Jeep thing or sheep thing?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>>
>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Marc wrote:
>>
>> >Well, you may want to take a look at this:
>>
>http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/as4.html?CFID=2115329&CFTOKEN=75269690.
>> >
>> >Funny how that is buried pretty deep in their web site - punching in key
>> >words turns up absolutely nothing related to the orignal article or
>> >above policy letter.
>> >
>> >Here's my take on it: The APA realized that the public isn't yet ready
>> >for the next step in the gay agenda, and because Congress and other
>> >notables were raising such a stink, future gov't funding for studies by
>> >those publishing in the APA journal were at risk. So they are now
>> >saying that they don't buy into the "science" that proves that sexual
>> >child abuse does no harm. Hmmm - quite a dilemma for them: Admit that
>> >what they publish isn't always true science, or prove themselves guilty
>> >of Marc's accusation of rejecting scientific proof of something when you
>> >disagree with the results. The APA has obviously in this case chosen
>> >the latter. I would say that their credibility has suffered a bit over
>> >this.
>
>> You sure are a bitter person.
>
>Not sure why you say that, other than as a diversion.
>
>> They didn't hide the study.
>
>Pretend you don't know where that letter is, and try to find it on their
>web site. Go ahead - punch in some key words and see if it comes up.
>Try to find that study using key words. You can't. But they make their
>gay legislative activism pages really easy to find.
>
>> They let
>> everyone see it.
>
>Go ahead - try to find it drilling down from their home page. Key words
>in their site's search engine won't turn it up. I wonder why?
>
>> The APA doesn't rule on what is published.
>
>Supposedly what they publish is peer-reviewed science, and therefore,
>according to Lloyd, as science, is indisputable.
>
>I am simply countering Lloyd's continuing assertion that anything that
>the APA publishes is based on science, and since, in his mind, once
>something that is declared as "science" (as long as the "science" agrees
>with liberal causes) can't be disputed, that I can't question what comes
>out of the APA

If you think I claimed that, then you are dumber than I thought.


>(APA publishes it; it is scientific; therefore it is
>indisputable; therefore I must be wrong to question it). This study was
>published by the APA. It was peer-reviewed and published as
>scientifically based. Then you indicate that it would be wrong to
>disagree with a "scientific" study just because the results disagree
>with the results one would like to have obtained. Yet, when you read
>the retraction letter of the APA, it is very clear that they are
>denouncing the study with absolutely no scientific basis for denouncing
>it - only that they can't support its conclusions, and they took legal
>measures to ensure that that study can never be used in court to cause a
>ruling in favor of an adult having sex with a minor.
>
>My main point is that just because something is labelled science does
>not make it correct or indisputable (and of course everyone - including
>me, including you - says they agree with that. But Lloyd likes to put
>the "science" label on everything that he agrees with so that he can
>claim that it is therefore indisputable.

Looking at all the studies, all the data, the APA has officially made a
determination about homosexuality, as the AMA might about SARS. Sorry if this
interferes with your campaign to gas homosexuals.

