GOP insists on trying to justify genuine rapes: "Rate of pregnancies from rape is 'very low'

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???

The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on White
Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.

-Ramon

--------------------------------------------

Dear Ramon F --

As a woman in politics, nothing makes me angrier than when Republicans
make up outrageous claims to take away women's rights.

Here's what just happened: The House Judiciary Committee -- full of
Republican men -- voted to dramatically restrict women's access to
reproductive health care.

Trent Franks, the author of the extreme measure, said that there
should be NO exceptions for victims of rape and incest because "the
incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low."

This isn't just a reprehensible and utterly false claim. It's
dangerous.

We need to call out Congressman Franks and House Republicans for their
radical agenda to take away women's rights IMMEDIATELY. Will you help
us fight back?

Donate $3 or more to our Women's Health Rapid Response Fund >>

The idea that Republican men are using made-up claims to force women
to carry to term the product of a rape is outrageous.

If we don't act now, women's rights are in jeopardy. That's why I'm
asking you to step up today:

http://dccc.org/Rapid-Response-Fund

Thanks,

Emily

Emily Bittner
DCCC National Press Secretary

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/12/2013 7:25 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>
> Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???
>
> The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on White
> Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.
>
> -Ramon
>
> --------------------------------------------
>

Poor Ramon a genius trapped in a body of a Coyote.



He has all the answers but like Wile E. Coyote - Ramon always manages
to drop that safe on his own head.



Meep Meep

[Sid9]

"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:b38938b8-e5d1-4043...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

These people sat out Biology in high school....or did their church guided
school fail to teach about mammalian reproduction?

[Bill Graham]

> On 6/12/2013 7:25 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>>
>> Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???
>>
>> The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on White
>> Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.
>>
>> -Ramon

Neither party has learned that you can't make friends with people by giving
them something for nothing. This is why the whole world hates Americans, and
why even many Americans hate their own government. But the freebies just
keep coming, and coming.........

[Megan Major]

Ramon is a foreign transplant originally from Venezuela, probably a
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.

Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:18:43 -0700 (PDT), Cambridge Ray
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>"Illegal Immigration Is A Crime"
>No, it is not.
>http://tinyurl.com/3nqg7pp

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control
Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437 ) was a bill in the 109th United States
Congress. It was passed by the United States House of Representatives
on December 16, 2005 by a vote of 239 to 182 (with 92% of Republicans
supporting, 82% of Democrats opposing), but did not pass the Senate.

Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!

[Kenton L. Martell]

Sid is considered less of a liar and more of a senile idiot, possibly
an actual retard under medical supervision. Sid'sd lies are mostly
intended to get attention because he is a desperately lonely old fool
nearing the end of a generally failed life. Note that when you reply

to a Proven Liar you encourage them to continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"


Courtesy of Buster Norris:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:30:12 -0400, "Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote:

>The United States is one of the lowest tax nations. Only Japan, Korea,
>Turkey, and Mexico have lower income tax.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Taxation Statistics > Highest marginal tax rate, corporate rate
= 1 Saudi Arabia: 45%
= 1 Congo, Republic of the: 45%
= 1 Guyana: 45%
= 4 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 40%
= 4 Egypt: 40%
= 6 Colombia: 38.5%
= 6 Cameroon: 38.5%
= 8 Malawi: 38%
= 8 Benin: 38%
# 10 Pakistan: 37%
# 11 Barbados: 36%
= 12 Qatar: 35%
= 12 Zambia: 35%
= 12 Sri Lanka: 35%
= 12 Senegal: 35%
= 12 Gabon: 35%
= 12 Malta: 35%
= 12 Côte d'Ivoire: 35%
= 12 Philippines: 35%
= 12 United States: 35%
= 12 Spain: 35%
= 12 Argentina: 35%
= 12 Namibia: 35%
= 12 Morocco: 35%
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_hig_mar_tax_rat_cor_rat-highest-marginal-tax-rate-corporate

[Neolibertarian]

In article
<b38938b8-e5d1-4043...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,

"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

> Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???
>
> The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on White
> Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.
>

Ramon and H.L. Mencken, two of Mendels' Peas in a Pod.

>
> As a woman in politics, nothing makes me angrier than when Republicans
> make up outrageous claims to take away women's rights.

This should make us care...why again?

>
> Here's what just happened: The House Judiciary Committee -- full of
> Republican men -- voted to dramatically restrict women's access to
> reproductive health care.

No it didn't, you hysterical loon.

>
> Trent Franks, the author of the extreme measure, said that there
> should be NO exceptions for victims of rape and incest because "the
> incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low."
>
> This isn't just a reprehensible and utterly false claim. It's
> dangerous.

Statistics and data would easily discredit the white Republican mens'
claim.

How many cases of pregnancies resulting from rapes are there?

--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."

[NotMe]

"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kpb7qi$73b$3...@dont-email.me...

Hard to say as rapes are typically way under reported.

[Neolibertarian]

In article <kpbc12$o6i$1...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

So, the White Racist Representatives are correct?

[NotMe]

"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:kpdjnu$68s$1...@dont-email.me...

Conclusion based on facts not in evidence.

[Adolph Mcdonough]

Yoorghis: Real name Gary Richard Roselles. Before he was exposed he
changed his name every few days or weeks mainly because he's a
sociopathic coward, a pussy, and above all else a LIAR and a
time-waster. Gary is another example of a Complete Loser: He is
festering away in a one-bedroom apartment on Medicaid and Social
Security having wasted his entire life... (And he never served in the
US military...)

