other state run facilities.
Yup that sounds about right for me, it turns out I'm a centrist moderate then.
Whoosh by three decades and where am I? Well my principles have remained the same, I still believe the same thing but apparently now I am a neo-Nazi, homophobic, Islamaphobic, sexist, racist, bigot, and those extreme left positions and their equivalent positions on gay rights, animal rights, childrens' rights, family law, the arts or whatever are now apparently the moderate centre ground.
Strange, because I'm pretty sure I didn't change.
Actually BB quite reasonable positions, excusing the hyperbole. Problem is I really dont get your mythical image of the left. Which government does not care how immigrants come legal or not? Certainly Australia has a very involved point system involvoing both professions, need and contributions. So it can't that well it might be refugees you are refering to? Well 16000 in a year is not really many so even if you are hard hearted sort of person who believes every one them is bent on Sharia Law hardly a major issue for concern. If ever there was proof that left has moved with the right is to examine the refugee policies in Australia. One would serioussly think there was a mass invasion which is abject nonsense.
The concerted effort to close down places of worship, well Indonesia maybe but I not seen it in Australia or the USA and both of those are leftish one could say.
Abortion, again which government actually supports what was it….ramming forks into childrens head…seriously. And you started off so well.
Frankly there is little difference between the left and the right only the left contrary to your point has moved to the right not the other way around. Now is there any possibility of actually detailing legislation from a leftist party in Australia or the US that is so left and extreme that is will be the roooon of us all.
My apologies for the handphone post complete with funky finger errors..
Some of us have ideas that could be variously labelled; left, moderate & right. There is really no contradiction in this and it indicates an open mind that will accept improvement as new information becomes available. These folk pick and choose their ideas on the basis of merit.
Yet if I ask a lefties view on a single issue (say climate change for example) I can predict with great accuracy their views on a range of totally unrelated topics such as; Obama, Whaling abortion, Immigration, poverty in Africa and so on. None of these issues are directly related to climate change or even each other. If your view differs in anyway at all, you are set upon and have a bunch of unflattering labels attached to you.
It is true the righties do this as well, but the left more so. It is as if they are part of a religion and if the doctrine is not accepted in its entirety then you are a person with lessor morals worthy only of ridicule. The next part is appealing to the State to compel the non-believer into adopting the doctrine, by force of law. The left are constantly braying in the media for the government to "do something" and make more laws. This is not a feature of the right.
laugh you have Stevo on your team that should be enough to make you re-consider.
Really Oigal? How about the numerous times I have agreed with you?
My apologies for the handphone post complete with funky finger errors..
That is ok mate, we forgive you. The real problem is in your thinking.
I thought of you today and your rose tinted view of Muslim immigrants. I saw a womens magazine open on a desk. It had an article about an acid attack on a pretty blonde lady in the UK. What shocked me was that, of 39 police stations that record such information, they recorded over 2800 such attacks in 2010 (honour type attacks) and this is in England!. This is not the total figure for the UK, just those areas that compile this information. I looked this up and it checks out. Interestingly the Guardian had to force release of this information under freedom of information laws.
I suppose you will now tell us that such attacks are distributed evenly amongst, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Atheists etc.
What BB keeps discreetly silent about (though perhaps he is just unaware of it) is that within the bosom of the catholic church itself there is a lot of disunity on this subject as there is on the use of contraceptive devices. Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vita that stressed the 'obligatory" relation between sexuality and procreation and the immorality of using contraceptive devices was based on a minority report (the majority report of the relevant commission was rejected) to begin with.
Not long after Canadian, Dutch and German bishops issued a statement that users of these devices should not be shut off from the church and that these were matters of one's personal conscience – a point of view that was also inserted in the catechisms brought out by the Dutch and German bishops.
The trouble with the catholic hierarchy riding its theological and ideological hobbyhorses is that it has set itself squarely against basic facts, at the cost of a lot of human suffering particularly in that part of the developing world where the catholic church has a lot of influence.
Because the simple fact is that if abortion cannot be performed legally and safely it will be performed illegally and dangerously.
A report by the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute, published in the October 13 issue of the Lancet, found that global abortion rates are similar regardless of whether a country has restrictive or open reproductive health laws. Worldwide, abortion rates were lowest in Western Europe, where contraceptive services are widespread, and abortion services are legal and accessible.