>
>> They don't
>> even have to believe it. You seem to think that their credibility is
>> linked to the results of studies. I guess if Car and Driver finds that a
>> Viper is slower than a Corvette in a fair and valid comparison, they
>> shouldn't publish it because it is contrary to what people expect? If they
>> do publish it, would they loose credibility if it was later discovered that
>> there was an undetectable problem with the Viper?
>
>If the "problem" was that the Viper was not actually faster, then yes -
>how would they explain that they "proved" it was faster on the track
>when it wasn't without losing credibility? I think you're proving my
>point with the example.
>
>The study in question used bad science (the way they grouped the
>subjects). So maybe there was some attempted sleight-of-hand - yet it
>was peer reviewed, so why wasn't it caught (maybe because the reviewers
>were willing to fudge on the science if the results were as desired?).
>
>> I guess you'd prefer they do the former and hide anything they don't like.
>
>By the former - meaning state that what they publish isn't true
>science? (as far as hiding anything they don't like - I don't konw -
>maybe they do that, but I didn't list that as an option) Hey - it's not
>my dilemma to resolve - I didn't create it. You were the one that said
>that it would be wrong to discard "science" if the science disagreeed
>with your desired results - yet that's what they did. I'm just the
>messenger - you make the call - you tell me which way you want it -
>doesn't matter to me.
>
>> Is that the Conservative way?
>>
>> >Perhaps they will test the waters again in 5 or 10 years on the subject
>> >to see if the American public is ready for the "next step". I'm sure
>> >their colleagues at the NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association
>> >- I didn't make that up - there is such an organization) will send them
>> >the right signals when they think they've adequately paved the way for
>> >their advocacy "science" and legislative pushes.
>> >
>> >Oh - and Lloyd - the "research" and published article were done by
>> >people in the Psych department of Temple U.
>>
>> I read it. It seems that the focus was on the lasting effects. That is,
>> can people who have been molested recover to live normal lives. The answer
>> was yes (according to the study, which I haven't studied).
>
>So a "scientific" study shows that there's no real harm to those lives.
>Sorry - I disagree, and I don't need a study to tell me that. APA's
>peer-reviewed "scientific" studies have no credibility with me.
>"Science" can be faked - I've seen it done.
>
>> You take that
>> "yes" and use it as an excuse to claim that molestation isn't bad.
>
>And the APA seems to think they have to denounce it for that very
>reason. Are they saying that the study was not good science? If so,
>what does that say for their peer review process. It certainly proves
>the point that just because something is claimed to be scientific
>doesn't mean that it is. Again - that's where Lloyd's problem is: If
>you want to win an argument, then claim that science agrees with your
>position, so therefore you proved your position. Example: Every other
>year, a "scientific" medical study comes out "proving" that margerine is
>less harmful for you than butter. Then two years later one will come
>out saying butter is less harmful. Then another study in favor of
>margerine, and so on ad infinitum. If Lloyd is in favor of margerine
>(or butter, take your pick), he will reference all the scientific
>studies "proving" that margerine (or butter) is better, and that all the
>other studies were, by definition, invalid because we all know only
>right-wing conservative groups would come out with a study showing that
>butter (or margerine) is better.
>
>I don't reject science - I just don't accept something as true science
>because someone says it is science or that it has the seal of approval
>of the AMA or the APA or whatever on it.
>
>> That
>> isn't what was studied, according to the link you posted. That isn't what
>> was found, according to the link you posted.
>
>Again, why does the APA denounce the study after-the-fact couching their
>objections in terms of adult/child sex and its effects and acceptance?
>It doesn't fit with your assertion that we let the "science" speak for
>itself and can't push the science aside for what we know to be wrong.
>
>> It is really easy to debunk the stances you fabricate.
>
>Except that there are definite agendas for this stuff, and you can bet
>there are people in it who are intertwined with the APA and other
>"credible" groups just waiting for the time to be right for these next
>"logical" steps in our legal system - we just aren't quite there yet.
>Seems I've been hearing rumors of moves afoot to lower the age of
>consent to something like 11 years old or something?. Someone has to be
>"pushing" that kind of stuff for it even to be considered - it might be
>interesting to find out who.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
>Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Since I clearly said that I *don't* see an agenda in books promoted at
>>places like amazon.com pushing for men-on-girls or women-on-boys, you
>>must be referring to the agenda for men-on-boys. Well, for starters,
>>how about the book that Amazon is selling? How about the NAMBLA (North
>>American Man-Boy Love Association)?
>
>You conveniently ignore the gay community's near-universal loathing
>and repudiation of NAMBLA and its goals.

Sure he does, because it goes against his "final solution" for gays.
 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:46:20 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I just don't buy it. Wall street didn't know he would be president until
> >December. The slowdown was underway well before the election. Further,
> >Wall St. has historically appreciated conservatives in much the same way
the
> >military does. They're on the same page.
>
> So if they appreciated Bush so much, why didn't the economy improve
> on his election ? Face it, Wall Street didn't like Bush's election.
> They still have little confidence that he can fix things.
>

Gee, I wonder if earnings reports have anything to do with it. The problem
with the 90's economy was that so much of it was not based on solid footing.
There was no real basis for all that wealth; it was speculation.

