PREREQUISITES TO BEING A TRUE LIBERAL.
DrNybble
There are still many who need to be reminded.
The Night Stalker
Run Billy Run <Libera...@LiberalTheives.Clinton> wrote in message
news:qjfaet0hioo0tpv6v...@4ax.com...
> PREREQUISITES TO BEING A TRUE LIBERAL.
>
> 1.You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of
> government funding.
Not funding the study of the disease and pursuing a cure is equal to
ignoring it. Heres a hint..it wont go away on its own.
>
> 2.You have to be against capital punishment, except for infants.
Im liberal and I love the DP, so where do I fit in?
>
> 3.You have to believe that the same public school teacher who can't
> teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids
> about sex.
Yeah, dont tell the kids anything about sex...let them find out all about
pregnancy, AIDS, STD's etc. on their own...oh wait,....
>
> 4.You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and
> doctors are overpaid.
Defense attorneys are usually slime. Prosecutors arent much better.
Doctors arent overpaid in my opinion.
>
> 5.You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding
> Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of
> the Red Chinese. (Thanks Bill Klinton)
More guns is not the answer to crime. Criminal control is far more
preferable to gun control IMO. Clinton didnt have anything to do with China
and nukes. If you want to blame Clinton, blame Nixon too. BTW, Clinton is
gone so get over it. Georgie gave them a nice P3 to tear apart and learn
about. Bitch at him while youre at it.
>
> 6.You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
> cyclical, documented changes in the Sun, and more affected by SUV's in
> America.
It is.
>
> 7.You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being GAY
> is natural.
Homosexuality, IMO, is most likely genetic.
>
> 8.You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
> governments create prosperity.
>
> 9.You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but
> animal rights activists who've never been outside Seattle do.
Heh, I would bet this is true.
>
> 10.You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than
> actually doing something to earn it.
>
> 11.You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.
>
> 12.You have to believe the military, not politicians, start wars.
No, George is doing a great job at trying to piss off China.
>
> 13.You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
> can't deliver the quality that PBS does and everybody ELSE should pay
> for it.
God forbid if we should have something educational on TV. The money spent
to investigate the sucking of Clintons dick could have gone a long way to
helping children read and learn through PBS. Much of PBS is privately
funded so quit whining.
>
> 14.You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for
> certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because
> they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
The NRA has some issues it needs to deal with. I dont believe every single
person in America needs a firearm.
>
> 15.You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too
> high and that the banks are greedy but the government is not.
You people amaze me. You want the Gov to do for you, but you dont want to
pay for all that you enjoy.
>
> 16.You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria
> Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson,
> General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.
All of these people are important and you cannot, realistically, even
compare their contributions.
>
> 17.You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
> quotas and set-asides aren't.
>
> 18.You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than
> HIV.
Both are damn dangerous.
>
> 19.You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie
> O'Donnell is not really a man.
Ok, you have departed reality again....either come up with real issues or
crawl back under your rock.
>
> 20.You have to believe that conservatives are racists, but that black
> people couldn't make it in life without the help of white liberals.
Heh, well, ask some blacks and see who they voted for.
>
> 21.You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
> any where it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in
> charge.
>
> 22. You voted for Mondale in 1984 thinking that raising your taxes was
> a good idea.
>
> 23. You have to believe that pouring blood on a $1,500 fur coat is a
> sure-fire way to get your message across, but if anyone protests
> outside an abortion clinic, they're extremists!
Um, no one protesting the fur trade has murdered those wearing the
coats...the nuts outside the abortion clinics on the other hand...
>
> 24. You have to believe that Clinton was forced to lie under oath by
> the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
No, he lied because he thought his private life was just that.
>
> 25. You have to believe that the murder of a gay person is a more
> serious crime than murdering a straight person.
Murder at all is bad. Murder based on hate of race, sex, religious belief
etc. is worse.
>
> 26. You have to believe that sexual harassment is rampant, date rape
> pervasive, domestic violence common and Paula Jones and 15 other women
> are liars.
You live in a cave. Yes to all of these statements.
>
> 27. You have to believe that the best way to cure a disease is to wear
> some silly ribbon on an awards show.
Fuck you. What have you done for any of the causes?
Stalker Steve
>
>
>
Clave
news:ek7bet402ma06ecps...@4ax.com...
>
> Keep posting this periodically.
> There are still many who need to be reminded...
...just how shallowly many conservatives think.
Jim
DrNybble
Shallow? Did he miss a few items?
bochinam
"The Night Stalker" <real...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:l8iF6.159250$8y.29...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
DrNybble
wrote:
>lol
Gee, I don't think he intended his retorts to be funny.
But maybe your response was YOUR point. :-)
Mike Haas
The Night Stalker <real...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:l8iF6.159250$8y.29...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> news:qjfaet0hioo0tpv6v...@4ax.com...
> > PREREQUISITES TO BEING A TRUE LIBERAL.
> >
> > 1.You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of
> > government funding.
>
> Not funding the study of the disease and pursuing a cure is equal to
> ignoring it. Heres a hint..it wont go away on its own.
neither will Cancer, but we spend TONS of money trying to educate people to
not smoke.
Do you see ONE DIME telling people to not engage in abberant sexual
practices? Guess what, we've got a generation that thinks it's a-ok to go
sticking it anywhere.
No, instead you liberals want to give out brand new needles to encourage
more drug use.
>
> >
> > 2.You have to be against capital punishment, except for infants.
>
> Im liberal and I love the DP, so where do I fit in?
Not liberal on the DP, that's where. Congratulations, there's hope for you.
>
> >
> > 3.You have to believe that the same public school teacher who can't
> > teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids
> > about sex.
>
> Yeah, dont tell the kids anything about sex...let them find out all about
> pregnancy, AIDS, STD's etc. on their own...oh wait,....
Just like it was done for every generation until now -- remember? The
generations that didn't have AIDS, skyrocketing illigitemacy, the date-rape
drug, etc.
Just like a liberal -- to expect the government to pay to teach what we are
biologically ingrained with, and PREVENT the teaching of moral guidelines to
stay out of trouble with it.
Instead, you want to PASS OUT CONDOMS TO OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN WITHOUT
PARENTAL CONSENT. More liberal "good" ideas.
>
> >
> > 4.You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and
> > doctors are overpaid.
>
> Defense attorneys are usually slime. Prosecutors arent much better.
> Doctors arent overpaid in my opinion.
More "not liberal"... I bet you didn't go to publi-- err, the GOVERNMENT
school.
>
> >
> > 5.You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding
> > Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of
> > the Red Chinese. (Thanks Bill Klinton)
>
> More guns is not the answer to crime.
Perhaps not, but it's not the problem either. Being capable of self-defense
is a very important component to reducing the number of victims, not crime.
> Criminal control is far more
> preferable to gun control IMO.
Good job.
> Clinton didnt have anything to do with China
> and nukes.
Really? No, we know that Johnny Cheung was concerned with illegal Chinese
funding of Slick's campaign, but -- why? Did you ask Wen Ho Lee to make
sure nuke weapons were not involved?
> If you want to blame Clinton, blame Nixon too.
I think opening trade with China is a lot different that eliciting illegal
campaign donations, relaxing security in our national labs, and giving away
national secrets!
> BTW, Clinton is
> gone so get over it.
But the scandals just keep on 'comin!
> Georgie gave them a nice P3 to tear apart and learn
> about. Bitch at him while youre at it.
George didn't give them anything but a hard time and got the airmen back
doing it. You're confusing presidents.
>
> >
> > 6.You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
> > cyclical, documented changes in the Sun, and more affected by SUV's in
> > America.
>
> It is.
See? You do have room for personal improvement.
>
> >
> > 7.You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being GAY
> > is natural.
>
> Homosexuality, IMO, is most likely genetic.
See? The post is correct.
>
> >
> > 8.You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
> > governments create prosperity.
> >
> > 9.You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but
> > animal rights activists who've never been outside Seattle do.
>
> Heh, I would bet this is true.
See?
>
> >
> > 10.You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than
> > actually doing something to earn it.
> >
> > 11.You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.