Wikipedia provides some figures that must be regarded as indicating only the tip of the iceberg because back street abortions and its consequences are in all likelihood only very partially recorded.
Abortion, when induced in the developed world in accordance with local law, is among the safest procedures in medicine.[1] However, unsafe abortions (those performed by persons without proper training or outside of a medical environment) result in approximately 70 thousand maternal deaths and 5 million disabilities per year globally.
One can safely assume that most of these victims are to be found in the developing world. I read that thus far in three Lain American countries abortion has been made illegal under any circumstances.
Catholic women in the developing world are probably far less likely to be affected by the Church's official stance on these matters.
If I can believe the figures provided by an American organization called Catholics for Choice only a minority of American catholics (14% in fact) agreed with the Vatican's position that abortion should be illegal. A study of almost 9,500 women apparently showed that in the US catholic women have abortions at the same rate as other women.
Abortion, again which government actually supports what was it….ramming forks into childrens head…seriously. And you started off so well.
The nice term for it is "partial birth abortion", which government supports it? The one led by Mr Barack H Obama for a start, git googlin' if you don't believe me.
Yawn Arie.
I'm not a Catholic I have no interest in their internal debates about contraception (or your interminable links in lieu of being able to form your own opinion) in the same way I don't care about Jewish aversion to pork, but I do care when a government tries to use the law to abolish freedom of conscience.
I'm a liberal you see, an old fashioned one, not a totalitarian leftist.
Dearie me guys, seriously are we going to pretend that these are not extreme hyerbole to use that favourite term. No wonder you have trouble framing a real debate, lets see BO is bad president because he promotes abortion and sticks forks in babies heads. Shall we now tralk death panels?
Stevie, you are a dill (yes personal insult intended). So Muslims should be banned in Australia because they will be carrying around buckets of acid. Shall we google and find this weeks evidence of the EDL of guttering and ban Englishmen or perhaps the latest KKK rememants latest idea of fun. See the trouble with such silliness too many people who have never traveled beyond their favourite watering hole actually believe sort of brutality is representative of Muslims as a whole. Which even BB would acknowledge is absolute nonsense. Seriously why don,t you pop across to our resident dank blog, his commentators are filled with that kind of logic and ignorance.
Oh and do try not to confuse law and order issues with immigration issues.
Oh BB, It was a shame , I was kind of hoping you might be mellowing to discuss issues rationally but I guess not, easier to come up with hideous mental image and pretend that is the cornerstone of the BO government. Of course I could just as easily write the right are supporters of coat hanger surgery. Of course that would be silly.
That said the abortion thing is a red herring anyway, pretty much a bipartisan position until we reach the far wings but much easier to raise the emotions than actually providing evidence to the contary that people like Reagan and Goldworthy would be disavowed by the loudest sections of the Republicians today as lefty liberals.
I'm not a Catholic I have no interest in their internal debates about contraception (or your interminable links in lieu of being able to form your own opinion) in the same way I don't care about Jewish aversion to pork, but I do care when a government tries to use the law to abolish freedom of conscience
BB I have pointed out before that the quotes I give do not concern matters of opinion but matters of fact. The cheapest shot of those who don't like to hear of those facts is to insinuate that I can't form my own opinions.
Perhaps in your case the confusion between these categories is not deliberate. I have noticed throughout your posts that you seem to have some difficulty in distinguishing opinions, particularly your own opinions, from facts.
You not being a catholic robs you of the last excuse for your crotchety convictions, You a "liberal" and a defender of "freedom of conscience" – I have rarely encountered a more misplaced self image. You would like everybody to be held to the standards you encountered in your youth (in god knows what forlorn village) because change seems to frighten you. In order to explain it you come up with conspiracy theories like your "long march through the institutions". The changes you deplore have, by and large, to do with greater freedom of conscience, not less. But trying to make you see that is more than flesh and blood can bear.
Oh and do try not to confuse law and order issues with immigration issues.
No confusion at all Oigal. Some immigrant groups are (as a proportion of population) massively over represented in crime and negative social statistics. Denials to the contrary are a reflection of your ignorance, not of mine.