Bush's reliance on basic principles may not sit well with everyone, but it
won't encourage false confidence.


> >I don't buy this either. There's no emnity between Bush and Wall Street.
> >And whether investors like what he says on any particular day or not only
> >points out the different jobs they have.
>
> Believe what you like. It's been mapped out by investors. I saw
> the chairman of AO Solomon discuss it in a TV interview.
>
> >Bush is one of the most
> >disciplined and principled Presidents we've ever had. The principles he
> >holds to are sound and promise to take us where we need to be as a
country.
>
> Those would be the principles that include knowingly lying to the
> American people to get support for a war started for financial
> motives and having nothing to do with our security ?
>
> >He doesn't believe in cheap gimmickery
>
> He's a hasn't got a clue or the intelligence to cover up that fact.
> But, I digress.
>
> >I hope you didn't miss the sarcasm. Also, I'll give Clinton credit for
> >practicing fiscal conservatism.
>
> Now you're on to it. That's what Wall Street liked, a return to over
> spending is what they feared, they got over spending with Bush.
>
> >Combined with a period of growth, the
> >result can be... well.... Reagan-like. Reagan couldn't get fiscal
> >conservatism with his Congress, but it was HIS policy. It's what he ran
on.
> >Cut taxes, cut spending.
>
> BS. That might be Reagan's talk, but that wasn't his walk. He spent
> and spent. His deficits crippled GHW Bush and pummelled the economy.
>
> >> The part about the economy is fact. That's already in the economic
> >> history books. Take a look, concentrate on the part about deficit
> >> spending under Reagan and deficit reduction under Clinton.
> >>
> >
> >What? That deficits existed under Reagan and were reduced under Clinton?
or
> >that Reagan's policies resulted in deficits while Clinton's policies
> >resulted in deficit reduction. The former is fact. The latter is
fiction.
>
> Really ? You might want to check the numbers. Ronald Reagan increased
> the deficit in record ways to record proportions. The influx of gov't
> spending acted as temporary stimulus on the economy as all that
> spending flowed in, then as drain when the bills started to come due.
>
> This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issues, it's simple economics.
>
> >No he didn't. He was indecisive wrt military action against Al Quaeda.
He
> >missed so many opportunities to deal with those people that's it's
> >sickening. On the other hand, Reagan didn't hesitate to act. He put
> >several 2000 lb bombs on Muamar's front porch and, no doubt, a few more
> >direct msgs fell on his hears. The message was heard.
>
> BS. Take a look at all the terrorist incidents on Reagan's watch and
> then try that again. Tell me what happened after 240 marines were
> killed in Beruit.
>
> Bob


 

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > I just don't buy it. Wall street didn't know he would be president
until
> > December. The slowdown was underway well before the election. Further,
> > Wall St. has historically appreciated conservatives in much the same way
> the
> > military does. They're on the same page.
> >
>
> Wall Street doesen't give a **** about Republicans or Democrats.
>
> The problems with the economy are much more basic and serious
> than a simple business turndown.
>
> Fundamentally, we have a big problem with Social Security and Medicare.
> Simply put, the way the program is run now - paying for the retirees out
> of the general fund, and having NO Social Security investment trust fund -
> is utterly unsupportable over the long haul.
>
> And, now we are totally f****d because ever since Social Security
> was instituted, people have been saving less for retirement. After all,
> why should they save for retirement? SS will pay for it, and besides
that,
> the money they would have been putting away for retirement has gone to SS
> taxes.
>
> There's really only one way out of it. Wall Street knows what it is, and
> so do all the Presidents and party leaders. Simply put, the way out is to
> NOT pay the retirees back even the principle of what they put into the
> SS program, let alone the interest they should have gotten.
>

Y'know, I generally agree with you! Wall Street is less polictical than
they are bottom line oriented. And I agree that the level of obligation SS
and MediCare place on the economy are... well "scary" isn't an adequate
word. Nightmarish? Because everyone "wants theirs", it's a seemingly
unsolvable problem. The beneficiaries are the voters!

I don't believe there's a conspiracy. But it does seem like a "pass the
buck" exercise to each successive administration.