Gary uses "X-No-Archive: yes" in his message Header to force
server-side deletion of ALL of his posts and this is usually the only
way to detect his presence (unless you detect the strong odor of
shit).

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

Gary Richard Roselles (DoB: 11/1942)
(Diane M Roselles)
4215 Cedar Ridge Pl, Apt 42
Rapid City, SD 57702-3190
(605) 341-2445

Gary's real Email: rose...@yahoo.com

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:34:05 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Wed, 29 May 2013 05:34:28 GMT, use...@mantra.com and/or
>www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>IRS agents have violated the medical privacy of 10
>>million people
>>Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog
>Betcha you're just devastated because "Weekly World News " Folded?

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Weekly World News was a largely fictional news tabloid published
in the United States from 1979 to 2007, renowned for its outlandish
cover stories often based on supernatural or paranormal themes and an
approach to news that verged on the satirical. Its characteristic
black-and-white covers have become pop-culture images widely used in
the arts. It continues to exist as a website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_World_News

http://weeklyworldnews.com/

[Harold Burton]

In article
<b38938b8-e5d1-4043...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

> Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???
>
> The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on White
> Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.
>
> -Ramon
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Ramon F --
>
> As a woman in politics, nothing makes me angrier than when Republicans
> make up outrageous claims to take away women's rights.

Laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh. Dear, it's the the Democrats who make
outrageous claims.


snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article <kpbc12$o6i$1...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

> Hard to say . . .


So you agree, there's no proof to discredit the claim "the incidence of

rape resulting in pregnancy are very low."

Leftard herrera is just bloviating.


snicker

[Bret Cahill]

> it's the the Democrats who make
> outrageous claims.

Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just
shoot up your parents' doublewide.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 12, 6:25 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???
>

yes.

> The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on White
> Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.
>

correct, and they know it full well.

[Alina Adriana Christianson]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.136.236.132Subject: Marxism
Should Be Reconsidered By All Political PartiesFrom: Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com>
Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 13, 8:54 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <b38938b8-e5d1-4043-a954-75ad04d3c...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,

when are you going to apologize for calling our WWII vets war
criminals.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/e891055dbf97c108?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=ol&

Harold Burton
View profile
 More options May 19, 8:14 pm
In article
<90d4c035-5a00-4dc5-b0c5-3b981dc6d...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
 Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:


- Show quoted text -

Well doh.  Democrat FDR proved that in the 40s when he firebombed
thousands of innocent women and children in Dresden, Tokyo and
numerous
other cities.
snicker


you were responded to promptly by a patriot.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
While It's ALWAYS DISconcerting To Encounter a HOPELESS IGNORAMUS,
it is Conversely, a GREAT PLEASURE To Illustrate - And Hopefully
DISSIPATE - The HARM  of The DEPENDABLY, Self-Serving, Fact-
INTOLERANT, Delusional And INTRACTABLE IGNORANCE of such Notable
RighTARDS as "Harold Burton"...
   THUS: The Rationale For AND Decision To Bomb [FIRST With High-
Explosives, THEN With Incendiaries] Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
Targets] Was a - Waaaaait Forrr Iiiiiit - *British* Undertaking...
FDR's Involvement being Limited To his Administration's LONG-Standing
Acquiescence To Placing [American] Eighth Air Force assets At The
Disposal Of British Air Marshalls... As  Would Be Expected Of a GOOD
War-Time Ally...
   ERGO: *The British* Bombed Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
Targets] 
employing Combined Military Assets of British and American
Forces... 
The *British* FIRST Low-Level Attacking at *Night*, Per
British 
Strategy; American Forces [Under *British* Command] High-
Level 
Attacking by Next Daylight...
   ERGO - The Sequel: CONTRARY To Harold The RighTARD's HOPELESSLY
IGNORANT And Self-Serving, Ignoramus-Speak Blather, FDR had LITTLE OR
NOTHING To Do With The Bombing Of Dresden and Most Likely, Wasn't
Even 
Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb
Several 
East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian
Advance...

even after knowing the slaughter of americans in the Philippines,
and all of the other atrocities commited by them, they would have to
be worn down, as they tried to do to us.
and here is your response, you defended the nazis, and now you defend
the imperialists japanese.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
The CiC takes ultimate responsibility for what our armed services do.
  
The buck stopped at FDR's desk.

>  . . . .and Most Likely, Wasn't Even
> Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb Several
> East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian Advance...

Hahahahahahahahahaha.  Now THAT's even funnier.
I also notice you did your best to ignore the firebombing of
Tokyo . . .   
and Osaka . . . and Kobe  . . .  and Fukuoka . . . and,
oh hell just 
check out http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html.  How
are you going to 
blame that on the Brits?
then i demanded a apology,
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
and he owes WWII vets a apology.

you said,

Just as you owe sentient beings an apology
Hahahahahahahahahahah


you sir are not only a liar, but a unpatriotic one at that.

and you added this recently

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/3803f1d64d8e4b45/5d73a1560313be84?hl=en&

. . . and deliberately targeting and murdering civilians.
snicker

[NotMe]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-05AA...@d90-136-209-74.cust.tele2.de...

Conclusion not supported by facts. Historically rape has been way under
reported in part due to the actions of those to whom the rape is reported.
Just look at the problems the DoD is facing.