And listen to you go, complete with references to the KKK, all because I pointed out an actual event and a real problem. I have never suggested that such violence is representative of Muslim people generally, nor do I have a problem with Muslim immigration into non Muslim countries.
But the simple fact remains that there are major problems with radical Muslims in Europe and some other immigrant groups as well. Denying the reality of this will not address the problem and benefits no one. Maybe you would feel different if one of your kids were a victim. You callously disregard the victims of these crimes in order to appear liberal and enlightened. You are neither. You ignore social issues and make intemperate remarks about those who care enough to speak up and want to improve things.
I should add that my Muslim friends tend to share my views on those problems. In fact many immigrants (including refugees) have harsher views than my own, views that would have you shrilling hysterically Oigal. Their opinion of people like you is not what you would like it to be either. They want to get away from those problems and are very sensitive about them reappearing in their new home !
It makes me wonder just who you think you represent with your rants, or if you have ever listened to anyone other than yourself.
Whether or not migrants are overrepresented in criminal activity seems to be more a question of country of origin than migrant status as such. In Australia migrants are, on the whole, underrepresented in crime compared to native born Australians but certain ethnic groups such as those from the Lebanon, Turkey, Vietnam, New Zealand and Romania are overrepresented.
That, nevertheless, it still can be said that so-called CALD (culturally and linguistically diverse) migrants are underrepresented in crime finds its explanation in the fact that the majority of these migrants do not come from the countries mentioned above (with the exception of Vietnam) but from Italy, China, Vietnam, India and the Philippines, in that order.
In my country of origin migrants come mainly from Morocco, Turkey, the Dutch Antilles and Surinam. All those groups seem to be overrepresented in crime. Islam as such does not seem to play a role. In fact, strict Muslims are less represented in crime than their laxer brethren.
For the US I found the definite assertion that migrants are underrepresented in the prison population. This is somewhat surprising seeing the difficult position these people often are in but here it is:
In 2000, 3 percent of the 45.2 million males age 18 to 39 in the United States were in federal or state prisons or local jails at the time of the census. Surprisingly, at least from the vantage point of conventional wisdom, the incarceration rate of native-born men in this age group (3.5 percent) was 5 times higher than the incarceration rate of foreign-born men (0.7 percent). The foreign-born rate was nearly two-and-a-half times less than the 1.7 percent rate for native-born non-Hispanic white men and almost 17 times less than the 11.6 percent rate for native-born black men. The lower incarceration rate among immigrants was found in every pan-ethnic category without exception.
(Rimbaut,R.G. & Ewing W.E. The Myth of Immigrant Criminality, Special Report for the Immigration Policy Center)
Whether or not migrants are overrepresented in criminal activity seems to be more a question of country of origin than migrant status as such.
I agree with that much Arie. It important to consider the RATE of offending, when considering such things.
certain ethnic groups such as those from the Lebanon, Turkey, Vietnam, New Zealand and Romania are overrepresented.
New Zealand is an "ethnic group" ! Well you learn something new every day 🙂
I am sorry ET. Where again is abortion available without counselling is not required. To the best of my knowledge both Australiia and the USA it is a legal requirement.
Counselling like in the UK perhaps.
Ah yes Arie, but it takes all the nonsense out of it if Stevie and its ilk can't raise the Muslim card because they don't have much else. Lets talk about the left politics in Australia and The USA…Ya they are bad look shiny thing..evil Muslim honor crimes in England…
Ooops Stevie you are a dill
Wow..BB. so you have linked us to reported illegal actions, I think my point stands.
No wonder you have trouble framing a real debate, lets see BO is bad president because he promotes abortion and sticks forks in babies heads.
Oigal this is getting rather tiresome, it is you that has trouble framing a real debate. Straw men do not constitute real debate.
Twice now you have challenged me on a point of fact, twice you have queried a statement I have made, twice implying that I make things up, twice I have proved to you that something you did not believe was in fact true.
Having provided the evidence for you twice instead of acknowledging that what I stated was in fact true you run off in a wild tangent, twice.
To recap, I said religious organisations were being forced to close because their moral teachings meant they could not abide by government policy.
You challenged that assertion, implying that I made it up.
I provided evidence that proved I was indeed correct and showed that there is a reasonable chance that more such institutions may have to close in the future. Instead of acknowledging that I was correct you make a wild and irrelevant rant against Catholic institutions and their public funding.