> Now, obviously if the government just simply comes right out and tells
> people this, there will be a revolution. So they have to do it more
subtly.
> The way this is being done is simply to devalue the currency, otherwise
> known as inflation. Basically you just print up a bunch of money and
> give it to the retirees, and by the time they notice that the dollars your
> paying them aren't worth **** compared to the dollars they paid you,
> they are dead. (and the smart ones that notice this early will just
simply
> not retire, they will continue to work)
>
> Now people aren't total dim bulbs so you can't just go publishing high
> inflation figures any more than you can tell them that they aren't going
> to get the value they put into SS back. So the government hides the
> true rate of inflation by redefining how inflation is calculated. The
> government also makes subtle adjustments in the economy to create
> "targeted" inflation.
>
> For example, take mortgage interest rates. If you drop mortgage
> interest rates, you create a lot of housing demand from people who
> are already in homes. They sell and buy new homes, other people
> buy theirs, etc. It's a big money circle and every time it goes around,
> housing prices go up. Thus, if you can run 20% inflation in housing
> prices alone, and 1% inflation in everything else, you can claim to the
> ignorant that the inflation rate is only 1%.
>
> And of course since local government funding is usually tied to property
> taxes, if you can get housing prices jacked up, the local governments
> can raise assessed value of property, and thus rake in more taxes. In
> short, it's a tax increase that occurs without an actual percentage change
> on the bill.
>
> Anyway, all these games have been enough to keep SS balanced so
> far, but we are coming up on a serious bulge of retirees in the next
> 10 years. So Bush has to start running big budget deficits now. Those
> big deficits cause the government to borrow big money from the
> investment community, which then allows the government later on to
> owe giant amounts of interest. What you will see is that when all the
> retirees start drawing SS, the government will start printing up a ton
> of money and using it to pay all that interest
> back - that will flood a bunch of extra money into the economy, which
> will devalue the currency, thus your tax revenues go way up in dollar
> figures (because the inflation this causes raises the dollar figures of
> everything) and as soon as the actual inflation (as opposed to the
> "reported" inflation figures) exceeds the SS COLA, then bam-
> your able to pay the retirees.
>
> It makes no difference that the money the retirees get off SS is going
> to only be enough to allow them to buy tins of cat food for dinner,
> the government won't be liable because they will have met the "letter"
> of the SS guarentee.
>
> > > I used to think that he should come out and at least rally the country
> > > on the economy. Then I checked the stats and found out that every
> > > day he came out to speak, Wall Street went short. Some folks made
> > > a good pile of money anticipating that. "Selling the President short"
> > > is now part of the nomenclature there.
> > >
> >
> > I don't buy this either. There's no emnity between Bush and Wall
Street.
> > And whether investors like what he says on any particular day or not
only
> > points out the different jobs they have.
>
> > Bush is one of the most
> > disciplined and principled Presidents we've ever had. The principles he
> > holds to are sound and promise to take us where we need to be as a
> country.
>
> This is very true. It takes someone very disciplined to understand
exactly
> what he's doing to SS and still go through with it.
>
> > He doesn't believe in cheap gimmickery
> >
>
> He may not but his party still is run by the folks that ran that Monica
> Lewinsky sideshow, and that was cheap gimmickery if there ever
> was gimmickery. At least though, they did finally get rid of Trent Lot
> and Newt.
>
> >
> > I hope you didn't miss the sarcasm. Also, I'll give Clinton credit for
> > practicing fiscal conservatism. Combined with a period of growth, the
> > result can be... well.... Reagan-like. Reagan couldn't get fiscal
> > conservatism with his Congress, but it was HIS policy. It's what he ran
> on.
> > Cut taxes, cut spending.
> >
>
> Clinton did a lot of economic damage that Bush is repairing.
Fundamentally
> Clinton did not have the stomach to set up what is going to be the biggest
> ass-screwing of the Baby Boomers once they all retire and find out their
SS
> benefits are worthless. If Clinton and his policies were in office 15
years
> from now, there would be no targeted high inflation rate, no way to pay
back
> the
> SS holders. Instead the country would just have to declare bankruptcy.
>
> Ted
>
>