I work as a guardian ad litum in family court and with the foster program.
In my experience with the system 1 in 10 rapes are reported. When they are
even fewer are prosecuted.

[Mitchell Holman]

Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:hal.i.burton-05AA...@d90-136-209-74.cust.tele2.de:

Where is the proof to VERIFY the rightwing claim
that "the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy
are very low"?

[Louisa Sanderson]

Mitchel is a far-left liar, but usually runs away after a few days of
being slapped around. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you

encourage them to continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 14:00:56 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net>
wrote:
>Hell Stomper <stardu...@gmail.com> wrote in news:5441cf59-45d9-4db6-
>9f6f-0e4...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>> On May 4, 9:32 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>>> Hell Stomper <stardusth...@gmail.com> wrote in news:59f9f038-2bdb-422c-
>>> 988a-4c885ef88...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>>> > Billboard Offends Liberals, Again
>>> > Liberals ruined the Southwest. It started with Georgia O Keefe, when
>>> > she set up her studio at the Ghost Ranch. They tore up the deserts to
>>> > build homes for themselves, they raised the cost of living, and they
>>> > disregarded the Native Americans who live there.
>>>     Republican real estate developers
>>> pave over the desert with more and more
>>> subdivisions and it is all the fault
>>> of......liberals?
>> Name one.
> John Brewer, husband of Arizona
>governess you-know-who.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She married John Leon Brewer in Nevada, and worked briefly in
Glendale, California, before moving to her husband's hometown of
Phoenix, Arizona, in 1970. The couple later relocated to Glendale,
Arizona, where John became a successful chiropractor, in addition to
finding some real estate success.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Brewer

[bustyo...@rocketmail.com]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:27:09 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<nomailverizon.net> wrote:

>Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:hal.i.burton-05AA...@d90-136-209-74.cust.tele2.de:
>
>>

>> So you agree, there's no proof to discredit the claim "the incidence
>> of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low."
>
>
> Where is the proof to VERIFY the rightwing claim
>that "the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy
>are very low"?
>

Why are you so fucking stupid??????????????????

2002 study speculated that the incidence of pregnancy from rape could
be even higher — 6.4%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-the-incidence-of-rape-resulting-in-pregnancy-is-very-low/2013/06/12/936bc45e-d3ad-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_blog.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12110-003-1014-0

[SaPeIsMa]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-A932...@d90-136-209-74.cust.tele2.de...

And then, they are actually stupid enough to believe them too..

[BeamMeUpScotty]

So the problem isn't Republicans but it's the Government system that
allows for so many rapes?

This means that Abortions are a band-aid that hide the problem so that
you don't have to cut government programs that enhances the opportunity
for rapes resulting in pregnancy.

Cure the disease rather than relieving the symptoms.


--



*Rumination*
#29 - For your WELFARE there's the CHINESE MASTERCARD, but Freedom is
priceless.

[Jay Herblock]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:25:51 PM UTC-4, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???

> The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on White
> Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.

Wait a sec.
I mean you're so chock full of that (ridiculous) hispanic supremacy crap, you've got no room to squawk. You don't even belong in the US (a country that white europeans established).

[K Huntley]

Lora D. (previously posted as "Uno Hu," currently posting as "Jay
Herblock") is a complete crackpot. Believes 9/11 was an inside job,
has seen UFOs and black helicopters and is on a first-name basis with
ass-probing space aliens... She is also an admitted Communist:
"Actually, its time to club repooplicon billionaires on the head and
take their stolen profits and give them back to the general
population."
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012
Message-ID:
<d6f2ba9a-8ee2-4e71...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
From: Jay Herblock <jayhe...@gmail.com>

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 03:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Jay Herblock
<jayhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Various groups of scientists say that they have been able to reproduce
>Pons and Fleisch,mam's original results,
>There appears to be some factuality to their experimantal results.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"...the results could never be replicated, and the idea of fusion in
normal laboratory conditions is now almost completely discredited."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19180011

[Jay Herblock]

I don't know wtf is wrong with those Neocons.
I mean a bunch of them have already trashed themselves out of political office because of the brain-dead stupid crap they say.

And now there's another one flirting with disaster.
It must be a genetic retard thing.

[Jay Herblock]

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:41:44 PM UTC-4, Blobby K Huntley Bilby wrote:
> Lora D. (My master and superior) makes fun of me all the time.

>
> From: Jay Herblock <jayhe...@gmail.com>

> <jayhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Various groups of scientists say that they have been able to reproduce
> >Pons and Fleisch,mam's original results,
>
> >There appears to be some factuality to their experimantal results.
>

> LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're the LIAR, you ridiculous hillbilly.
You been drinking too much of your homemade squeezins, haven't you?

What I wrote was factual.
Got get eaten by a gator or something, dumbass.

[Bill Graham]

When I read the Constitution, I see nothing that distinguishes "women" from
"men" in it. So, the only laws against women that are on the books must have
been made since the constitution, and are probably unconstitutional in
nature. As a libertarian and a constitutionaslist, I am against any such
laws. Affirmative action, for example is such a law. (if it is a law at all)
If it is just a recommended practice, it is still basically unconstitutional
in nature. If you want to stop discrimination, then start with your own
house. Don't just blame someone else and pretend that your own hands are
clean.