> >
> > 12.You have to believe the military, not politicians, start wars.
>
> No, George is doing a great job at trying to piss off China.
Finally, a compliment for George! See, doesn;t it make you feel better to
have a president that doesn't cowtow to stinking communistic oppressive
bastards?
>
> >
> > 13.You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
> > can't deliver the quality that PBS does and everybody ELSE should pay
> > for it.
>
> God forbid if we should have something educational on TV.
If it's worth it, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
> The money spent
> to investigate the sucking of Clintons dick could have gone a long way to
> helping children read and learn through PBS. Much of PBS is privately
> funded so quit whining.
Why not all? All of my cable company is privately funded. If it's worth
it, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
>
> >
> > 14.You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for
> > certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because
> > they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
>
> The NRA has some issues it needs to deal with. I dont believe every
single
> person in America needs a firearm.
And you think that is NRA's position? Spoken like a liberal... better watch
that.
>
> >
> > 15.You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too
> > high and that the banks are greedy but the government is not.
>
> You people amaze me. You want the Gov to do for you, but you dont want to
> pay for all that you enjoy.
No, we don't want the government to "do for us"... we can "do for ourselves"
quite nicely thank you. We want Uncle Sam to get his fucking hand out of
our pocketbooks and taking more money than has ever been done in peacetime
in history. The amount of money we pay is OBSCENE -- if we went to war,
watch what would happen to the tons of illegitimate social programs! Well,
instead of giving it to those who didn;t earn it, we'd simply like to keep
our own money until then, thank you very much.
>
> >
> > 16.You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria
> > Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson,
> > General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.
>
> All of these people are important and you cannot, realistically, even
> compare their contributions.
We certainly can deny their importance, but agree that they have no
contribution that comes close to Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee, Thomas
Edison or Rush Limbaugh. In fact, we can thank Limbaugh for exposing the
hypocrisy of the left and educating a very confused America when it needed
it most.
>
> >
> > 17.You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
> > quotas and set-asides aren't.
> >
> > 18.You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than
> > HIV.
>
> Both are damn dangerous.
HIV - proven. Second hand smoke -- ridiculous tool of big governmentalists.
Perfect example why liberals need a dumbed-down populace to buy their tripe.
>
> >
> > 19.You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie
> > O'Donnell is not really a man.
>
> Ok, you have departed reality again....either come up with real issues or
> crawl back under your rock.
Tee Hee - http://NRAWinningTeam.com/norosie.html
>
> >
> > 20.You have to believe that conservatives are racists, but that black
> > people couldn't make it in life without the help of white liberals.
>
> Heh, well, ask some blacks and see who they voted for.
The white liberal loser that told them they couldn't make it in life without
the help of white liberals
>
> >
> > 21.You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
> > any where it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in
> > charge.
> >
> > 22. You voted for Mondale in 1984 thinking that raising your taxes was
> > a good idea.
> >
> > 23. You have to believe that pouring blood on a $1,500 fur coat is a
> > sure-fire way to get your message across, but if anyone protests
> > outside an abortion clinic, they're extremists!
>
> Um, no one protesting the fur trade has murdered those wearing the
> coats...the nuts outside the abortion clinics on the other hand...
Those who protest outside abortion clinics don't murder either. Same as
most enviro-wackos don't spike trees, but some do.
the point is, no one is unfair to the silly animal rights wackos, while
those who care about unborn life are characterised as extermists, and it's
true.
>
> >
> > 24. You have to believe that Clinton was forced to lie under oath by
> > the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
>
> No, he lied because he thought his private life was just that.
Getting blow jobs in OUR Ovcal Office, while keeping world leaders waiting
or discussing military affairs on the phone with Congressmen HARDLY
QUALIFIES AS "HIS PRIVATE LIFE"!
He was a public official! Leader of the free world! Most powerful man in
the world! If he wanted to have a "private life" that included illicit
sex, betraying his family, lying to the public, having sex with young femail
interns placed in his care under "loco parentis" (in place of the parent) --
HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER RUN FOR OFFICE.
Of course, he should have resigned too, but both acts would have taken
integrity, something Clinton is totally devoid of. I'm glad *I* never voted
for him (bet you did).
>
> >
> > 25. You have to believe that the murder of a gay person is a more
> > serious crime than murdering a straight person.
>
> Murder at all is bad. Murder based on hate of race, sex, religious belief
> etc. is worse.
Why? Is the victim deader? Did they die "more"?
Ok, you really ARE a liberal, if that kind of thing makes any sense to you.
>
> >
> > 26. You have to believe that sexual harassment is rampant, date rape
> > pervasive, domestic violence common and Paula Jones and 15 other women
> > are liars.
>
> You live in a cave. Yes to all of these statements.
Ok, the post is correct. I thought for awhile, there may be exceptions, but
no. It stands proven.
>
> >
> > 27. You have to believe that the best way to cure a disease is to wear
> > some silly ribbon on an awards show.
>
> Fuck you. What have you done for any of the causes?
Not engaged in anal sex or used drugs? Taught my kids that illicit sex
(including all homosexuality) and intraveneous drug use is wrong?
Hey. it's worked REAL WELL FOR ME -- too bad others didn't try the same
thing.
I'm DAMNED SURE it would have worked for them! (a lot better than "walking"
all over creation or sewing together quilts.)
Of course, the only TRUE tragedies those who contract this horrible
homosexual-and-intraveneous-drug-user-spread disease innocently via blood
transfusion or similar means. Thankfully, they are few, but each is a true
tragedy, MUCH MORESO THAN THOSE WHO BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES BY THEIR OWN
IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR.
Now THAT'S what the public service announcements should say, and quit
treating this disease as though one were a hero for catching it. No, it
represents a true failing of human character to engage in the activities
that cause AIDS.
And believe me, I know better than most people. Until you have fixed meals,
perpared the myriad of daily medications, and changed diapers on your
bed-ridden 30-year-old baby brother while he slipped away, a little more
each day, because of this foul dissease, you don't know what you are talking
about. No one, not an AIDS victim, not doctors, not social services
personnel, NO ONE can know what it is like for the family members.
I despise every ad I see that trivializes the evil of this disease, and
FAILS TO UNDERSCORE the personal failings and mistakes committed by those
that have it, because I know more will die because they won't understand.
Cheers,
Mike Haas
>
> Stalker Steve
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
The Night Stalker
Mike Haas <mi...@skyweyr.com> wrote in message
news:3ae5c...@news3.calweb.com...
>
> The Night Stalker <real...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:l8iF6.159250$8y.29...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> >
> > Run Billy Run <Libera...@LiberalTheives.Clinton> wrote in message
> > news:qjfaet0hioo0tpv6v...@4ax.com...
> > > PREREQUISITES TO BEING A TRUE LIBERAL.
> > >
> > > 1.You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of
> > > government funding.
> >
> > Not funding the study of the disease and pursuing a cure is equal to
> > ignoring it. Heres a hint..it wont go away on its own.
>
> neither will Cancer, but we spend TONS of money trying to educate people
to
> not smoke.
>
> Do you see ONE DIME telling people to not engage in abberant sexual
> practices? Guess what, we've got a generation that thinks it's a-ok to go
> sticking it anywhere.
Actually thats not true at all. See, thats where the sex ed comes in.
Education is the best defense we have.
>
> No, instead you liberals want to give out brand new needles to encourage
> more drug use.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 2.You have to be against capital punishment, except for infants.
> >
> > Im liberal and I love the DP, so where do I fit in?
>
> Not liberal on the DP, that's where. Congratulations, there's hope for
you.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 3.You have to believe that the same public school teacher who can't
> > > teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids
> > > about sex.
> >
> > Yeah, dont tell the kids anything about sex...let them find out all
about
> > pregnancy, AIDS, STD's etc. on their own...oh wait,....
>
> Just like it was done for every generation until now -- remember? The
> generations that didn't have AIDS, skyrocketing illigitemacy, the
date-rape
> drug, etc.
AIDS cases are down as are teen pregnancies. So is this failure?
