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:
>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> Bill Putney wrote:
>> >
>> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > > Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
>> > > >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.
>> >
>> > People are starting to stare, Lloyd.
>> >
>> > What is this - tactic number 43c out of the liberal playbook? - I've not
>> > seen this one before. Interesting. What's next - start screaming
>> > "rape!"?
>>
>> Must be the "jamming" technique that David Allen posted about a day or
>> so ago. Yeah - I believe that's it - when you are clearly losing an
>> argument, go hysterical to take attention off of the fact that your
>> argument is lost. Clever. Accuse the oponent of something ridiculous
>> but emotionally charged - like I said - kind of like screaming "rape!"
>> (by either straight or gay). Yeah - we be jammin'...
>>
>> (David's post: "Some liberals don't use the word that way though (like
>> Lloyd). I think they
>> use it as a "jammer", as in a jammer in a radar environment. It's like
>> "racist" and "bigot". The terms are highly charged and prevent any
>> intelligent discussion from occurring. The finer points of discussion
>> are
>> lost in the clutter.")
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with "x")

And Tim McVeigh was a Christian. Ipso facto, by your logic, all Christians
are terrorists.

>>
>> -----= 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! =-----
>
>An interesting quote:
>"When NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) President, Bill
>Arnett, appeared on CNN's Larry King show he stated that his
>organization is an active member of the International Lesbian and Gay
>Association, which was recently granted official credentials by the
>United Nations, and the opportunity to participate in some of that
>distinguished body's activities. He reminded King that the International
>Alliance had signed a pact with NAMBLA, agreeing to 'treat all sexual
>minorities with respect, including pedophiles.' "
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 28 Jul 2003 18:20:46 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>Yo moron, all you have to do is look on a map.


Reminds me of the old saying about the king who commanded the sun to come up
and when it did, took credit for it.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Dingleberry) wrote:
>[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.

If someone called blacks or Jews all kinds of names, and asserted they did all
kinds of things any sane person knows they don't, I'd call him a liar too.
That you dispute he's lying about gays says a lot about your (lack of) moral
character.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.
Like calling Aryan Nation a "Christian terrorist organization" because most of
their members are Christians.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:47:39 GMT, "David Allen"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>That, my gullible friend, is pure BS. There is/was no justifiable
>national defense rational for invading Iraq at this point. There
>is/was no real evidence of WMD. There is no evidence that the nuclear
>program -mostly wiped out by the Israeli raid - was anything beyond
>primitive and using approaches long dis proven.
>
>The real reason that we invaded Iraq has to do with business. Dick
>Cheney, his company Halliburton, and others have been chomping at the
>bit to sell to Iraq since the early 90's when sanctions were opposed.
>They want to sell $billions in equipment to Iraq and sanctions were
>blocking them. The only way to remove sanctions was to remove Saddaam.
>
>Don't take my word for it. Look up Cheney's own statements on
>sanctions from a decade years ago. Look into the sales of oil
>equipment that Halliburton made through their FRENCH subsidiaries
>of Dresser Rand and Dresser Pump. Look at the additional sales that
>were blocked in the late 90's by the Clinton Administration.
>
>After you do that, take a look and the Cheney "energy task force"
>that, despite a direct court order two years ago under a FOIA lawsuit,
>is still refusing to release details of their meeting. However, they
>did finally release the graphics used in the presentation recently -
>they were maps and lists of Iraqi oil fields, refineries, and related
>equipment. Now, how could someone be discussing Iraqi oil without
>discussing sanctions and "removing" them ? It can't be done. One goes
>hand in hand with the other. If you don't believe me on this point,
>consider this: They have been fighting the release for two years.
>They finally released the _least_ incriminating thing they could
>find and it was direct evidence that they were discussing Iraq.
>What do you suppose is in those minutes and notes they're holding
>back on ?
>
>You need to educate yourself on how the world _really_ works. This
>was, pure and simple, about billions of dollars. Now, you can add in
>whatever side motives you want, you can try to twist the facts to
>meet a preconceived notion you have about Bush and the US having
>some high moral ground. At the end of the day, you'll be left with
>a bunch of greedy oil men looking to fatten their wallets.
>
>Bob
Now, if you told David that Saddam hated gays and had then tortured and
killed, he'd be all against the invasion.
 