[Bill Graham]

The problem is, anyone can take advantage of the "cure". A woman can get an
abortion wheather she was raped or not. And today, they even day after drugs
that will terminate pregnancies immediately after the fact. AQnd, even as we
speak, opther drug companies are coming up with newer, cheaper, and more
effective ones. Soon, they will be for sale at candy counter check-out lines
just like the candy bars that they sell right now, and for much the same
price. So you are pissing against a gale, and soon it will become a
typhoon......

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/14/2013 12:02 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
>> In article
>> <b38938b8-e5d1-4043...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???
>>>
>>> The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on White
>>> Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.
>>>
>>> -Ramon
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Dear Ramon F --
>>>
>>> As a woman in politics, nothing makes me angrier than when
>>> Republicans make up outrageous claims to take away women's rights.
>>
>>
>> Laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh. Dear, it's the the Democrats who make
>> outrageous claims.
>>
>>
>> snicker
>
> When I read the Constitution, I see nothing that distinguishes "women"
> from "men" in it. So, the only laws against women that are on the books
> must have been made since the constitution, and are probably
> unconstitutional in nature. As a libertarian and a constitutionaslist, I
> am against any such laws. Affirmative action, for example is such a law.
> (if it is a law at all) If it is just a recommended practice, it is
> still basically unconstitutional in nature.

The 14th amendment.... and "equal under the law" makes government
engaging in affirmative action, unconstitutional.

You and I can discriminate, the constitution prevents the government
from discriminating, including so called affirmative discrimination.

The constitution is mostly about limiting the Government NOT the people.
As far as the *government is allowed to see* , we are all the same. And
that is where we are all equal. there was no other way a constitution
could create any equality. Liberals and Progressive-Socialists are
idiots that don't understand the U.S. Constitution.

To try to apply this limit on "We the People" is unconstitutional.





--



*Rumination*
#17 - Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know where the nuts
are? -Gump that-

[deadrat]

No, it doesn't, Sparky.

>
> You and I can discriminate, the constitution prevents the government
> from discriminating, including so called affirmative discrimination.

What an ignoramus! The 14th Amendment doesn't require the government to
treat everyone identically. The Supreme Court has set the rules for
affirmative action.

> The constitution is mostly about limiting the Government NOT the people.
> As far as the *government is allowed to see* , we are all the same.

No, we're not. The two of us, for instance, are vastly different. You
are an ignoramus.

> And
> that is where we are all equal. there was no other way a constitution
> could create any equality. Liberals and Progressive-Socialists are
> idiots that don't understand the U.S. Constitution.

No, Sparky. You're the one who doesn't understand. If we're all equal
and the law has to treat us all the same, how come I can't get veterans
benefits in spite of the fact that I never served in the military?
Isn't the government treating me and veterans unequally?

> To try to apply this limit on "We the People" is unconstitutional.

Quit making a fool of yourself.

>
>
>
>

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 13, 11:17 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/2013 12:02 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Harold Burton wrote:
> >> In article

> >> <b38938b8-e5d1-4043-a954-75ad04d3c...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,

It is always fascinating to witness the ideological contortions and
circus acts that the Far Right goes in order to justify their
selfishness and racism. We just witnessed another instance:
interpreting the Constitution backwards.

-Ramon

ps: John Roberts just called: your application to join the Justices
was tossed in the dumpster.

http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/Swing-Vote.jpg

--------------------------------------

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises
in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral
justification for selfishness."

-John Kenneth Galbraith

[Harold Burton]

In article
<2e331947-743e-4a21...@x4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > it's the the Democrats who make
> > outrageous claims.
>

> Try not to spree but if you must spree . . .


. . . don't shoot up Bret's trailer park.

[Bret Cahill]

You forgot to change the header.

LOL!

> > > it's the the Democrats who make
> > > outrageous claims.

You sore losers need to stop whining.

[Bill Graham]

In that case, Ramon, just who gets to decide whether its discrimination, or
reverse discrimination? Or, do you just naturally assume that all
discrimination against WASPS is really, "reverse discrimination", and all
discrimination against third world people is the bad, original, real
discrimination? And jusst who are these people? What do you do when someone
is half WASP, and half third world? How about 70% WASP and 30% third world?
WWhat if you donlt know? Who gets to decide? Some clerk in a government
office or behind a government hand out window somewhere? Why can't you see
how wrong you are? You must know that all discrimination based on racial
background is bad. Nobody can go back and change his heritage. How would you
like to be truned down for a job because of your grandparents and not
because of something that you could be held accountqble for? And, if you
wouldn't like that, then why do you assume that its OK to do it to me or to
anybody else?

[Joe Cooper]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:K7adnf8ebrEfOCbM...@giganews.com:

>> circus acts that the Far Right goes in order to justify their

Ramon, how are we normal folks supposed to know who these "Far Right"
people are?

For that matter, how do we define you Far Left clowns?

I find it strange that liberals have this mantra about "Far Right" and
"Religious Right," but we never hear about "Far Left" or "Religious
Left," i.e. professional Jesus hating atheists?

You clearly drink the Far Left Kool Aid, because you insist that anyone
and everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, but is your love of this
reverse racism our only clue to your Far Leftness?

Was JFK Far Left? How about LBJ - or Harry Truman, for that matter?

Is Mitt Romney one of them there "Far Right Religious Righters?"
How about John McCain? Is he a Far Right or a Right Democrat?

It's really hard to define all these liberal labels...they keep changing
as the days pass.

Were you always Hard Left, or were you Middle once?