>
> Just like a liberal -- to expect the government to pay to teach what we
are
> biologically ingrained with, and PREVENT the teaching of moral guidelines
to
> stay out of trouble with it.
I dont need the government telling me whats moral. They want to teach
morality while fucking their girlfriends behind their wives backs. Sorry,
but there is no room for God in school. Thankfully.
>
> Instead, you want to PASS OUT CONDOMS TO OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN WITHOUT
> PARENTAL CONSENT. More liberal "good" ideas.
Codoms are a good idea. Instead of scaring them with Jezus and Hell, let
them know the reality of AIDS and other STD's not to mention birth control.
Condoms greatly reduce the chances of contracting these things. You arent
going to make teens not have sex. I dont care how much religion you cram
down their throats.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 4.You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and
> > > doctors are overpaid.
> >
> > Defense attorneys are usually slime. Prosecutors arent much better.
> > Doctors arent overpaid in my opinion.
>
> More "not liberal"... I bet you didn't go to publi-- err, the GOVERNMENT
> school.
Public school all my life and public college too. I base my statements
about Doctors based on the fact that a very talented Doctor allowed me to
get my life back. Its been worth every penny.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 5.You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding
> > > Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of
> > > the Red Chinese. (Thanks Bill Klinton)
> >
> > More guns is not the answer to crime.
>
> Perhaps not, but it's not the problem either. Being capable of
self-defense
> is a very important component to reducing the number of victims, not
crime.
Depending on the type of crime, yes. Burglary, maybe but only if you are
home. Assault? Maybe..given a set of circumstances. Etc.
>
> > Criminal control is far more
> > preferable to gun control IMO.
>
> Good job.
>
> > Clinton didnt have anything to do with China
> > and nukes.
>
>
> Really? No, we know that Johnny Cheung was concerned with illegal Chinese
> funding of Slick's campaign, but -- why? Did you ask Wen Ho Lee to make
> sure nuke weapons were not involved?
Wen Ho Lee was investigated wasnt he?
>
> > If you want to blame Clinton, blame Nixon too.
>
> I think opening trade with China is a lot different that eliciting illegal
> campaign donations, relaxing security in our national labs, and giving
away
> national secrets!
Who is in charge of Nat. Sec? Talk to them as to why its so lax.
>
> > BTW, Clinton is
> > gone so get over it.
>
> But the scandals just keep on 'comin!
>
> > Georgie gave them a nice P3 to tear apart and learn
> > about. Bitch at him while youre at it.
>
> George didn't give them anything but a hard time and got the airmen back
> doing it. You're confusing presidents.
LOL...hard time huh? Thats yet to come. The new cold war is here.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 6.You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
> > > cyclical, documented changes in the Sun, and more affected by SUV's in
> > > America.
> >
> > It is.
>
> See? You do have room for personal improvement.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 7.You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being GAY
> > > is natural.
> >
> > Homosexuality, IMO, is most likely genetic.
>
> See? The post is correct.
Some of the opinions are, yes.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 8.You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
> > > governments create prosperity.
> > >
> > > 9.You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but
> > > animal rights activists who've never been outside Seattle do.
> >
> > Heh, I would bet this is true.
>
> See?
>
> >
> > >
> > > 10.You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than
> > > actually doing something to earn it.
> > >
> > > 11.You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.
> > >
> > > 12.You have to believe the military, not politicians, start wars.
> >
> > No, George is doing a great job at trying to piss off China.
>
> Finally, a compliment for George! See, doesn;t it make you feel better to
> have a president that doesn't cowtow to stinking communistic oppressive
> bastards?
I think you are confusing someone that was trying to have relations as
opposed to someone who wants to piss off the next big boy on the block and
the country has *no problems* using nukes. Yeah, nuclear exchange...that'll
teach them commies. China has already said it expects war with the US at
one point. Taiwan is likely, IMO, going to be the catalyst.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 13.You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
> > > can't deliver the quality that PBS does and everybody ELSE should pay
> > > for it.
> >
> > God forbid if we should have something educational on TV.
>
> If it's worth it, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
I do, but the government does have an obligation as well for the good of the
people to help with educational funding.
>
> > The money spent
> > to investigate the sucking of Clintons dick could have gone a long way
to
> > helping children read and learn through PBS. Much of PBS is privately
> > funded so quit whining.
>
> Why not all? All of my cable company is privately funded. If it's worth
> it, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 14.You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for
> > > certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because
> > > they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
> >
> > The NRA has some issues it needs to deal with. I dont believe every
> single
> > person in America needs a firearm.
>
> And you think that is NRA's position? Spoken like a liberal... better
watch
> that.
So joe blow who just got out of the mental hospital needs a gun right?
Brilliant.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > 15.You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too
> > > high and that the banks are greedy but the government is not.
> >
> > You people amaze me. You want the Gov to do for you, but you dont want
to
> > pay for all that you enjoy.
>
> No, we don't want the government to "do for us"... we can "do for
ourselves"
Uh huh. You want the good ol U S of A to be the best, but you dont want to
pay taxes to fund things like your precious military. Actually, thats not
correct. You dont mind paying taxes for warmongering purposes, but taxes
for education, arts funding, medical research, environment etc. is all
subject to scrutiny and cutback so we can have that neat-O fighter plane.
> quite nicely thank you. We want Uncle Sam to get his fucking hand out of
> our pocketbooks and taking more money than has ever been done in peacetime
> in history.
Life is not free. Nor is having the greatest nation on earth.
The amount of money we pay is OBSCENE -- if we went to war,
> watch what would happen to the tons of illegitimate social programs!
Well,
> instead of giving it to those who didn;t earn it, we'd simply like to keep
> our own money until then, thank you very much.
Wow...so hungry kids and people unable to work would suffer and that would
be a good thing? Just as long as you get to keep your money...
>
> >
> > >
> > > 16.You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria
> > > Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson,
> > > General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.
> >
> > All of these people are important and you cannot, realistically, even
> > compare their contributions.
>
> We certainly can deny their importance, but agree that they have no
> contribution that comes close to Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee, Thomas
> Edison or Rush Limbaugh. In fact, we can thank Limbaugh for exposing the
> hypocrisy of the left and educating a very confused America when it needed
> it most.
Rash Lardball couldnt expose anything but himself and he would have to find
it first.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 17.You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
> > > quotas and set-asides aren't.
> > >
> > > 18.You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than
> > > HIV.
> >
> > Both are damn dangerous.
>
> HIV - proven. Second hand smoke -- ridiculous tool of big
governmentalists.
LOL. If smoking a cigarette through a filter is dangerous, how can
breathing unfiltered smoke be better?
> Perfect example why liberals need a dumbed-down populace to buy their
tripe.
Just answer the question...if you can.
Oh so you were there? IOW, you know what was going on at the time? I dont
give a rats ass what Clinton does with his sex life. I have bigger things
to worry about like what to wear to work tomorrow or what to have for
dinner.
>
> He was a public official!
So was Newt! Point is, Clinton aint the only one so quit acting like it.
Leader of the free world! Most powerful man in
> the world! If he wanted to have a "private life" that included illicit
> sex, betraying his family, lying to the public, having sex with young
femail
> interns placed in his care under "loco parentis" (in place of the
parent) --
> HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER RUN FOR OFFICE.
So by your reasoning then we should know when Bush and Laura do the nasty
right? The president is not entitled to privacy right? BS.
How about when one of the Bush babe daughters decides to hook up with one of
their boyfriends? Private or public?
>
> Of course, he should have resigned too, but both acts would have taken
> integrity, something Clinton is totally devoid of. I'm glad *I* never
voted
> for him (bet you did).
You bet I did..both times. I dont give a shit about his private life. The
man is a personal failure and scummy as they get, but by most if not all
accounts, was a good president. I know I was doing great for time he was in
office.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 25. You have to believe that the murder of a gay person is a more
> > > serious crime than murdering a straight person.
> >
> > Murder at all is bad. Murder based on hate of race, sex, religious
belief
> > etc. is worse.
>
> Why? Is the victim deader? Did they die "more"?