On Tue 29 Jul 2003 10:38:13a, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Dingleberry) wrote:
>
>> [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.
>
> If someone called blacks or Jews all kinds of names, and asserted they
> did all kinds of things any sane person knows they don't, I'd call him a
> liar too. That you dispute he's lying about gays says a lot about your
> (lack of) moral character.

Why is it 'moral' to accept homosexuality but not other deviant behavior
like paedophilia? After all, they both claim they were born that way.
 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>

Yawn. Just think "balance of power". Reagan "learned" his plan to control
spending would not succeed. There was no political will to do so on the
part of congress and Reagan didn't have the power as President to impose it.
He did have the political power and support of the public to achieve the
other goals.

The only thing unrealistic about Reagan's plan to iliminate the deficits was
believing that spending could be reduced. Government can always incrase
spending, but the will to cut spending is near non existent.

Look at California. A center for dot coms and telecommunications. While
the going was good, tax receipts were way high. The state government
commited to all kinds of new and increased spending. When the dot com and
telecommunications markets took a dive, tax recepts took a dive with them.
Did spending go back down? No. No political will.

> >
> >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.
>

No, I'm not falling for the old "prove it" trick. The Soviet fall had to do
with the rotten core of communism where the system is imposed on unwilling
subjects. Reagan did not appease them, He stood up to them. SDI, Pershing
missiles, the military buildup in general. He gave those under it's grasp
hope, like Poland's Solidarity, which was the first tear in the fabric of
the empire. He was unafraid to speak in terms of good and evil wrt the
Soviet Empire.


>
> >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.

Oh, brother. You're so righteous. If only benefit programs only benefited
the truly needy.


 

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:eek:[email protected]...
> >> [email protected] (Dingleberry) wrote:
> >>
> >> >It's one of those mysteries of life. Like, why do liberals think
> >> >everyone who disagrees when them is a bigot?
> >>
> >> I must not be a liberal. I don't think that those that disagree with
me
> >> are bigots. I just think that people who are prejudiced and use that
> >> prejudice in a negative manner towards others are bigots. You can
agree
> >> with me and be a bigot. You can disagree and not.
> >>
> >> >Why do they like to use made up words like 'homophobia'?
> >>
> >> To describe people who go out of their way to kill or harm people
solely
> >> because of sexual orientation? Though I think the word is incorrect.
It
> >> isn't the people that fear the homosexual people and behaviors that are
a
> >> problem, but those that hate. Perhaps mishomobic or some such would
have
> >> been a better choice.
> >>
> >> Marc
> >> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
> >
> >Some liberals don't use the word that way though (like Lloyd). I think
they
> >use it as a "jammer", as in a jammer in a radar environment. It's like
> >"racist" and "bigot". The terms are highly charged and prevent any
> >intelligent discussion from occurring. The finer points of discussion
are
> >lost in the clutter.
> >
> Just like "liberal" used to describe everyone that disagrees with someone
> that thinks of themselves as a conservative? Now-a-days, "liberal" is far
> from its dictionary meaning, and used (at least on USENET) as a
pejorative.
> But that isn't the only word used to the same end. There are others, like
> "environut" and the ever popular communist/socialist.
>
> It isn't one side that inflames the other. It is both sides that are the
> opposite, but the same.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

You certainly see people of all stripes (lib & conser) behave the same way.
Putting your opponent on the defensive is legitimate enough. But name
calling using inflammatory words is among the lamest of this genre. Those
who engage in it deserve to be challenged. The left has adopted the name
"bigot" to put those who oppose the redefinition of marriage on the
defensive.