--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/

Loathing of the religious right becomes an end in itself, a consuming
passion. Liberals denouce Christian conservatives for being moralistic,
for imposing their morality on others, for not separating morality from
politics, and for bringing religious zeal to public life--and then work
themselves into a frothing frenzy of righteous, moralistic zeal over
their own moral excellence for being so rational, calm, and detached.
One is reminded of the sadistic moralists from Dickens novels, who latch
on to the idea that whipping is good for the child, so they can beat the

[Julie C. Basile]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:14 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>The Gipster... ...as crime increased by double digits every year.

Liar: Crime NEVER increased by "double digits" ANY year.

Reagan - January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
Year; Total Crime; Change

1981 13,423,800
1982 12,974,400 -3.3%
1983 12,108,600 -6.7%
1984 11,881,800 -1.9%
1985 12,431,400 4.6%
1986 13,211,869 6.3%
1987 13,508,700 2.2%
1988 13,923,100 3.1%
1989 14,251,400 2.3%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

>Bill Clinton... violent crime drop by double digits every year.

Liar: Crime NEVER dropped by "double digits" ANY year.

Clinton - January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001
Year; Total Crime; Change

1993 14,144,800
1994 13,989,500 -1.1%
1995 13,862,700 -1.0%
1996 13,493,863 -2.7%
1997 13,194,571 -2.2%
1998 12,475,634 -5.4%
1999 11,634,378 -6.7%
2000 11,608,072 -0.2%
2001 11,876,669 2.3%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Liar: Violent Crime NEVER dropped by "double digits" ANY year.

Year; Violent Crime; Change
1993 1,926,020
1994 1,857,670 -3.5%
1995 1,798,790 -3.2%
1996 1,688,540 -6.1%
1997 1,634,770 -3.2%
1998 1,531,044 -6.3%
1999 1,426,044 -6.8%
2000 1,425,486 -0.0%
2001 1,439,480 1.0%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

>W. Bush... ...violent crime once again started to spiral.

Liar: Crime NEVER 'spiraled.'

Bush - January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009
Year; Total Crime; Change

2001 11,876,669
2002 11,878,954 0.0%
2003 11,826,538 -0.4%
2004 11,679,474 -1.2%
2005 11,565,499 -0.9%
2006 11,401,511 -1.4%
2007 11,251,828 -1.3%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Liar: Violent Crime NEVER 'spiraled.'

Year; Violent Crime; Change
2001 1,439,480
2002 1,423,677 -1.1%
2003 1,383,676 -2.8%
2004 1,360,088 -1.7%
2005 1,390,745 2.2%
2006 1,418,043 1.9%
2007 1,408,337 -0.7%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

=== Update ==============================

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:06:55 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>On Jun 2, 10:15 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> Liar: Crime NEVER increased by "double digits" ANY year.
>But as the figures below show, it's close enough.

Thanks for admitting YOU INTENTIONALLY LIED.

=============================

Each time I concentrate on exposing your lying the affect is the same:

2008 Mar: 504
2008 Apr: 284 -44%
2008 May: 345
2008 Jun: 602
2008 Jul: 894
2008 Aug: 742
2008 Sep: 130 -82%
2008 Oct: 345
2008 Nov: 131 -62%
2008 Dec: 404
2009 Jan: 448
2009 Feb: 673
2009 Mar: 321 -52%
2009 Apr: 63 -80%
2009 May: 390

Which leads me to conclude that your LYING needs to be EXPOSED EVERY
DAY...

[Val Sharla Hager]

Ramon is a foreign transplant originally from Venezuela, probably a
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you

encourage them to continue lying.

Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:52:58 -0800 (PST), "Ramon F. Herrera"
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>On Feb 22, 7:22 am, "Robert Westergrom" <burtonu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 3.Memphis, Tenn.
>City that has some dubious honors:
> (2) They hosted the first Tea Party Convention (remember Palin's
>hand-o-prompter?)

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Billed as a pivot point to transition the tea party movement from a
chaotic uprising to an organized and sustainable political force and
featuring Sarah Palin as its star attraction, the first-ever
convention in Nashville from Feb. 6 to Feb. 8 is............
http://www.kwkt.com/news/first-tea-party-convention-draws-fire-its-own-members

[E Idella Morehead]

Yoorghis: Real name Gary Richard Roselles. Before he was exposed he
changed his name every few days or weeks mainly because he's a
sociopathic coward, a pussy, and above all else a LIAR and a
time-waster. Gary is another example of a Complete Loser: He is
festering away in a one-bedroom apartment on Medicaid and Social
Security having wasted his entire life... (And he never served in the
US military...)

Gary uses "X-No-Archive: yes" in his message Header to force
server-side deletion of ALL of his posts and this is usually the only
way to detect his presence (unless you detect the strong odor of
shit).

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

Gary Richard Roselles (DoB: 11/1942)
(Diane M Roselles)
4215 Cedar Ridge Pl, Apt 42
Rapid City, SD 57702-3190
(605) 341-2445

Gary's real Email: rose...@yahoo.com

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:07:33 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>How come palestinians were perfectly happy and maintained a society
>until the invasion and subjugation by Jews?