Their murder was motivated by something other than intent. Without one you
dont have the other. In other words, take Bob. Bob was murdered by some
guys because he was a "fag". Had bob not been a fag, he wouldnt have been
killed...get it? (its called a motivational factor)
>
> Ok, you really ARE a liberal, if that kind of thing makes any sense to
you.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 26. You have to believe that sexual harassment is rampant, date rape
> > > pervasive, domestic violence common and Paula Jones and 15 other women
> > > are liars.
> >
> > You live in a cave. Yes to all of these statements.
>
> Ok, the post is correct. I thought for awhile, there may be exceptions,
but
> no. It stands proven.
Since Im a Peace Officer, I can attest to the fact that domestic violence
and "date rape" are common...too common. I would also say that about 30-40%
of our calls are domestic in nature. Paula "the victim" Jones waited for
almost 20 years...TWENTY YEARS before coming forward. The women smelled a
pay day. There wasnt a court in the world that would indict Clinton on
anything that old. Not only that, her "testimony" was in what COURT again?
Thats right..none.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 27. You have to believe that the best way to cure a disease is to wear
> > > some silly ribbon on an awards show.
> >
> > Fuck you. What have you done for any of the causes?
>
> Not engaged in anal sex or used drugs?
No, the comment was how wearing a silly ribbon fights / cures a disease.
What have YOU done to help? Nothing? Thought so. So AIDS is only caught
through anal sex huh? Keep getting the blowjobs then because those are 100%
safe.
Taught my kids that illicit sex
> (including all homosexuality) and intraveneous drug use is wrong?
ROFL...so homosexuality is "wrong" huh? I sure hope you dont have a kid
that realizes he or she prefers the same sex. Regardless of what you think
is wrong or right, you cant change whats in someones nature. What happens
if your son tells you he is gay? (this should be good)
>
> Hey. it's worked REAL WELL FOR ME -- too bad others didn't try the same
> thing.
> I'm DAMNED SURE it would have worked for them! (a lot better than
"walking"
> all over creation or sewing together quilts.)
>
> Of course, the only TRUE tragedies those who contract this horrible
> homosexual-and-intraveneous-drug-user-spread disease innocently via blood
> transfusion or similar means.
Wow and AIDS is a gay only disease too?!? Great..that means I can have as
much good ol American man and woman sex as I want with no fear. <\sarcasm>
Thankfully, they are few, but each is a true
> tragedy, MUCH MORESO THAN THOSE WHO BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES BY THEIR OWN
> IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR.
I agree that some people asked for it through being educated and NOT
choosing to prevent the disease.
>
> Now THAT'S what the public service announcements should say, and quit
> treating this disease as though one were a hero for catching it. No, it
> represents a true failing of human character to engage in the activities
> that cause AIDS.
Im glad you are the judge of whats proper. I personally know of a nurse
that has HIV as a result of needle stick. Next time I see her Ill let her
know that she is a true failing of human character.
>
> And believe me, I know better than most people. Until you have fixed
meals,
> perpared the myriad of daily medications, and changed diapers on your
> bed-ridden 30-year-old baby brother while he slipped away, a little more
> each day, because of this foul dissease, you don't know what you are
talking
> about. No one, not an AIDS victim, not doctors, not social services
> personnel, NO ONE can know what it is like for the family members.
How do you know I dont know? Ive dealt with AIDS in my life as well.
>
> I despise every ad I see that trivializes the evil of this disease, and
> FAILS TO UNDERSCORE the personal failings and mistakes committed by those
> that have it, because I know more will die because they won't understand.
Then why in the hell would you want the government thats supposed to be
there for YOU to stop funding on finding a cure for this?
Stalker Steve
bochinam
" Fuck you. What have you done for any of the causes?" That's the point,
funny how conservatives always miss it.
Ernie DiMicco, Jr.
news:3ae5c...@news3.calweb.com...
> Instead, you want to PASS OUT CONDOMS TO OTHER
> PEOPLE'S CHILDREN WITHOU PARENTAL CONSENT.
Condom-passing-out programs dramatically lower pregnancy rates in districts that
have them while rates of sexual activity stay constant.
What is there then not to like about these programs?
DrNybble
wrote:
Causes?
Tell me, what causes would they be?
Has liberalism become your religion and are you on a crusade or
something?
Is one of your causes to have the 22nd Amendment repealed to allow
Clinton to assume the throne again?
Here's a good CAUSE for you:
How about redefining the criteria describing when we can kill a child?
Now its any time prior to the head exiting the birth canal. If we
could only extend that to some point after this so-called "birth", we
could kill them even later. We would just call it
post-exit-termination. (for the health of the mother, of course)
I know! I know!
How about total taxation?
We give the government ALL our money and everything is FREE?
They don't even have to know what we need, they will TELL us.
They can spend it better than we can.
The government is VERY efficient.
How close am I?
Tell me, comrade, what IS your Holy Grail?
FightBack3
#1. Have your head up your ass.
http://www.americanpatrol.org
http.www.steinreport.com
http://www.fairus.org
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Ron Thomas
>>> Ernie DiMicco, Jr.<spar...@wpi.edu> Tuesday, April 24,
2001 4:58:41 PM >>>
More of ernie's lies. That is not true at all. In places
where condoms are passed out, sexual promiscuity does not
stay constant, it rises.
Clave
news:9c6onb$1c14$1...@news.aros.net...
<...>
> More of ernie's lies. That is not true at all. In places
> where condoms are passed out, sexual promiscuity does not
> stay constant, it rises.
The real world seems to differ with you, Ron, but what are mere facts when
ideology's at stake?
-----------
Abstinence-only, safer sex, and condom distribution programs vary with respect
to outcomes. Abstinence-only programs are characterized by limited
evaluations, and there are no published studies that measure behavioral
effects of the curricula. Evaluations of safer-sex sexuality education show
inconsistent but promising results. School-based condom availability programs
do not hasten the initiation of sexual intercourse, are viewed favorably by
students, and usually demonstrate increased condom use.
American Medical Association
Report 7 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99)
Sexuality Education, Abstinence, and Distribution of Condoms in Schools (1999)
-----------
Critics of condom availability programs in schools believe that such programs
send an inappropriate message to youth and promote rather than postpone sexual
activity. There is no evidence, however, that condom availability in schools
increases the number of youth who become sexually active. In Europe and
Canada, where comprehensive sexuality education and convenient, confidential
access to condoms is more common, the rates of adolescent sexual intercourse
are no higher than those in the United States. Research in other countries
indicates that students in schools where clinics provide reproductive health
services are no more likely to be sexually active than peers in schools
without clinics, but if they are sexually active, they are more likely to use
an effective method of contraception.[46,47] Similarly, creating barriers to
obtaining contraceptives or condoms does not reduce adolescent sexual
intercourse.
American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement,
Condom Availability for Youth (RE9502) (1996)
-----------
Among students in Baltimore who participated in a school-based pregnancy
prevention program that linked sex education with free medical and
contraceptive services (including condoms) at an adjacent clinic, the
pregnancy rate declined 30.1% after 28 months in the program.
Laurie S. Zabin et al., "Evaluation of a Pregnancy Prevention Program for
Urban Teenagers," 18 Family Planning Perspectives 119, 122-24 (1986).
-----------
After nine Philadelphia high schools opened condom availability centers,
the proportion of students using a condom at last intercourse increased from
52% to 58%. In schools where the centers were most heavily used, the
proportion of students who had unprotected intercourse declined from 14% to
6%.
<...>
Between 1991 and 1993, the proportion of students who had ever had sex
actually dropped from 64% to 58% in the nine Philadelphia high schools with
condom availability centers, while it increased from 56% to 59% in comparison
schools lacking such centers.
Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., et al., "Does Condom Availability Make a
Difference? An Evaluation of Philadelphia's Health Resource Centers," 29
Family Planning Perspectives 123, 125-26 (1997).
-----------
A study comparing New York City students who had access to condoms in
their schools with Chicago students who did not revealed that 60.8% of the New
York students used a condom at last intercourse, but only 55.5% of the Chicago
students did so.