 
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:12:48 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Yawn. Just think "balance of power". Reagan "learned" his plan to control
>spending would not succeed. There was no political will to do so on the
>part of congress and Reagan didn't have the power as President to impose it.

I seem to recall some Republican hat trick days with Congress in
Reagan's pocket. Clinton didn't exactly have a friendly Congress most
of the time and he still balanced the budge.

>The only thing unrealistic about Reagan's plan to iliminate the deficits was
>believing that spending could be reduced. Government can always incrase
>spending, but the will to cut spending is near non existent.

Did you mean illuminate or eliminate ? Because Reagan did illuminate
the deficit beyond all imagination.

> The Soviet fall had to do
>with the rotten core of communism where the system is imposed on unwilling
>subjects.

Yes.

>Reagan did not appease them, He stood up to them.

So what ? That had nothing to do with their economic failure.

> SDI, Pershing
>missiles, the military buildup in general.

And that benefited us, how ? Oh yeah, it put money in the pocket of
Republican held companies while vastly increasing the deficit,
sending us into the economic doldrums and let the taxpayers pick up
the tab. It also created a temporary influx of cash to artificially
stimulate the economy, for which we are still paying dearly. Now I
remember.

> He gave those under it's grasp
>hope, like Poland's Solidarity, which was the first tear in the fabric of
>the empire. He was unafraid to speak in terms of good and evil wrt the
>Soviet Empire.

Blah, blah, blah. Sorry, Reagan was not responsible for the revolt
in Poland or anywhere else. He had little to do with it. But, go on
living in your "Reagan is God" world. It's obvious that you idolize
him. Daily astrologer serving in the White House - need I say more ?

Bob




 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >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,
>
> Yep. Recounts were called for.

And recounts were made, and made again.
And after the SC finally stopped the repetitive recounts, they were counted
one more time anyway, every single ballet was counted, no matter how poorly
marked. The result: Bush won by a larger margin than the original count had
given him. Gore lost, Bush won, end of story.



 

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I pity the man. ;-(
>
> Don't pity the man, pity the students that end up in his freshman
chemistry
> class at the community college he teaches at.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Point taken.


 
Marc wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"scientific" and therefore "indisputable" study
>
> Scientific is not indisputable.

I was not claiming that - that's why I put those words in quotes because
it's a trick that someone else that we all know attempts to use.


> ...And for survey/case study type investigations, there are more uncontrolled
> items. The method could be valid, but the results incorrect. Or, the
> results could be valid, but will not show causation.
>
> What I've seen in the links posted on the survey in question is not what
> you've posted. They "findings" were that people who were molested often
> recover to lead normal lives. It didn't seem to be a message of depravity
> (molest everyone because it doesn't matter, they should recover), but one
> of hope (even those that go through unspeakable acts often recover to lead
> normal lives). Evidently, you like the depravity.

Which begs the question: If the conclusions in that study are so benign,
why did the APA find it necessary to denounce the study? To use the
only two choices you present for rejecting the study, was it the
depravity that the APA did not like, or was it the hope that was
offered? The real answer was neither - it was the potential loss of
funding and of public backlash, which by the way the polls are already
showing is happening due to the Supreme Court ruling in the Texas case.
They're probably discussing now how much they need to slow down their
progress - after all, there are elections coming up.

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! =-----
 
Marc wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> >> Believing that this man-boy love crap is confined to a homos
> >> is ignoring a large part of the problem.
> >>
> >Ted - A man who has sex with a boy is a homo - even if he has a wife
> >(woman) at home. Anything else is a semantics game.
>
> Non sequitur. Supporting an organization is not related to being an active
> member. I can support the Red Cross without knowing anything about
> medicine. Just as a straight woman could support NAMBLA, never having
> "loved" and children.

