I Always Knew It....

[Fred Brown]

See...it's not our fault guys. :))

Pat Robertson says cheating is in male DNA.

Faults women for men straying.

http://www.rr.com/video/2385698353

[Frank McCoy]

"Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>See...it's not our fault guys. :))
>
>Pat Robertson says cheating is in male DNA.
>
>Faults women for men straying.
>

Wait a minute!!!!
It's in *OUR* DNA ... But it's *WOMEN'S* fault?
Talk about backward logic!

>http://www.rr.com/video/2385698353
>
Actually, studies have shown that cheating *IS* in male DNA.
It increases our chances of having offspring.

HOWEVER: Cheating is ALSO in female DNA!
It increases THEIR chances of having FIT offspring.

So, the optimum strategy for males is to have sex with as many women
as possible ... or at least as often as possible. Sometimes that
"best strategy" includes marrying one woman and getting most, if not
all, sex from her. However, if a stray chance presents itself ....

That allows HIM to both nurture and protect HIS offspring; while being
around to chase off any other males wanting to leave their DNA.

The optimum strategy for women is to capture one man (in Today's
Society, that's usually but not always marriage) and then, whenever
possible, have sex with as many BETTER men than her present spouse as
she can ... without getting caught, of course.

That allows HER to keep a man around to nurture and protect HER
offspring; while still keeping options open for BETTER children.

Besides, neither one would be a winning-strategy if there weren't
enormous numbers of available members of the opposite sex to cheat
WITH.

Pat Robertson is just succumbing to the (quite usual) temptation to
blame anybody and everybody else EXCEPT yourself for your failings.
AND ... He doesn't even notice that he's doing it. ;-{

The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

[Fred Brown]

"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:7u1dp8l2m2uv6la7g...@4ax.com...

I expected some scathing remarks from the ladies here.

[Frank McCoy]

"Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>I expected some scathing remarks from the ladies here.

There were enough of THOSE types of remarks from the ladies in the URL
you posted. The ladies here, I presume are smart enough not to repeat
the obvious.

[Fred Brown]

"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message

news:tuhfp8hiaprro2k3b...@4ax.com...

> "Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>I expected some scathing remarks from the ladies here.
>
> There were enough of THOSE types of remarks from the ladies in the URL
> you posted. The ladies here, I presume are smart enough not to repeat
> the obvious.
>

Considering some of the just plain dumb remarks coming out of the mouths
of the notables these days I'm wondering if there is something in the water.
According to a Washington Big Wig, Benghazi is "irrevelant," the IRS scandal
is "irrevelant", it's "offensive" to question the President's actions, the
AP scandal
is "irrevelant."
Seems the White House is in full spin mode.

[Frank McCoy]

"Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
>news:tuhfp8hiaprro2k3b...@4ax.com...
>> "Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I expected some scathing remarks from the ladies here.
>>
>> There were enough of THOSE types of remarks from the ladies in the URL
>> you posted. The ladies here, I presume are smart enough not to repeat
>> the obvious.
>>
>
>Considering some of the just plain dumb remarks coming out of the mouths
>of the notables these days I'm wondering if there is something in the water.
>According to a Washington Big Wig, Benghazi is "irrevelant," the IRS scandal
>is "irrevelant",
>it's "offensive" to question the President's actions, the AP scandal is "irrevelant."

Better than questioning George Bush's actions; which questioning some
here in this very group called treason.

BTW: No matter WHICH side of the aisle you're on, questioning the
political motives of those on top is a Civic Duty ... Yes, even if you
tend to believe said politician.

You can't keep them *honest*; but you sure can expose some of the
seams.

>Seems the White House is in full spin mode.
>

Under which administration, from George Washington on, was it ever NOT
in that mode? It's pretty much a necessity of the office; because the
opposition is always trying to spin information to look like the worst
possible motive/result/aim and/or (hopefully) scandal.

Obama's spins are quite mild compared to many of his predecessors.
Bush was FAR worse; but even he paled in comparison to Clinton.
Then we get Nixon and yes: Reagan.
Talk about spin-doctors extraordinaire!
Still, that's what you have to be, to be a successful politician.

(I always tend to giggle when I think of the senators who were most
adamant about impeaching Bill Clinton because of his sex-life.)

So ... Why is it that the Republican Party, the one most-obsessed with
Democratic sex-scandals, is the one with close to twice that
particular kind of scandal in their own ranks? Is it the old,
"Methinks the man doth protest too much," type of thinking; trying to
draw attention away from their own peccadillos? Or, something else?