<...>
The same proportion of sampled students were found to be sexually active
(about 60%) in both New York City schools with condom availability programs
and Chicago schools without such programs. Moreover, in New York, 69% of
parents, 76% of educators, and 89% of students supported the condom
availability program.
Sally Guttmacher, et al., "Condom Availability in New York City Public High
Schools: Relationships to Condom Use and Sexual Behavior," 87 American Journal
of Public Health 1427, 1430 (1997).
----------
A study of six school-based clinics (including several that provided condoms
to the students) showed that at most sites, there were no significant
differences in the age of initiation or the frequency of sexual activity
between clinic and non-clinic schools. When significant differences did occur,
the data showed less sexual activity among students attending the clinic
schools.
Douglas Kirby, et al., "Six School-Based Health Clinics: Their Reproductive
Health Services and Impact on Sexual Behavior," 23 Family Planning
Perspectives 6, 14 (1991).
-----------
There is no scientific evidence that school-based contraceptive counseling and
provision hasten the initiation or increase the frequency of adolescent sexual
activity.
Joy G. Dryfoos, "School-Based Health Clinics: Three Years of Experience," 20
Family Planning Perspectives 193, 196 (1988).
bochinam
as yourself?
"DrNybble" <DrNy...@rea-alp.com> wrote in message
news:0fccetcqg6udoo6bj...@4ax.com...
The Night Stalker
facts.
Stalker Steve
Ernie DiMicco, Jr.
news:yzDF6.1082$OC1.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> "Ron Thomas" <ep...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:9c6onb$1c14$1...@news.aros.net...
>
> <...>
>
> > More of ernie's lies. That is not true at all. In places
> > where condoms are passed out, sexual promiscuity does not
> > stay constant, it rises.
>
>
> The real world seems to differ with you, Ron, but what are mere facts when
> ideology's at stake?
Excellent... thanks for the backup, Clave.
Clave
news:tefa0g2...@corp.supernews.com...
It's the truth that backs you up here -- I'm just its humble servant, with the
web as my sword.
Jim
--
Note to Ron -- 10 minutes is all it took...
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
Ron's correct here, and you two are off base.
/E
Those who tolerate everything, stand for nothing.
Visit http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/
Catch me most nights on STARLINK-IRC #politics
Ron Thomas
>>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Thursday, April 26,
2001 12:12:31 AM >>>
I really apreciate that fact that you said it only took you
10 minutes. I took more time than that to really dig into
the articles you quoted. Having a degree in psychology, I
was intrigued with the amount of 'studies' that you quoted.
I had several courses in the course of obtaining my degree
that taught us to really be able to read a study. I wanted
to read the studies that you quoted since I was taught that
the passing out of condoms increased sexual behavior. I
went through your articles to find out why I had been taught
so wrong! Come to find out, they weren't even studies!!
Most of them were basically the same thing as a postition
paper put out by known liberal entities such as the AMA. I
was encouraged by one article that quoted references to
'studies'. I went to some of these footnoted articles, and
they referred me back to the same position papers that you
quoted in your post. I know it didn't take 10 minutes for
me to get all of this information, but I like to know the
facts. I want you to point me (with a URL) of a legitimate
study that interviews STUDENTS and not a bunch of doctors
and school therapists etc. that shows that sexual activity
does NOT increase. This time, take more than 10 stinking
minutes and read the whole study. Make sure that their
methodology is in line with standards. Look at where they
get their subjects and how many they had. What is the
standard deviation? What is the margin of error? Look at
how many subjects where thrown out of the study and why they
were. Go ahead and take your time. I did, you didn't
before.
Ron Thomas
>>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Thursday, April 26,
2001 11:24:37 AM >>>
"Ron Thomas" <ep...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:9c9i48$jme$1...@news.aros.net...
<...>
> I really apreciate that fact that you said it only took
you
> 10 minutes. I took more time than that to really dig
into
> the articles you quoted. Having a degree in psychology,
I
> was intrigued with the amount of 'studies' that you
quoted.
> I had several courses in the course of obtaining my
degree
> that taught us to really be able to read a study. I
wanted
> to read the studies that you quoted since I was taught
that
> the passing out of condoms increased sexual behavior.
>By whom? Were you as insistent on seeing rigorous
methodology from them?
Yes, as a matter of fact I was as insistent. I know that
you think that all conservatives are stupid and only want
the facts on one side, but I am not that way. If someone
wants me to believe them, they had better show me why I
should believe that way. There are several ways to skew
results from a study, and if you don't have the whole study,
then you can't check the facts. Read any real magazine that
publishes studies. They publish the study in its entirety,
not just the results. My challenge remains
> I went through your articles to find out why I had been
> taught so wrong! Come to find out, they weren't even
> studies!! Most of them were basically the same thing as
> a postition paper put out by known liberal entities such
as
> the AMA.
<...>
So far, the word of the AMA and the American Academy of
Pediatrics (are they a
"liberal entity" too?) outweighs your word by a laughable
margin, as does
Dryfoos' observation:
"There is no scientific evidence that school-based
contraceptive counseling and provision hasten the
initiation or increase the frequency of adolescent
sexual activity."
If they're wrong, it should be a simple matter for you to
provide evidence to
that effect. Your blanket dismissal of the sources I quoted
as "liberal
entities" hardly qualifies.
Jim
Clave
<...>
> I really apreciate that fact that you said it only took you
> 10 minutes. I took more time than that to really dig into
> the articles you quoted. Having a degree in psychology, I
> was intrigued with the amount of 'studies' that you quoted.
> I had several courses in the course of obtaining my degree
> that taught us to really be able to read a study. I wanted
> to read the studies that you quoted since I was taught that
> the passing out of condoms increased sexual behavior.
By whom? Were you as insistent on seeing rigorous methodology from them?
> I went through your articles to find out why I had been
> taught so wrong! Come to find out, they weren't even
> studies!! Most of them were basically the same thing as
> a postition paper put out by known liberal entities such as
> the AMA.
<...>
So far, the word of the AMA and the American Academy of Pediatrics (are they a
"liberal entity" too?) outweighs your word by a laughable margin, as does
Dryfoos' observation:
"There is no scientific evidence that school-based
contraceptive counseling and provision hasten the
initiation or increase the frequency of adolescent
sexual activity."
If they're wrong, it should be a simple matter for you to provide evidence to
Clave
<...>
> Yes, as a matter of fact I was as insistent. I know that
> you think that all conservatives are stupid
Not at all true, but I'm really wondering about you.
> and only want
> the facts on one side, but I am not that way. If someone
> wants me to believe them, they had better show me why I
> should believe that way.
Then show us what convinced *you.* The sources *must* still exist, right? It
must be pretty persuasive, right? Frankly, I'm beginning to believe that
either you're lying about being taught that condom programs result in
increased sexual activity, or that the "teaching" wasn't in an academic
setting and your standards of rigor aren't always as strict as you claim.
> There are several ways to skew
> results from a study, and if you don't have the whole study,
> then you can't check the facts. Read any real magazine that
> publishes studies. They publish the study in its entirety,
> not just the results. My challenge remains
Your challenge is an irrelevant distractionary tactic.
1) If you want to criticize the conclusions I posted, go ahead and list your
methodological and/or interpretive objections. I have a few years of stix and
psych under my belt too, so don't be afraid to talk over my head.
2) My studies aside, the observation has been made by *several* prominent,
credentialed sources that NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE exists to support your
assertion. Got any?
Put up or shut up.
Jim
Ron Thomas
>>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Thursday, April 26,
2001 11:57:01 AM >>>
"Ron Thomas" <ep...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:9c9mbh$mp4$1...@news.aros.net...
<...>
> Yes, as a matter of fact I was as insistent. I know that
> you think that all conservatives are stupid
>Put up or shut up.
WHy should I have to put up and not you? You made the first
assertion, and you didn't support it, now I am asking you to
do so. When you make an attempt, then I will put up. Until
then, I don't have to shut up. I put more effort into this
than you have. You admitted that you spent 10 minutes. I
spent a day.
Jim
Clave
>
>
> >>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Thursday, April 26,
> 2001 11:57:01 AM >>>
> "Ron Thomas" <ep...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:9c9mbh$mp4$1...@news.aros.net...