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The British were formally awarded the mandate to govern the region in
1922. The non-Jewish Palestinians revolted in 1920, 1929 and 1936.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Modern_period

[Buddy R. Doyle]

Lora D. (previously posted as "Uno Hu," currently posting as "Jay
Herblock") is a complete crackpot. Believes 9/11 was an inside job,
has seen UFOs and black helicopters and is on a first-name basis with
ass-probing space aliens... She is also an admitted Communist:
"Actually, its time to club repooplicon billionaires on the head and
take their stolen profits and give them back to the general
population."
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012
Message-ID:
<d6f2ba9a-8ee2-4e71...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
From: Jay Herblock <jayhe...@gmail.com>

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 17:50:01 -0700 (PDT), Jay Herblock
<jayhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Repooplicon Party stropped the closing of Gitmo.
>The fools thinks that spending $5 billion dollars a year to house 16
>peasant farmers is a good deal.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Estimated annual cost of operating Guantánamo: $90 million to $118
million.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/opinion/10kayeintro.html?_r=0

775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. As of September 2012,
166 detainees remain at Guantanamo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainees

[bustyo...@rocketmail.com]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:52:00 -0700 (PDT), Jay Herblock
<jayhe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:41:44 PM UTC-4, Blobby K Huntley Bilby wrote:
>> Lora D. (My master and superior) makes fun of me all the time.
>>
>> From: Jay Herblock <jayhe...@gmail.com>
>
>> <jayhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Various groups of scientists say that they have been able to reproduce
>> >Pons and Fleisch,mam's original results,
>>
>> >There appears to be some factuality to their experimantal results.
>>
>
>> LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

>What I wrote was factual.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You wrote: "Various groups of scientists say that they have been able

to reproduce Pons and Fleisch,mam's original results, There appears to
be some factuality to their experimantal results."

What YOU wrote IS A LIE...................

[Alesia Freddy Carrington]

Lora D. (previously posted as "Uno Hu," currently posting as "Jay
Herblock") is a complete crackpot. Believes 9/11 was an inside job,
has seen UFOs and black helicopters and is on a first-name basis with
ass-probing space aliens... She is also an admitted Communist:
"Actually, its time to club repooplicon billionaires on the head and
take their stolen profits and give them back to the general
population."
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012
Message-ID:
<d6f2ba9a-8ee2-4e71...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
From: Jay Herblock <jayhe...@gmail.com>

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 07:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Jay Herblock
<jayhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You did know that MittWitt was born in Mexico, didn't
>you?

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Born on March 12, 1947, in Detroit, Michigan, Mitt Romney is the son
of former Michigan Governor George Romney.
http://www.biography.com/people/mitt-romney-241055

[deadrat]

On 6/14/13 6:34 PM, Joe Cooper wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:K7adnf8ebrEfOCbM...@giganews.com:
>
>>> circus acts that the Far Right goes in order to justify their
>
> Ramon, how are we normal folks supposed to know who these "Far Right"
> people are?

It's not like they're shy and retiring, you know.

>
> For that matter, how do we define you Far Left clowns?
>
> I find it strange that liberals have this mantra about "Far Right" and
> "Religious Right," but we never hear about "Far Left" or "Religious
> Left," i.e. professional Jesus hating atheists?

That's because the "Far Left" would be Marxists, and there are barely
any of those left in the wild. You can still find some in captivity in
some university departments, but none with any influence on the
political scene, none with national cable shows, and none in elected office.

"Professional Jesus hating atheists" are also scarce on the ground.
Most atheists think it silly to hate something fictional. Since Madalyn
Murray O'Hair died in 1995, I can't think of a professional atheist of
any stature. I suppose Bill Maher might qualify, but he doesn't hate
religion; he just ridicules it.

> You clearly drink the Far Left Kool Aid, because you insist that anyone
> and everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, but is your love of this
> reverse racism our only clue to your Far Leftness?
>
> Was JFK Far Left? How about LBJ - or Harry Truman, for that matter?

No, no, and no.

>
> Is Mitt Romney one of them there "Far Right Religious Righters?"

Willard doesn't count as part of the religious right since he's a
Mormon. It's almost impossible to know what positions Willard actually
occupioes, since he's been on just about every side of every issue.

> How about John McCain? Is he a Far Right or a Right Democrat?

McCain picked Palin for Veep. What does that tell you?

>
> It's really hard to define all these liberal labels...

If that's what you think, then you're just not paying attention.

<snip/>

[Neolibertarian]

In article <kpduia$j7v$1...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>

wrote:

> "Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-05AA...@d90-136-209-74.cust.tele2.de...
> > In article <kpbc12$o6i$1...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:kpb7qi$73b$3...@dont-email.me...
> >> > In article
> >> > <b38938b8-e5d1-4043...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,

> >> > "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> >> >

> >> >> Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???
> >> >>
> >> >> The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on White
> >> >> Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.
> >> >>

> >> > Ramon and H.L. Mencken, two of Mendels' Peas in a Pod.
> >> >>

> >> >> As a woman in politics, nothing makes me angrier than when Republicans
> >> >> make up outrageous claims to take away women's rights.
> >> >

> >> > This should make us care...why again?
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's what just happened: The House Judiciary Committee -- full of
> >> >> Republican men -- voted to dramatically restrict women's access to
> >> >> reproductive health care.
> >> >
> >> > No it didn't, you hysterical loon.
> >> >>
> >> >> Trent Franks, the author of the extreme measure, said that there
> >> >> should be NO exceptions for victims of rape and incest because "the
> >> >> incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low."
> >> >>
> >> >> This isn't just a reprehensible and utterly false claim. It's
> >> >> dangerous.
> >> >
> >> > Statistics and data would easily discredit the white Republican mens'
> >> > claim.
> >> >
> >> > How many cases of pregnancies resulting from rapes are there?
> >>
> >> Hard to say . . .
> >
> >
> > So you agree, there's no proof to discredit the claim "the incidence of
> > rape resulting in pregnancy are very low."
>
> Conclusion not supported by facts. Historically rape has been way under
> reported in part due to the actions of those to whom the rape is reported.