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >>
> >> "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Man-boy love is not supported by heterosexual women. It is not
> >> > supported by heterosexual men.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Absolutely not true. NAMBLA has managed to scrape together
> >> hetrosexuals of both sexes that support their "position" they are on
> >> their web site.
> >>
> >> Believing that this man-boy love crap is confined to a homos
> >> is ignoring a large part of the problem.
> >>
> >> Ted
> >
> >Ted - A man who has sex with a boy is a homo - even if he has a wife
> >(woman) at home.
>
>
> Not true. Lots of adults have, according to studies, experimented with
sex
> with the same sex.
>
>
> >Anything else is a semantics game.
> >
> >Bill Putney
> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >address with "x")
> >
> >
> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Must be nice to have a public employee job where you have time to respond to
Usenet all day.
Also the way Lloyd vigorously defends the gay agenda...you got to wonder
about Lloyd?


 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I trust history will judge Reagan and Clinton appropriately.
>>
>> I agree. They will objectively look at the number of indictments and
>> convictions of people from their staff or campaign. They will objectively
>> look at the deficits through their terms.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>I don't think history will be that partisan. Iran-Contra will be part of
>the picture. So will deficits. What history won't do, as you're doing, is
>look only at those two corners of the picture
>
>In the 80's, congress wouldn't restrain spending. That's why there were
>deficits.

Reagan was totally out of the loop?


> Reagan had a choice. Achieve the vital goals of Peace Through
>Strengh, restoring America's Self Confidence, Creating New Jobs (i.e.,
>wealth) Through Tax Cuts but fail to eliminate the deficit OR achieve none
>of them by allowing the Democratic Congress to control the agenda. Easy
>choice.

The budgets Congress passed were within 1% of those Reagan proposed. To say
Congress was responsible for the spending is to ignore the facts.

>
>And we all know that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is
>what they want to spend money on. Defense vs. Social Programs. In the
>80's, both got what they wanted and we got deficits. The true test is to
>measure the value of that spending. Reagan's spending priorities resulted
>in the downfall of the Soviet Empire

Prove it.


>and the resurrection of American
>Leadership in the free world. The Democratic spending priorities
>transferred trillions to feel good programs that never seem to arrive at
>their intended destinations and create new dependency classes.
>
>
Yeah, feeding hungry children is so much less important than lining the
pockets of millionaires.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >This the next liberal disinformation campaign: Bush had it in for
>Saddam.
>> >9/11 was just a pretext. He lied and fabricated whatever evidence he
>> >thought would convince enough of us that if Saddam lived another week he
>> >might just attack us.
>>
>> He certainly told an untruth in the State of the Union address. That
>> information was fabricated (though not by the US). But, perhaps since it
>> agreed with what he wanted, he didn't have it investigated as much as if
>it
>> didn't. He certainly wouldn't have said it if it didn't agree with what
>he
>> wanted to find.
>>
>> >There never was any significant WMD programs, he was
>> >never really a threat to the US.
>>
>> All evidence before the US attack was that there was no WMD program. All
>> evidence after is that there is not WMD program.
>>
>> Are you asserting that there have been weapons of mass destruction found
>in
>> Iraq?
>>
>
>Democrats are salivating to make this Bush's "Gulf of Tonkin".

Weasel alert!


>You guys
>will work it over and over and over until you've dug yourselves into a deep
>hole. In the end, Bush will be proven correct on his Iraq policy. I've
>always believed the Iraq war was less about 9/11 itself and more about how
>9/11 changed our strategic outlook on Middle East terrorism. To win that
>war, Hussein had to go. If you listen to Bush and Cheney speak, this is
>what you hear.
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >
>> >> > Man-boy love is not supported by heterosexual women. It is not
>> >> > supported by heterosexual men.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Absolutely not true. NAMBLA has managed to scrape together
>> >> hetrosexuals of both sexes that support their "position" they are on
>> >> their web site.
>> >>
>> >> Believing that this man-boy love crap is confined to a homos
>> >> is ignoring a large part of the problem.
>> >>
>> >> Ted
>> >
>> >Ted - A man who has sex with a boy is a homo - even if he has a wife
>> >(woman) at home.
>>
>>
>> Not true. Lots of adults have, according to studies, experimented with
>sex
>> with the same sex.
>>
>>
>> >Anything else is a semantics game.
>> >
>> >Bill Putney
>> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> >address with "x")
>> >
>> >
>> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> >-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
>Must be nice to have a public employee job where you have time to respond to
>Usenet all day.
>Also the way Lloyd vigorously defends the gay agenda...you got to wonder
>about Lloyd?
>
>
The way you and others attack it, we've got to wonder about you too. Where
were you when Matthew Shepherd was beaten to death?
 