I then described the process of partial birth abortion. You refused to believe that such a procedure actually existed and couldn't accept that any politician would support such a thing, again implying I was factually incorrect.
I am factually correct on both counts, such a procedure exists and prominent politicians do support it.
Once again instead of acknowledging that I was correct you run off on another wild straw man chase about Barack Obama personally sticking forks in babies, nowhere was such an allegation made.
Pooor stuff, poor stuff indeed Oigal, straw men do seem to be your forte.
Just for the record Oigal, to save you time in the future and to save you having to think up any more wild straw men, if I say something is factually correct, you can trust me that it is.
Unlike you I do not make wild unsubstantiated claims.
Lets pause for a minute Oigal. Do you really honestly think I or BB are against Muslims and immigrants?
I am half "sand nigger" and seem to get on fine with most of the Muslims I have met. Any conflict has not been the result of them being Muslims. I know nothing about BB, but he has choosen a very strange place to live, given his alledged (by you) dislike of all things Muslim. I think he has voted with his feet on that one.
The funny thing is, that IM records pages and pages of you running down the dominant faith of your host country. Yet I have never done so, nor does it seem to be a feature of BB's posts.
Either your losing your frail grip on reality, or your just being a troll. Trolls I dont mind, but double standards annoy me.
Huh? I am sorry ET. Where again is abortion available without counselling is not required. To the best of my knowledge both Australiia and the USA it is a legal requirement.
Red herring or not, I suppose you realize that these counseling procedures are only a smokescreen to appease those parties that still consider abortion as the taking of human life. I have no information on the counseling requirements of every European country but I know that in The Netherlands and in Belgium no 3rd party counseling is required, only that a candidate for abortion has to inform and discuss with a medical doctor that her pregnancy causes a "state of emergency" after which she is to be given a 5 day time of reflection. No specification is mentioned what constitutes a "state of emergency". In the Netherlands this 5 day reflection time seems to be interpreted very loosely which has given rise to the phenomenon of 'abortion tourism' by which women from countries with more restrictive legislations travel – sometimes in group – to The Netherlands to have it over and done quickly and easily. I personally know of two cases in which the pregnant women went to Bergen-op-Zoom in The Netherlands to be back home the same day, no longer pregnant.
I have no information about the procedures in Australia but I guess you will be in a better position to obtain it. In the US the situation is more complicated as the counseling procedure falls under state law. 35 States require "3rd party" counseling of which 26 provide in a waiting period period, 24 hours in most cases. You can find a complete overview in the Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion, published by the Guttmacher Institute. The definition of who an abortion counselor is and what their training should be is very unclear.
While in the US I have seen a documentary about an "abortion clinic" situated in a private home, where the counseling was carried out on the premises by the abortionist's wife in a little office adjacent to the practioner's operating room, a two-bladed knife so to speak. As a countermeasure a Christian pro-life organization had rented a house right in front on the opposite side of the street to provide counseling from a different perspective. They had posted volunteers in front of the abortion clinic almost around the clock to try and persuade women who wanted to enter to pay a visit to their facilities first.
Pro-choice feminists now want to have every waiting period canceled on the grounds that if a pregnant woman consults an abortionist she has already made up her mind.
I know, personally, a number of women who have had abortions. It was no problem at all having the proceedure granted. The legal requirements are easily dealt with, as are any other restrictions. I know of no women who has been denied an abortion. Doctors will usually grant it after talking with them a bit about their circumstances and mental health. Usually the hard part is dealing with it emotionally. The legalities do not concern doctors too much, they find a way to comply with that side of things.
In one example the woman was married and in exceptionally good health. The marriage was stable and the couple was financially sound. They had been married over 10 years. The abortion was quickly granted and carried out.
I have heard there has been at some time discussions in the UK whether gender based abortions (the pregnant woman having the choice to have an abortion in case she isn't satisfied with the gender of her future child).would be allowed. Do you happen to have information on this issue?
Tiresome or not, it is not me that is coming up with unstanable straw men. Time and again you have come up with extereme or in one case illegal actions to justify what was previously an implied and wide spread government policy. Shall I trawl the Internet to find a far right Republician position and declare that as representative of the right? BB give the victim thing a rest, you implied there was a concerted plan to close places of worship, nonsense! You implied the left promote abortion as no foul no harm option, nonsense.