While, in hind sight, Ted's statement can admittedly be taken two ways,
I don't think he meant it the way you said. I won't put words in his
mouth, but I was taking what he said to mean that other people besides
homos are participating in (adult male with) male child sex. If he
meant that straights are buying into the concept without participating
in the perverted activity, then what you said fits - otherwise, no.

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! =-----
 
Marc wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Just an observation. Your two choices that you state are both negative.

My two choices may also be reality, which is neither positive nor
negative, but, well, reality.

> That is a defeatist attitude. The other possibility is that you
> purposefully construed the choices in the most negative light, which would
> be intellectually dishonest.

Look - they did what they did ***ONLY*** because the study caught the
attention of the Congress, and Congress started raising a stink about
it. Do you honestly believe that if that hadn't have happened that they
would have come out with their statement denouncing the study? Maybe
you do - I don't. Call me negative, call me pessimistic - I happen to
think it's the truth.

Wanna know why the Int. Gay and Lebian Associtaion purged themselves of
the likes of NAMBLA? Because the U.S. Congress threatened to stop
paying U.N. dues as long as the U.N was supporting and endorsing
pedophilic organizations (I only recently became aware of this - I
remember hearing the news stories that Clinton was upset that the U.S.
was behind on its U.N. dues at that time, but I don't recall the press
ever telling us what was behind it - strange!).

Take a look at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

Again, I ask - Do you honestly think that the gay orgs. would have
distanced themselves from the pedophilic movement if that single event
hadn't taken place? It's all to avoid public backlash.

Bitter? Negative? Pessimistic? No - reality.

> Also, it seems you are confused as to the significance of a study being
> scientifically valid. The study could easily be valid, but every
> conclusion drawn by the people that did the study could be false. To claim
> "scientifically valid" is true for all values of "scientifically valid" is
> simply false. Though it is true that most things that are "scientifically
> valid" are true (or close enough for practical purposes), that doesn't mean
> they all are. And "scientifically valid" applies to the results, not the
> conclusions. Again, these are fine points that Lloyd likes to ignore.
> Though he is a crappy chemistry professor at a community college, he thinks
> he knows more about psychology than all psychologists, more about physics
> than all physicists, and more about permafrost than those that live up
> north (don't ask, you don't want to know).
>
> >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 (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.
>
> Anyone that thinks "science" is indisputable need only look at global
> warming. Every "scientific" study I've read on it disagrees on numerous
> points (even those that agree can differ widely on what chemicals have what
> effects and the relationship of them to the climate). They can't all be
> right...

Again - I'm not the one who uses the "science is indisputable" argument
to prove myself right.

> No. That's not what it shows. It shows that there aren't measurable
> long-term effects. Just because they get married at the same ages as
> others doesn't mean it doesn't affect them.
>
> >Sorry - I disagree, and I don't need a study to tell me that.
>
> And the Earth is flat, and you don't need no stinkin' science to tell you
> otherwise?

That would be a valid point if I were claiming that the earth were flat.

> >Seems I've been hearing rumors of moves afoot to lower the age of
> >consent to something like 11 years old or something?.
>
> I've never heard that. The "reforms" I've been hearing were in response to
> laws that make consensual sex between a 14 year old boy and a 16 year old
> girl defined as the boy raping the girl. There are many places where the
> gender is tied to the laws. A 14 year old boy can legally have sex with an
> adult woman (not rape, but sometimes prosecuted as "contributing to the
> delinquency" or something like that) but a 14 year old girl can not legally
> have sex with anyone.
>
> There is no age of consent for the country. It is dependant on local laws.
> Perhaps it is only in your state where there is any movement for changes of
> that nature.

No - this was something on a national level.

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! =-----
 
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > 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. Anything else is a semantics game.
> >
>
> Hate to burst your bubble Bill but there are actually hetros out there
> that aren't pedos and don't actually have sex with boys who have
> bought off on this Man-Boy thing. It's incredible, I know, but
> there are people out there with some really wedged thinking.
>
> Ted

I read your statement the other way that it could have been taken - when
you said "confined to" I took that to be in the context of
"participating in", not "buying into or approving" which is apparently
how you meant it.