"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >I don't think he is acting, sad as that is.
> > >
> > I see bigots of a feather flock together.
>
> I have no comment on this discussion, only on your obvious lack of
> intelligence.

Oh no, now you've done it. Now Lloyd's going to trot out
his academic credentials to prove how smart he is.

Floyd


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Man-boy love is not supported by heterosexual women. It is not
> >> >> > supported by heterosexual men.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Absolutely not true. NAMBLA has managed to scrape together
> >> >> hetrosexuals of both sexes that support their "position" they are on
> >> >> their web site.
> >> >>
> >> >> Believing that this man-boy love crap is confined to a homos
> >> >> is ignoring a large part of the problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ted
> >> >
> >> >Ted - A man who has sex with a boy is a homo - even if he has a wife
> >> >(woman) at home.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not true. Lots of adults have, according to studies, experimented with
> >sex
> >> with the same sex.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Anything else is a semantics game.
> >> >
> >> >Bill Putney
> >> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >> >address with "x")
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >> >-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
> >
> >Must be nice to have a public employee job where you have time to respond
to
> >Usenet all day.
> >Also the way Lloyd vigorously defends the gay agenda...you got to wonder
> >about Lloyd?
> >
> >
> The way you and others attack it, we've got to wonder about you too.
Where
> were you when Matthew Shepherd was beaten to death?

I don't remember where I was but we know where you are every gay pride day.

Remember Lloyd: Those that can do...those that can't teach.


 

"fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote
> > "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[email protected]...
> > > >> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > >I don't think he is acting, sad as that is.
> > > >
> > > I see bigots of a feather flock together.
> >
> > I have no comment on this discussion, only on your obvious lack of
> > intelligence.
>
> Oh no, now you've done it. Now Lloyd's going to trot out
> his academic credentials to prove how smart he is.
>
> Floyd

Every Campus has one Professor that all the students laugh at, and all the
other Instructors snicker about in private.
I would bet money Lloyd is that Professor.
I once asked him how many peer reviewed papers he had published, I never
received an answer.
I pity the man. ;-(