That said, I am not a supporter of abortion personally however my issue arises when people try and raise it as some sort of social engineering plan of the left. That is both irrational and really just plain silly.
Stevie, and I really don't know why I bother. You don't get to raise post after post on bogey men Muslims along with factually incorrect but oft repeated claims of over representation in crime and then claim some sort of rational position. Fact is for instance, Indonesian immigrants make a very valuable contribution to Australia but frankly you would not know listening to the toss you post. As Arie pointed out less to do with religion than ethnic group but hey why ruin a good bogey with facts. OH and spare us the Walter Mitty people you know, like your detective friends etc etc, no one believes a word of it.
ET, granted but again that is a significant difference from suggesting it is an inspired, pre meditated master plan of the left. Which as always been my point, taking the extreme, the illegal, the outriders and pretending that supports a central plank of your position just exposes the weakness of the position in the first place. Now we are moving onto what may have been said by someone somewhere? Makes discussion pointless, I am sure I can find some Polly somewhere proposing outlawing contraception and banning all immigration but it hardly qualifies as the position of the right.
Indonesian immigrants make a very valuable contribution to Australia but frankly you would not know listening to the toss you post.
Here we go again with the lies ! Where did I ever mention Indonesian immigrants or say I was oppossed to immigration?
Fact is I have said many many times I am not oppossed to immigration.
As Arie pointed out less to do with religion than ethnic group but hey why ruin a good bogey with facts.
And my reply to Aries comment…
I agree with that much Arie. It important to consider the RATE of offending, when considering such things.
You really are full of it Oigal. It absurd to think I hold the views you suggest. In real life I am often defending the rights of those people against poorly informed beliefs. I pick you as being full of it on the internet but going with what ever view is popular in real life. A total fake. Maybe trying to make up for some past wrongs or something, I dunno! Y. ou let your real thoughts slip out when you rant on about people of strong faith, be it in Indonesia or the USA. Hardly a sign of tolerance is it.
OH and spare us the Walter Mitty people you know, like your detective friends etc etc, no one believes a word of it.
I work in the legal system. You can believe what you like and unlike you, I dont lie. Its crystal clear that many posting here have limited exposure to the failures of society. You lack empathy with the majority of people, including those you pretend to represent. Its obvious to those of us who know what we are talking about. Sure you may fool a few well intentioned people with your crap, but no one with who gets their information from reality will buy into it. You need to get off your high horse and have a look what is going on at earth level. I think Australia owes Indonesia a big debt for tolerating you all these years, it cant have been easy on them.
As expected you ignored my 8:33 post. You have shot your credibility [sic] to bits.
I am not a supporter of abortion personally
Hi I am Oigal……. so you think you should be able to control a womens body and force her to have the baby from you raping her. How many rape babies will you force this enslaved Muslim immigrant woman to have. You repulsive KKK supporter. Go back to your local bar and talk about bashing little Indonesian kids up………… and so on.
See Oigal………. how does that sound? A bit fu#ked up ?
I imply nothing Oigal, I state facts that are relevant to a debate.
I don't trawl anywhere, the facts I present are well known and fully in the public domain, the fact that you are unaware of them says more about you than it does about me.
Now drop the straw men and stick to rational debating points
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-15
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact


text:
Complete Pitching, Fielding Lead Deerfield to State Finals
Mon, 27 May 2013 03:44:24 GMT —
Brookwood School had Deerfield-Windsor against the ropes after their GISA state semifinal opener Friday night.
Lessons learned from Saturday: you can't count out the Knights and their roster of nine seniors.
A complete team performance led Deerfield to the GISA-AAA State Championship round for a third time in six seasons. The Knights took the series against Brookwood, 11-1 in five innings and 6-3 for the state title spot.
Complete game pitching performances by Weston King and Justin Glover and game saving catches by outfielder Ke'Marvin Pitts and Davis Hines pushed Deerfield to within two victories of its first baseball state championship in 10 seasons.
Deerfield meets old, rival Tattnall Square in the championship series. Game one will be played Friday in Macon at 6 PM. The series resumes Saturday at 2 PM.

subset: commoncrawl