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! =-----
 
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Which is exactly my objection to those who cite "scientific" studies to
> > "prove" their opinions (of course only those studies that support their
> > views ignoring the other "scientific" studies). A truly scientific
> > study does have significance, but the problem is that humans are running
> > the studies and they can be faked, either intentionally depending on the
> > vested interestes involved or thru the setup, assumptions (false or
> > otherwise), games played with definitions of words (like does gay mean
> > "non-straight" or does it mean those who exclusively have same-sex sex),
> > etc. By "scientific" studies, butter is bad this year, next year
> > margerine is bad, the next year butter...
> >
>
> Then I would assume that you have equal objection to the people that
> run around and point to the Bible as the sole authority to back up what
> they say, because this is exactly the same thing.

I suspect we won't agree on this, but there is a big difference between
"God says..." and "Man (or 'science') says...", so I do not believe it
is exactly the same thing. (And yes I already know the comebacks about
"well who's to say that what you say the Bible says is what it really
says..." etc., etc.. ad infinitum). The sad thing is that most of the
Bible can be taken at face value without apparent contradiction, but
people have bought into the opposite without an honest check. The rest
can be put into abeyance (i.e., not acted upon) until further study can
correct the mistranslations and problems in understanding.

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! =-----
 
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Bill Putney wrote:
> >> Must be the "jamming" technique that David Allen posted about a day or
> >> so ago. Yeah - I believe that's it - when you are clearly losing an
> >> argument, go hysterical to take attention off of the fact that your
> >> argument is lost. Clever. Accuse the oponent of something ridiculous
> >> but emotionally charged - like I said - kind of like screaming "rape!"
> >> (by either straight or gay). Yeah - we be jammin'...
> >>
> >> (David's post: "Some liberals don't use the word that way though (like
> >> Lloyd). I think they
> >> use it as a "jammer", as in a jammer in a radar environment. It's like
> >> "racist" and "bigot". The terms are highly charged and prevent any
> >> intelligent discussion from occurring. The finer points of discussion
> >> are
> >> lost in the clutter.")
> >>
> >> Bill Putney
> >> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >> address with "x")
>
> And Tim McVeigh was a Christian. Ipso facto, by your logic, all Christians
> are terrorists.

So what exactly is it that you are *claiming* that I said now?

Here, I'll make it easy for you: You (Lloyd Parker) think that I said
that all ___________s are ___________s. If you fill in those two
blanks, you will have answered the question. If you comply, you'll
either make something up that I didn't say (like you repeatedly do - the
ol' jammer technique), or maybe you'll find something that I did say and
fill in the blanks with that, but it will be the truth.

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 Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:14:05 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:p[email protected]...
>>
>> Wow, if it is on the web of a gay pedophilia organization, it must be
>> true.
>
>There are other sites than just NAMBLA, with the same thrust, unfortunately.
>
>And I happen to believe it's true because the people are listed with their
>full names and credentials and you can find them spouting the same thing
>on other forums.

People might disagree with you if they had any idea what you mean.

Learn to snip properly.
 
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:45:46 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>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.
>
>That, my gullible friend, is pure BS. There is/was no justifiable

snip of typical liberal blather...

Sorry my idiot friend, but you are falling for the DNC's line due to
your inability to think.

UN resolutions gave the US the right and responsibility to invade
Iraq. Read them. We should have done so years ago, but Bush 1 and
Clinton didn't have the balls.
 
On 29 Jul 2003 14:36:55 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>>Remember Lloyd: Those that can do...those that can't teach.
>>
>Those that can't learn complain about those that teach.

Well I graduated with a 4.0 on a 4.0 scale, so I can definitely learn,
and I can also teach.

You can't do ****.

So **** off.
 
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