 
[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Fri 25 Jul 2003 09:59:12p, Nathan Nagel <[email protected]> wrote
> >in news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> David Allen wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>> Omphalos <#> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:43:41p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> >>>>> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>>> David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That comment isn't any different than the ones you offer all the
> >>>>>>> time, except it's from the other side of the opinion sprectrum.
> >>>>>>> Oh, and the bestiality, incest and bigamy arguments are real
> >>>>>>> argurments against gay
> >>>>>>> marriage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Only in the minds of bigots and fools.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why is homosexuality ok, but at the same time incest, beastiality,
> >>>>> bigamy, and child molestation are wrong?
> >>>>
> >>>> If you have to ask that, you're too dumb to tie your own shoelaces.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Humor us Lloyd. Do you have to dig deep to answer? Take more than 30
> >>> seconds?
> >>>
> >>>>>>> So, that comment doesn't come from idiocy. The point being that
> >>>>>>> gay marriage doesn't have an intellectual backstop that doesn't
> >>>>>>> have within it's boundary those vices
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Two committed and consenting adults.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tolerance leads to perversity.
> >>>>
> >>>> Intolerance leads to murder. Drag any blacks to death lately? Beat
> >>>> any gays to death? How about lynchings?
> >>>
> >>> Tolerance of mistakes is good. Tolerance of evil and wrong is
> >>> perverse. Does that suprise you? It shouldn't, because it's common
> >>> sense. All people of good will understand that and have for thousands
> >>> of years.
> >>>
> >>> "Tolerance" by itself is just a word with no connection to good or bad.
> >>> Like "discrimination". Both words the left loves.
> >>>
> >>> As far as marriage goes, it's not defined as "consenting adults".
> >>> That's the problem here, you "tolerant" types want to redefing marriage
> >>> so that anyone can join the party! Aren't we cool! We love everybody!
> >>> We're so tolerant!
> >>
> >> And who are you to say what is "evil and wrong" and what isn't?
> >
> >Are you a moral relativist?
> >
> >> I know some people that I consider good people who happen to be
> >> homosexual. Are you telling me that they aren't really good people after
> >> all?
>
> >> By what authority can you make that judgement?
> >
> >By all the statistics, including those from the U.S. government, that show
> >that homosexuality is a dangerous and disease ridden behavior.
>
> Liar.
>
> >Homosexuality is an activity that is inherently dangerous and cannot be
> >made healthy .
>
> Liar.
>
>
> > It carries with it health risks that, though they may be
> >reduced in some cases, can't be avoided entirely.
>
> How would you know? Hmmm...
>
>
> >Second, homosexual
> >conduct also puts people at risk who are not engaged in the activity.
>
> Liar.
>
> >Since this activity can't be made healthful, and puts people at risk who
> >do not choose to be involved in the activity, it seems to make sense that,
> >as a community, we ought not do anything to encourage it.
>
> You don't even know how to tell the truth.
>
> >
> >Homosexuality should be discouraged on public health grounds alone.
>
> So should your breeding.

All you did was call him a liar with nothing to back up your claim. It
seems that you are the one who is lying.
 
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 03:38:28 GMT, Larry Kessler
<l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:40:51 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Let's be clear.
>
>You can start anytime.

OK little larry, here is what I commented on...

>You conveniently ignore the gay community's near-universal loathing
>and repudiation of NAMBLA and its goals.

Which clearly is an attempt by some fag to spin the issue so that it
looks like heterosexual's are the problem, much like you are trying to
do.

>>Man-boy love is not supported by heterosexual women. It is not
>>supported by heterosexual men.
>
>MOST heterosexuals do not support pedophilia regardless of the gender
>of the perp or of the victim. Neither do most homosexuals.

But, larryboy, ONLY HOMOSEXUALS SUPPORT IT NAMBLA.

>>The only people who support man-boy love are gays.
>
>You could just as easily say that the only people who support man-girl
>love are straights.

Strawman.

>>So, while it may be true that not all gays support man-boy love
>
>"Not all" is a deliberate deception. VERY FEW gays support it, and
>I'll bet the rent that I know many more of them than you do.

In the biblical sense I presume.

>>So, it is fair to say that only gays support NAMBLA.
>
>No, it isn't. Only gay PEDOPHILES (a very small subset of the gay
>population) support it.

Which shows my statement to be true. Thanks for agreeing that only
gays support NAMBLA.

Now **** off.
 
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:21:50 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Man-boy love is not supported by heterosexual women. It is not
>> supported by heterosexual men.
>>
>
>Absolutely not true. NAMBLA has managed to scrape together
>hetrosexuals of both sexes that support their "position" they are on
>their web site.

Wow, if it is on the web of a gay pedophilia organization, it must be
true.
 
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 03:17:42 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>And of course since local government funding is usually tied to property
>taxes, if you can get housing prices jacked up, the local governments
>can raise assessed value of property, and thus rake in more taxes. In
>short, it's a tax increase that occurs without an actual percentage change
>on the bill.

Actually that is not quite accurate.

Taxing bodies declare their budget needs, and the tax collector then
divides that amount by the tax base to determine the tax rate.

So if a tax body with a budget of $1000 this year keeps the same
budget next year, but my market value goes up by 10%, the tax rate for
said tax body decreases by an amount necessary to keep the collected
taxes at $1000.

However, in practice, we all know that they simply increase the budget
by the percentage that the market value increases, which results in
the increase you speak of.
 