>
> <...>
>
> > Yes, as a matter of fact I was as insistent. I know that
> > you think that all conservatives are stupid
You're beginning to remove all doubt in your case.
> >Put up or shut up.
>
> WHy should I have to put up and not you? You made the first
> assertion, and you didn't support it, now I am asking you to
> do so.
Oh, puh-leeze. I gave you more than a half-dozen cites from prominent sources
to back myself up, you've offered nothing but a blanket pooh-poohing of my
sources with no specific criticism of them other than to say that they're
"liberal" or that studies can be manipulated.
If you can't intelligently criticize the studies I cited or provide anything
to counter them, they stand.
For someone with a "degree in psychology" (associates?), you don't follow
basic logic very well.
> When you make an attempt, then I will put up. Until
> then, I don't have to shut up. I put more effort into this
> than you have. You admitted that you spent 10 minutes. I
> spent a day.
And you haven't been able to come up with jack shit. That says a lot.
Jim
Ron Thomas
>>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Thursday, April 26,
2001 1:36:49 PM >>>
"Ron Thomas" <ep...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:9c9pj5$pdq$1...@news.aros.net...
>
>
> >>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Thursday, April
26,
> 2001 11:57:01 AM >>>
> "Ron Thomas" <ep...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:9c9mbh$mp4$1...@news.aros.net...
>
> <...>
>
> > Yes, as a matter of fact I was as insistent. I know
that
> > you think that all conservatives are stupid
>You're beginning to remove all doubt in your case.
Only to someone that doesn't understand the truth
> >Put up or shut up.
>
> WHy should I have to put up and not you? You made the
first
> assertion, and you didn't support it, now I am asking you
to
> do so.
>Oh, puh-leeze. I gave you more than a half-dozen cites
from prominent sources
>to back myself up, you've offered nothing but a blanket
pooh-poohing of my
>sources with no specific criticism of them other than to
say that they're
>"liberal" or that studies can be manipulated.
>If you can't intelligently criticize the studies I cited or
provide anything
>to counter them, they stand.
>For someone with a "degree in psychology" (associates?),
you don't follow
>basic logic very well.
Oh, puh-leeze. The half-dozen cites you gave were from
liberal organizations that stated a postion on their part.
It's like reading something from Dr. Seuss and saying that
he is an expert on children. I could start my own
association and create a website that says that, in my
opinion, going to sleep before 11:00 PM is harmful to your
health. That's how much credibility your cites have. Your
cites give no numbers etc, that I asked you for, and you
haven't given me a thing. I criticized your studied, and
because you didn't like it, you start bitching and moaning
about it. I also want you to show me where my logic is
faulty.
> When you make an attempt, then I will put up. Until
> then, I don't have to shut up. I put more effort into
this
> than you have. You admitted that you spent 10 minutes.
I
> spent a day.
>And you haven't been able to come up with jack shit. That
says a lot.
This is your opinion. It means nothing to me. I also
believe the same about you.
Jim
Steve Krulick
>
> >>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
[snip]
> > WHy should I have to put up and not you? You made the first
> > assertion, and you didn't support it, now I am asking you to
> > do so.
> Oh, puh-leeze. The half-dozen cites you gave were from
> liberal organizations that stated a postion on their part.
> It's like reading something from Dr. Seuss and saying that
> he is an expert on children. I could start my own
> association and create a website that says that, in my
> opinion, going to sleep before 11:00 PM is harmful to your
> health. That's how much credibility your cites have. Your
> cites give no numbers etc, that I asked you for, and you
> haven't given me a thing. I criticized your studied, and
> because you didn't like it, you start bitching and moaning
> about it. I also want you to show me where my logic is
> faulty.
You have presented no logic or support at all. All you have
posted is:
> More of ernie's lies. That is not true at all. In places
> where condoms are passed out, sexual promiscuity does not
> stay constant, it rises.
You did not support that claim initially, nor have you since
with ANY evidence at all. Jim has given valid cites from studies
that refute you; calling the AMA and other sources "liberal" is
a bogus side-step. If you need the numbers, go to the cites'
sites and check them out. Nor can YOU start your own "AMA" with
all its credibility and post some fact-free opinion and call
THAT an answer to what Jim's sources did.
ONE cite from you supporting your claim would be a good start,
along with the source and URL so we can verify it. Refuting ALL
Jim's cites would be even better.
-------------------------------------------------
Steve Krulick
kru...@dem101.org
http://dem101.org
Democracy101:
Improve Democracy with... MORE Democracy!
* 1 Person = 1 Vote
* 1 Vote, More Choice
* 1 Vote + 50% = Win
* 1 % Voters = 1 % Representation
* 1 Nation, 1 Electoral System
* 1 Voter, More Voice
-------------------------------------------------
Clave
<snip desperate hand-waving>
I didn't think you could come up with anything. Like I said when this
started, what are mere facts when ideology's at stake?
Anyway, Junior, you can just piss off from here on out. You might be worth
embarrassing further, but for the painfully obvious fact that you don't have
the brains it takes to recognize when to be embarrassed.
Toodles,
Jim
Ron Thomas
>>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Thursday, April 26,
2001 4:14:04 PM >>>
<snip desperate hand-waving>
>Toodles,
>Jim
Oooooooooh. You are so mean. I will have the facts and I
will post them as soon as I get all that I want. Lets see
you do the same. Come on, chicken shit, do it. I will bet
that you cannot post even ONE empirical study to back your
ludicrous claims. Instead, you will ask me to do it (which
I will), but refuse to do it yourself. There is a word for
that. Do you know what it is? Go figure it out, if you
can!
Tittles, jim. That's probably the only thing you ever have
in your head!
Ron Thomas
>>> Steve Krulick<kry...@ulster.net> Thursday, April 26,
2001 4:13:57 PM >>>
And then Clavius Brutus Jim posted cites and I refuted them.
The cites he gave are nothing more than a bunch of people
saying "we believe this" Because they say it does not make
it so. That is a flaw in logic. Lets see them back up
there beliefs. Lets see Brutus back up his beliefs. I am
going to take the time to do it (and it will be more than 10
minutes) Why can' t you two do it instead of just telling
me that I have to do it. As clavius brutus jim says 'put up
or shut up'
>You did not support that claim initially, nor have you
since
>with ANY evidence at all. Jim has given valid cites from
studies
>that refute you; calling the AMA and other sources
"liberal" is
>a bogus side-step. If you need the numbers, go to the
cites'
>ites and check them out. Nor can YOU start your own "AMA"
with
>all its credibility and post some fact-free opinion and
call
>HAT an answer to what Jim's sources did.
>NE cite from you supporting your claim would be a good
start,
>long with the source and URL so we can verify it. Refuting
ALL
>Jim's cites would be even better.
Hey, idiot, I did just that, and the cites that he gave have
nothing on which they can make the claims that they did.
They just quote each other in some kind of circular quoting.
I can quote my brother saying one thing, and then he says
that I quoted it, but I was just quoting him. That doesn't
make it the truth. By the way, I am taking time to find
studies that will support me, but unlike you idiots, I like
to get to the bottom of things instead of just quoting what
makes me look and 'feel' good. I will support my claims,
but it takes more than any stinking '10 minutes' put in by
the likes of Clavius Brutus Jim.
Ernie DiMicco, Jr.
> <snip desperate hand-waving>
>
> >I didn't think you could come up with anything. Like I
> said when this
> >started, what are mere facts when ideology's at stake?
>
> >Anyway, Junior, you can just piss off from here on out.
> You might be worth
> >embarrassing further, but for the painfully obvious fact
> that you don't have
> >the brains it takes to recognize when to be embarrassed.
> Oooooooooh. You are so mean. I will have the facts and I
> will post them as soon as I get all that I want.
Lets see them, pal.
> Lets see
> you do the same.
He just did.
> Come on, chicken shit, do it.
He just did.
> I will bet
> that you cannot post even ONE empirical study to back your
> ludicrous claims.
He just did. More than six.
> Instead, you will ask me to do it (which
> I will), but refuse to do it yourself. There is a word for
> that. Do you know what it is? Go figure it out, if you
> can!