Of course.

Those actions are a result of...lack of sympathy with the woman's
plight? Perhaps, but not likely.

FWIU, it's most likely under-reported because of the shame and
embarrassment experienced by the victim.

Besides, how many women would have more than one occasion to report a
rape? If they've never reported a rape to the authorities before, how
would they know what actions to expect?

> Just look at the problems the DoD is facing.

That has everything to do with putting very young men at the height of
their sexuality together with very young women at the height of their
sexuality and sexual attractiveness out in the field for weeks and
months, or on the same ship for weeks and months.

There's absolutely no surprise whatsoever to anyone about "the problems
the DoD is facing."

You ignore human nature at your peril.

>
> I work as a guardian ad litum in family court and with the foster program.
> In my experience with the system 1 in 10 rapes are reported. When they are
> even fewer are prosecuted.

Collection of DNA evidence is no help in conviction, of course.

He said, she said.

Silly, I know, but there was a time everyone knew better than to allow
unescorted females to travel about, especially at night. There was a
time when unchaperoned females would never think of attending social
gatherings involving young single men who would be highly inebriated.

Yes, yes, I know that the Jurassic Age is over, and that every time the
wizard monkeys engineer societal change it's always for the "better."

Still, as dense as I am, all I can see is the trade offs, and no net
benefits.

--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."

[Neolibertarian]

In article <kpdknq$b60$1...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>

wrote:

> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:kpdjnu$68s$1...@dont-email.me...

> >> Hard to say as rapes are typically way under reported.
> >
> > So, the White Racist Representatives are correct?
>
> Conclusion based on facts not in evidence.

Still, you're not willing to hazard an educated guess?

[Neolibertarian]

In article <usrnr8pbejv7hu67q...@4ax.com>,
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:19:38 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >That has everything to do with putting very young men at the height of
> >their sexuality together with very young women at the height of their
> >sexuality and sexual attractiveness out in the field for weeks and
> >months, or on the same ship for weeks and months
>

> Ah--does that go for public schools, public edifices, beaches, etc
> where boys and girls are "at the height of their sexuality"?

In public schools until 12th grade, theoretically boys and girls are
constantly chaperoned. They certainly don't live together in close
proximity 24/7. And, of course, the mix of the sexes is roughly 50-50.

Coed dorms in college are a really, really bad idea, but at least the
mix is still 50-50. Coed dorms are going to produce lots and lots of
otherwise easily avoidable problems, but not the same species of
problems found in a coed military.

> Doesn't the same proscriptions that are applied to every environment
> where "sexually active" men/women are together---work the same in the
> Military?

There's no privacy aboard a ship. There's no privacy in a bivouac.
Soldiers and sailors eat, shit, shower and shave together every day. In
full view of each other at all times. They'll sometimes even sleep
huddled together like puppies in a cold foxhole at night.

You obviously haven't thought this through, or you wouldn't have asked
such a vapid question.

[NotMe]

"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:kpgm98$uvl$2...@dont-email.me...

(Un) Educated guesses are what started this tread. More of the same won't
add to the credibility of the debate.

[Everett V. Kuhns]

Yoorghis: Real name Gary Richard Roselles. Before he was exposed he
changed his name every few days or weeks mainly because he's a
sociopathic coward, a pussy, and above all else a LIAR and a
time-waster. Gary is another example of a Complete Loser: He is
festering away in a one-bedroom apartment on Medicaid and Social
Security having wasted his entire life... (And he never served in the
US military...)

Gary uses "X-No-Archive: yes" in his message Header to force
server-side deletion of ALL of his posts and this is usually the only
way to detect his presence (unless you detect the strong odor of
shit).

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

Gary Richard Roselles (DoB: 11/1942)
(Diane M Roselles)
4215 Cedar Ridge Pl, Apt 42
Rapid City, SD 57702-3190
(605) 341-2445

Gary's real Email: rose...@yahoo.com

[][][][][][]

The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:45:13 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>Clinton during and after accusations (impeachment) approval soard to
>over 73% approval

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clinton's job approval rating fluctuated in the 40s and 50s throughout
his first term. In his second term, his rating consistently ranged
from the high-50s to the high-60s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

[Bill Graham]

Yes, but there are other jobs where men and women can do equally well
besides, "huddling together in foxholes". I saw a darkened room where mixed
sex "soldiers" watching TV screens, took off drones, serched for enemy
caravans, and blew them out of existence, then brougnt the drones back home
and landed they. All from this room which was a very long way from the
action. It was as if they were playing some x-box game.....

[Neolibertarian]

In article <kpit93$l34$1...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11376648

A study of 221 women who were attempting to conceive, from any one
incident of intercourse the chances are about 3.1% for successful
fertilization.

http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol3/5/3-5.pdf

The chances are about 5% for successful fertilization from any one
incident of intercourse for women between 12-45, which takes into
account various stages of the menstrual cycle.

An educated guess would place the incidents of rapes resulting in
pregnancy between 3-5%.