Then we get people like Obama; obsessed with "unfair treatment" of
prisoners in Guantanamo while a "mere" senator ... Who hasn't done
SQUAT about the issue since becoming president ....

--

[Marten Kemp]

And if Congress won't give him any money to buy them tickets
to someplace else? He probably could fly them someplace else
as if they were military personnel flying 'space available.'


--
-- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply)

[Frank McCoy]

There is one slight problem with SOME of the prisoners:
Nobody (No country) in the world wants to ACCEPT them.
Still, they use that as excuse for the whole batch; when it's a very
few at the most.
I imagine somebody could come up with a solution even to THAT, if they
really wanted to ... something far better than just continuing to
treat them AS prisoners, without any real reason to do so other than,
"It's easier."

[Tim Merrigan]

The problem with the slightly more than 100 left is where "someplace
else" is. None of the states will take them, so they can't be moved
to homeland* prisons. No foreign countries, we're willing to send
them to, will take them so we can't send them to foreign prisons or
release them on foreign soil. Yemen will take some, but we don't want
to send them there. So, even if we release them they're still stuck
in Guantanamo.

*I started to say "mainland" but there are several islands that are
possibilities.

[Barry Gold]

Frank McCoy wrote:
>>> Then we get people like Obama; obsessed with "unfair treatment" of
>>> prisoners in Guantanamo while a "mere" senator ... Who hasn't done
>>> SQUAT about the issue since becoming president ....

Marten Kemp<marte...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote:
>> And if Congress won't give him any money to buy them tickets
>> to someplace else? He probably could fly them someplace else
>> as if they were military personnel flying 'space available.'

Frank McCoy wrote:
> There is one slight problem with SOME of the prisoners:
> Nobody (No country) in the world wants to ACCEPT them.
> Still, they use that as excuse for the whole batch; when it's a very
> few at the most.
> I imagine somebody could come up with a solution even to THAT, if they
> really wanted to ... something far better than just continuing to
> treat them AS prisoners, without any real reason to do so other than,
> "It's easier."

Cf. the Heinlein story "Coventry" in the collection "Revolt in 2100".

In steps:

1. Those who have actually done something wrong, and we can prove it:
try them in Federal court, sentence them under appropriate statutes, and
imprison them (or execute them if you can prove a capital crime).

2. Those whose only "wrong" is being "enemy combatants": hold as with
any other PoWs, subject (again) to the right to challenge their status
in court.

3. Of the remaining, those who _do_ have a place to go, send them there.

4. Withdraw from the section of Guantanamo that is being used for the
detention camp. Put a double wall around it. Inside the inner wall is
an area where we don't go(*). Those who live there can make their own
society, whatever it may be. Between the two walls are:
a) infirmary/hospital, where those with illnesses/injuries can be
treated.
b) food storage and/or prep of some sort. Either we provide cooked,
Halal food to those inside via some sort of Mess Hall arrangement, or we
just give them the ingredients and say, "do what you want with it."

Nobody crosses the outer wall except
a) holders of US passports -- and they get checked against the
photograph and fingerprint information -- not the one in the passport,
but the one stored in computers in the State Dept. Passport Agency.
b) holders of special credentials, e.g., the International Red Cross.
Again, those credentials get checked carefully.
c) those who wish to leave, who have reached an agreement with some
country that is willing to take them, and that they are willing to go
to. These last go directly from the camp gate, under guard, to a plane
to their destination.


(*) Actually, we might suggest that those staying there elect a
government of their own, which can then decide whether or not we are
welcome to intervene when disputes between the internees become violent.
But even if welcome, we intervene at _our_ discretion -- that is, if
sending in people to break up fights means they get attacked with
improvised weapons, we stop sending people in.

[JimP.]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:27:46 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

>So ... Why is it that the Republican Party, the one most-obsessed with
>Democratic sex-scandals, is the one with close to twice that
>particular kind of scandal in their own ranks? Is it the old,
>"Methinks the man doth protest too much," type of thinking; trying to
>draw attention away from their own peccadillos? Or, something else?

If they point fingers often enough, people don't look at the
Republican scandels, they seem to hope. Doesn't work though.

JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009

[JimP.]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:56:30 -0700, Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com>
wrote:

> But even if welcome, we intervene at _our_ discretion -- that is, if
>sending in people to break up fights means they get attacked with
>improvised weapons, we stop sending people in.

All of your points sounds good, by Cuber would likely crap their
undies over it. They want the land back.