Yeah, it's called a desparate moron. You.
Clave posted several cites. So far, you have posted zero, and can't address his
cites without demonizing them as being "liberal" - definition: someone that
disagrees with Ron Thomas.
You are driving in a circular driveway. In a clown car.
Steve Krulick
Uh, no, you merely waved your hand at them and sneered something
about "liberals." As a neutral third party, I observed the
exchange, and found no additional refutation on your part. You
offered NO cites in favor of YOUR original claim, nor showed any
legitimate reason to dismiss Jim's cites. Because Jim only
quoted the relevant parts of the studies that refute your claim,
and did not weigh us down with 50K for each study, complete with
all stats and research parameters, does not mean that those
parts aren't there; he has given you the sources, so you can go
in and refute the boring details if you wish. But you've refuted
nothing to the satisfaction of an objective observer such as
myself.
> The cites he gave are nothing more than a bunch of people
> saying "we believe this"
No, that's what YOU did... you presented your mere
unsubstantiated opinion, which is STILL unsubstantiated.
Jim cited people who have gone public with reports, of which
these are merely excerpts, that will have to run the gauntlet of
peer reviews and people who would hope to find flaws in them,
and you are welcome to join the latter group. They have to stand
or fall on the credibility surrounding their ability to
withstand scrutiny over their claims, so I doubt they would take
their statements and claims lightly. YOU, on the other hand,
have posted no stats, no references, no quotes, and no
authorities, so you have nothing to stand on but your OWN
credibility, which has no basis to be judged so far, except to
the extent you've side-stepped and waved your digital hand
dismissively, and called people names.
> Because they say it does not make it so.
Et tu, RT.
> That is a flaw in logic.
Which flaw is that? The only flaw I see is your making
unsubstantiated statements, while Jim offered substantiation for
his, and you accusing others of what YOU ALONE have done.
> Lets see them back up there beliefs.
[that would be "their" beliefs]
Uh, YOU were the one who didn't support your claim when you
first made it:
> > In places
> > where condoms are passed out, sexual promiscuity does not
> > stay constant, it rises.
It is incumbent on YOU to back up YOUR beliefs.
Jim backed up HIS claims with summaries of reports; feel free to
go to the details of the reports and find out where they are
wrong.
> Lets see Brutus back up his beliefs.
He has, at least more than you; he has provided claims by groups
with more than passing credibility and individuals who have
given no reason to be dismissed out of hand as disingenuous. You
have done neither.
> I am going to take the time to do it (and it will be more than 10
> minutes) Why can' t you two do it instead of just telling
> me that I have to do it.
YOU made the claim before Jim. Take responsibility for that. We
are still waiting for YOU to support that claim. Will you pay me
by the hour to do YOUR work for you?
> As clavius brutus jim says 'put up
> or shut up'
YOU put up the claim before Jim; therefore it is up to you to
support it, or shut up. Is that too hard for you to understand
and cop to?
> >You did not support that claim initially, nor have you since
> >with ANY evidence at all. Jim has given valid cites from studies
> >that refute you; calling the AMA and other sources "liberal" is
> >a bogus side-step. If you need the numbers, go to the cites'
> >sites and check them out. Nor can YOU start your own "AMA" with
> >all its credibility and post some fact-free opinion and call
> >THAT an answer to what Jim's sources did.
>
> >ONE cite from you supporting your claim would be a good start,
> >long with the source and URL so we can verify it. Refuting ALL
> >Jim's cites would be even better.
> Hey, idiot,
Are you now accusing me of having an IQ of less than 50? Based
on what evidence? The self-evident words I've written would seem
to disparage and deflate THAT claim. Is name-calling all you
have left in your pitiful arsenal? No debate points for you
there, pal.
> I did just that,
Nope, you have still given NO cites, nor refuted any of Jim's by
either logical argument or by casting legitimate doubts on those
claims' validity.
> and the cites that he gave have
> nothing on which they can make the claims that they did.
Well, so far they beat YOUR evidence, which is NIL!
> They just quote each other in some kind of circular quoting.
And you have quoted nobody at all, in some kind of NON-quoting.
> I can quote my brother saying one thing, and then he says
> that I quoted it, but I was just quoting him. That doesn't
> make it the truth.
That's correct, and if you had done that we'd call you on it,
unless you or your brother had some expert qualifications in the
field, which you've not claimed so far.
But you haven't even done that; you've merely quoted YOURSELF,
as it were, and THAT doesn't make it the truth by any stretch.
In any case, your argument is pure straw here; Jim has cited
reasonably credible evidence, and you have cited none.
> By the way, I am taking time to find
> studies that will support me,
Fine. We await your results. I can be persuaded by credible
evidence; so far, you've offered none.
> but unlike you idiots,
... you feel that name-calling is a substitute for logic and
proof. Yeah, I sense that.
> I like
> to get to the bottom of things instead of just quoting what
> makes me look and 'feel' good.
Jim's cites are persuasive, certainly compared to your
NON-evidence to date. So far, your "likes" ring hollow.
> I will support my claims,
> but it takes more than any stinking '10 minutes' put in by
> the likes of Clavius Brutus Jim.
Knock yourself out. How about quoting some summary cites that
support your claims NOW, and then give the details later? Or
just go away. I doubt anyone here will be holding his/her breath
waiting for you.
Ron Thomas
>>> Steve Krulick<kry...@ulster.net> Thursday, April 26,
2001 10:36:12 PM >>>
Uh, read the post idiot. I said that I went and read the
articles that he posted pieces to and I found tehm to be
faulty. Then I asked him to post a URL where I could go
read something that was credible. He didn't. I did NOT ask
him to post the whole article.
> The cites he gave are nothing more than a bunch of
people
> saying "we believe this"
>No, that's what YOU did... you presented your mere
>unsubstantiated opinion, which is STILL unsubstantiated.
>Jim cited people who have gone public with reports, of
which
>these are merely excerpts, that will have to run the
gauntlet of
>peer reviews and people who would hope to find flaws in
them,
>and you are welcome to join the latter group. They have to
stand
>or fall on the credibility surrounding their ability to
>withstand scrutiny over their claims, so I doubt they would
take
>their statements and claims lightly. YOU, on the other
hand,
>have posted no stats, no references, no quotes, and no
>authorities, so you have nothing to stand on but your OWN
>credibility, which has no basis to be judged so far, except
to
>the extent you've side-stepped and waved your digital hand
>dismissively, and called people names.
I also said that I was researching it and I would post when
I was ready. Did you read that or just blow it off? I did
not side step. I don't post until I am ready with facts. I
said that he was full of crap, I was called on it, and when
I have the facts, I will post. Is that hard for you to
understand? I don't spend 10 minutes and then say that I
have everything there is to have. Maybe that's what you like
to do, but not me.
> Because they say it does not make it so.
>Et tu, RT.
> That is a flaw in logic.
>Which flaw is that? The only flaw I see is your making
>unsubstantiated statements, while Jim offered
substantiation for
>his, and you accusing others of what YOU ALONE have done.
Circular logic
> Lets see them back up there beliefs.
>[that would be "their" beliefs]
Well, wxcuse me for making a mistake!
>Uh, YOU were the one who didn't support your claim when
you
>first made it:
I said I would.
> > In places
> > where condoms are passed out, sexual promiscuity does
not
> > stay constant, it rises.
>It is incumbent on YOU to back up YOUR beliefs.
I am going to
>Jim backed up HIS claims with summaries of reports; feel
free to
>go to the details of the reports and find out where they
are
>wrong.
I went to the details, and I found them to be wrong. I also
said why they were wrong. Listen closely. Just because
someone says tehy believe something, even if it is a bunch
of people in the same profession, it doesn't mean that it is
the truth. The articles showed absolutely NO data to back
up their claims. They showed NO articles or studies that
had that data. How hard is it for you to unsderstand that!
> Lets see Brutus back up his beliefs.