On 28 Jul 2003 15:20:51 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:27:10 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Nice liberal spin. I especially enjoy you leaving out the recession
>>> >that Clinton caused, which led to those deficits,
>>>
>>> Pardon ? The recession started in March, after Bush got into office.
>>> If he had paid any attention to the economy, he might have been able
>>> to avoid it. He's done nothing but make it worse.
>>>
>>
>>The economic slow down began way before Bush was elected.
>
>Ask most people when their 401k plans tanked. Or when they got laid off.

And they will all tell you under kkklinton.

(Corrected spelling for everybody except for idiot loyd = Clinton)
 
On 28 Jul 2003 15:26:49 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:59:14 GMT, 'nuther Bob
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>The market started discounting Bush's election as soon as he stole it.
>>
>>Ah, you are still upset that the Floriduh supreme court failed in its
>>mission to steal the election,
>
>Nice to know you respect states' rights.

Yo moron, the law in Florida was clear, and every court in Florida
ruled against al bore. The only florida court to rule in favor of al
bore was the one stacked with 7 liberal assholes. They chose to
ignore Florida law, which is why the SCOTUS had NO CHOICE but to step
in and rule 7-2 that the floriduh supreme court justices were a bunch
of homosexual morons like you.

>>and that the SCOTUS had to enforce
>>federal election law. Sorry, but your loser lost.
>
>Who got more votes?

Bush. That is why he won Florida.

>Can one person be this stupid?

You are.

>>Byrd loves
>>the word ******.
>
>Prove it.

Read the ****ing paper, byrd uses ****** every other day.

>>YES HE WAS A LIBERAL, and followed liberal policies.
>
>You're a bloomin' idiot.

Why, because I point out that Thurmond was a democrat? Who's the
idiot, moron boy?
 
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> > abusers of children of
> >> >either gender are worthy of the same harsh punishment. But since you
> >> >mention it, I don't see the agenda of the pervert community hawking
> >> >books specifically advocating that men rape little girls or that women
> >> >rape little boys.
> >>
> >> Show me where I can find this "agenda of the pervert community."
> >
> >Since I clearly said that I *don't* see an agenda in books promoted at
> >places like amazon.com pushing for men-on-girls or women-on-boys, you
> >must be referring to the agenda for men-on-boys.
>
> You claimed there was a "homosexual pervert agenda." Cite it.
>
> > Well, for starters,
> >how about the book that Amazon is selling? How about the NAMBLA (North
> >American Man-Boy Love Association)? Lloyd - I really and truly try to
> >stay away from using personal insults, but are you really this stupid,
> >or is it an act?
>
> Which is to homosexuality as men molesting little girls is to heterosexuality.
> Does that mean there's a "heterosexual pervert agenda" too?
>
> >
> >> > Hey - BTW - has the APA published a scientific study
> >> >showing that little girls are not harmed by being raped by men, or
> >> >little boys by women? Why haven't they put the same focus on that?
> >> >Could it be that certain people are pushing the homosexual pervert
> >> >agenda over the just-as-sick heterosexual pervert agenda? Do you think
> >> >maybe...?
> >>
> >> It used to be the Jewish agenda -- they murdered babies, etc. Periodically
> >> the Arab press even quotes a book claiming this. You're in their league.
> >
> >Lloyd-logic strikes again.
>
> No, just shining some light on your "final solution."

You just kind of make it up as you go along, eh? Kind of like
halucinating. Get your meds adjusted.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
On 28 Jul 2003 15:38:56 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>>Ted - A man who has sex with a boy is a homo - even if he has a wife
>>(woman) at home.
>
>
>Not true. Lots of adults have, according to studies, experimented with sex
>with the same sex.

According to little dicked homos like loyd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Discodevon
Jeep Cherokee 2.7 crd 2002
Replies
9
Views
1K
Firebobby1
Firebobby1
F
Help 😪 this thing is driving me mad 😆
Replies
9
Views
1K
freelandertd4bmw
F
Zorro587
Noise gone but prop shaft queries abound
Replies
14
Views
1K
Chris_68
C
feyniriel
Gearbox fault P38?
Replies
3
Views
839
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
xDParis64
Freelander 1 Skid Plate Bolt Sizes + Engine Compression
Replies
19
Views
758
J_D
J_D
Back
Top