>He has, at least more than you; he has provided claims by
groups
>with more than passing credibility and individuals who
have
>given no reason to be dismissed out of hand as
disingenuous. You
>have done neither.
see above
> I am going to take the time to do it (and it will be more
than 10
> minutes) Why can' t you two do it instead of just
telling
> me that I have to do it.
>YOU made the claim before Jim. Take responsibility for
that. We
>are still waiting for YOU to support that claim. Will you
pay me
>by the hour to do YOUR work for you?
>
Maybe before jim, but not before ernie. I challenged ernie
and then jim came up with a bunch on nonsense.
> As clavius brutus jim says 'put up
> or shut up'
>YOU put up the claim before Jim; therefore it is up to you
to
>support it, or shut up. Is that too hard for you to
understand
>and cop to?
>
See above
Just stating the truth
> I did just that,
>Nope, you have still given NO cites, nor refuted any of
Jim's by
>either logical argument or by casting legitimate doubts on
those
>claims' validity.
>
I said I would when I hvae all the facts. I am going to
take my time so that you will better understand.
> and the cites that he gave have
> nothing on which they can make the claims that they did.
>Well, so far they beat YOUR evidence, which is NIL!
See above
> They just quote each other in some kind of circular
quoting.
>and you have quoted nobody at all, in some kind of
NON-quoting.
You keep saying this. I ahve answered many times this time,
but also last post
> but unlike you idiots,
I can tell that you didn't go read the articles that he took
that stuff from. You say that you can be persuaded by
evidence. Those articles lack evidence, and yet you are
fighting for them.
> I will support my claims,
> but it takes more than any stinking '10 minutes' put in
by
> the likes of Clavius Brutus Jim.
>Knock yourself out. How about quoting some summary cites
that
>support your claims NOW, and then give the details later?
Or
>just go away. I doubt anyone here will be holding his/her
breath
>waiting for you.
WHy do you ask for it know? Can't you wait? Don't you have
the patience for the truth? Half turths are just as bad as
lies!
Ron Thomas
from me. You are the moronic clown. Why don't you post
something different than what has already been posted. Go
read the previous posts. You are as bad as Gary Lantz.
Just say the same thing over and over again.
You also call people names when they disagree with you, so
maybe you should stop saying that about others.
Clave
<...Ron claims condom distribution increases promiscuity...>
> By the way, I am taking time to find studies that will
> support me, but unlike you idiots, I like to get to the
> bottom of things instead of just quoting what makes me
> look and 'feel' good. I will support my claims, but it
> takes more than any stinking '10 minutes' put in by
> the likes of Clavius Brutus Jim.
We're still waiting, Ron.
Jim
Ron Thomas
>>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Saturday, April 28,
2001 10:15:41 PM >>>
Of course you are, and I bet that while I am out doing some
research, you are sitting there doing nothing of the same.
While I am doing research, why don't you go find something
to back up YOUR (or your liberal friends) claims. You
don't, because there is none.
Jim
Clave
>
> >>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Saturday, April 28,
> 2001 10:15:41 PM >>>
> "Ron Thomas" <ep...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:9ca7kh$13ft$1...@news.aros.net...
>
> <...Ron claims condom distribution increases
> promiscuity...>
>
> > By the way, I am taking time to find studies that will
> > support me, but unlike you idiots, I like to get to the
> > bottom of things instead of just quoting what makes me
> > look and 'feel' good. I will support my claims, but it
> > takes more than any stinking '10 minutes' put in by
> > the likes of Clavius Brutus Jim.
>
>
> >We're still waiting, Ron.
>
> Of course you are, and I bet that while I am out doing some
> research, you are sitting there doing nothing of the same.
> While I am doing research,
Stop lying -- you're not fooling *anyone.* If you were able to post
*anything* to back yourself up, you'd have done so days ago. Why not just
grow some balls and admit that you were simply wrong?
> why don't you go find something
> to back up YOUR (or your liberal friends) claims. You
> don't, because there is none.
Why not post your specific objections to the sources I've already cited?
(HINT -- because you can't argue with them, that's why.)
You remind me of my three-year old when she sticks her fingers in her ears and
yells "LA-LA-LA-LA -- I can't hear you -- LA-LA-LA-LA!"
Jim
Ron Thomas
>>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Monday, April 30,
2001 11:46:13 AM >>>
Maybe I'm not fooling anyone because I am not trying to.
You see, you guys always lie, so you assume that everyone
else does also. You want me to answer now because you are
afraid of what I might turn up. I have turned up things
also. Things concerning this subject and other things that
are very interesting, but of course you will deny. I know
that as soon as I post, you will come up with another
response that takes a total of 10 minutes to come up with.
> why don't you go find something
> to back up YOUR (or your liberal friends) claims. You
> don't, because there is none.
>Why not post your specific objections to the sources I've
already cited?
Do you know how to read? I have posted these objections at
least TWO times, or did you just choose to ignore what I
posted? It wouldn't surprise me. Democrats often ignore
anything that is oppostie to your point of view.
>(HINT -- because you can't argue with them, that's why.)
(HINT — You don't like what I said, so you ignored it).
>You remind me of my three-year old when she sticks her
fingers in her ears and
>yells "LA-LA-LA-LA -- I can't hear you -- LA-LA-LA-LA!"
You remind me of my two year old that doesn't know patience.
Has to have everything right now, and believes that just
because someone says it, it MUST be true.
>Jim
Clave
<...>
> >Stop lying -- you're not fooling *anyone.* If you were
> >able to post *anything* to back yourself up, you'd have
> >done so days ago. Why not just grow some balls and admit
> >that you were simply wrong?
>
> Maybe I'm not fooling anyone because I am not trying to.
> You see, you guys always lie, so you assume that everyone
> else does also. You want me to answer now because you are
> afraid of what I might turn up. I have turned up things
> also. Things concerning this subject and other things that
> are very interesting, but of course you will deny.
And knowing that, you won't bother to post them, right?
>snort<
How convenient for you. And how amusing to the rest of us.
You'd be pathetic if you weren't so accidentally funny. No, wait -- I guess
you can be both.
<...>
> >Why not post your specific objections to the sources I've
> already cited?
>
> Do you know how to read? I have posted these objections at
> least TWO times, or did you just choose to ignore what I
> posted?
I think *you're* the one in need of a remedial reading course.
Your objections that the sources were "liberal" and that studies
can be manipulated hardly qualify as specific. What about the
conclusions, other than the conclusions, do you object to?
BTW, could you tell me from where your "degree in psychology"
comes from? Assuming you're not lying outright (which you
probably are), I wanna make sure my kids never go there.
> >You remind me of my three-year old when she sticks her
> >fingers in her ears and yells "LA-LA-LA-LA -- I can't hear
> >you -- LA-LA-LA-LA!"
> You remind me of my two year old that doesn't know patience.
> Has to have everything right now, and believes that just
> because someone says it, it MUST be true.
I take it back. Even at three, my little girl has more self-
respect than to let herself be tailwalked across eight newsgroups
for a week.
Jim
--
ps -- you edit as badly as you argue.
Ron Thomas
they? I guess that's all you have left in your bag of
tricks. You won't post a damn thing because you have none.
I posted my reasons for objecting to the citations, and you
ignored them, so that makes you the laughing stock. Pull
your head our for a while and maybe you will see what an
imbicile you are.
>>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Monday, April 30,
2001 2:25:34 PM >>>
Clave
>
> GREAT RESPONSE!!!!! Personal attacks are great, aren't
> they?
When used on blowhard know-nothing ditto-monkeys like you, yeah -- they're
pretty cathartic.
As dishonest and dull-witted as you've repeatedly demonstrated yourself to be,
you really don't deserve the restrained politeness I was showing earlier, and
I haven't had a new chew-toy in many moons.
Frankly, since I'm convinced you'll *never* offer anything more substantial
than your usual lies, handwaving and anal wind to back up your preposterous
claim, I'm content to just stand here handing you more rope. And just like a
guthooked carp, you keep taking it.
Dance for us, Ron.
Jim
Ron Thomas
Clave
What a witty riposte. Real Round Table material.
How about a nice soft-shoe for the people?
Jim
--
ps -- is your "research" ready yet?
pps -- your editing still sucks.