Representative Franks, the idiot populist-bureaucrat in question, was
specifically discussing abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. At that
point, he claims, there is virtually no compelling reason for allowing a
"rape or incest exception."

http://tinyurl.com/kqhjjk7

Duh.

[Neolibertarian]

In article <VdKdnRaLuf0agiDM...@giganews.com>,

If you're a male between the ages of 17-28, or you can still remember
being a male between the ages of 17-28, you can't convince me that, even
in a room where soldiers are killing enemies on tv monitors, that having
an attractive female of or about the same age group in the room isn't
distracting.

Of course it's distracting. I'm 56, and it's STILL distracting, and I
hope that never changes.

In the corporate world, this distraction can usually be considered a
wash. The distraction, the various negative effects on office morale the
opposite sex may bring can be offset by several factors, not the least
of which are the skills and abilities the persons of opposite sex may
bring to the table.

But the purpose of a corporation is completely different from the
purpose of the military.

And war is not conducted from inside a room full of tv monitors.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

killing people all day gets tedious so you need some distractions....
so what if you're getting a blow JOB in the closet when your buddies are
yelling for some heavy support. You'll get to it, Clinton eventually
won his war between his blow Jobs.

[Scout]

"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:kpkb96$egf$1...@dont-email.me...

Let's just put it this way. Your argument also applies fully to gays in the
military as well.

They would be just as distracted in a fully male military as well.

No, there are going to be distractions, my issue is can that person
physically and mentally fulfill the necessary requirements for the job. If
that means picking up your 200 pound team mate can carrying them to
safety...then you need to be able to do so. If you job is flying a fighter,
then you need to be able to take the vertigo, g forces, and make the snap
judgements necessary for that job. If you can't....then you don't need to be
in that job. Military or civilian. Personally, I think we should simply make
our military fully co-ed. Sleep together, eat together, shower together,
etc. If you can't handle it then you're in the wrong job.

[Bill Graham]

But a little distraction can't be helped. It is not an excuse for relegating
all women to a kitchen somewhere in the Midwest, however. I worked at a job
where men and women operated a huge multi million dollar high energy
research machine. We were not any different in our ability to operate the
machine, and the difference in sex dodn't bother us at all. We even used the
same foul language and laughed at the same dirty jokes. It wouldn;t have
mattered to us if we were killing enemy combatants or operating a physics
machine. Why would you want to prevent women from doing a useful job that
they both want to do and are educated to do?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

There is a lot to be said for a single sex single gender military.....

It is probably more efficient and less costly.



Once you have what works you can repeat it over and over at base after
base with fewer variables to screw up the outcome. Remember the KISS
acronym (KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID).


Unless there is a huge benefit to having Gays and Women then remember
the military is for security, NOT for equal opportunity employment.

Getting off mission is dangerous NOT to our freedoms but to our
Security, because we all understand the military was never meant to be a
pillar of freedom in America it simply protects our freedoms.



*Rumination*
#46 - Welcome to Socialism, where mediocrity is the highest achievement
possible.

[Neolibertarian]

In article <COOdnVcBitKEoSPM...@giganews.com>,

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > In the corporate world, this distraction can usually be considered a
> > wash. The distraction, the various negative effects on office morale
> > the opposite sex may bring can be offset by several factors, not the
> > least of which are the skills and abilities the persons of opposite
> > sex may bring to the table.
> >
> > But the purpose of a corporation is completely different from the
> > purpose of the military.
> >
> > And war is not conducted from inside a room full of tv monitors.
>
> But a little distraction can't be helped.

Distractions get you killed in war.

> It is not an excuse for relegating
> all women to a kitchen somewhere in the Midwest, however.

That's a pretty silly straw woman argument.

> I worked at a job
> where men and women operated a huge multi million dollar high energy
> research machine.

That's not even close to the military's mission.

> We were not any different in our ability to operate the
> machine, and the difference in sex dodn't bother us at all. We even used the
> same foul language and laughed at the same dirty jokes.

Friend, just because you didn' get slapped with sexual harassment suits
doesn't mean that the above behavior wouldn't have fully warranted it.

> It wouldn;t have
> mattered to us if we were killing enemy combatants or operating a physics
> machine.

That's what you say...now.

> Why would you want to prevent women from doing a useful job that
> they both want to do and are educated to do?

Women are far too important to my civilization to risk their lives for
so little.

You aren't acquainted with real, total war, and let's hope you never do
become acquainted with it.

[Neolibertarian]

In article <kpl8dg$dc6$1...@dont-email.me>,

Of course it does.

>
> They would be just as distracted in a fully male military as well.
>
> No, there are going to be distractions

They needn't be institutionalized distractions.

> my issue is can that person
> physically and mentally fulfill the necessary requirements for the job. If
> that means picking up your 200 pound team mate can carrying them to
> safety...then you need to be able to do so.

Well, there's that, but then everyone tells us there are other jobs in
the military.

> If you job is flying a fighter,
> then you need to be able to take the vertigo, g forces, and make the snap
> judgements necessary for that job.

Women are naturally (on average) superior to men in that instance. Their
reaction times are slightly better too. There's a case to be made that
women have superior decision making abilities in air combat situations
as well.

> If you can't....then you don't need to be
> in that job. Military or civilian. Personally, I think we should simply make
> our military fully co-ed. Sleep together, eat together, shower together,
> etc. If you can't handle it then you're in the wrong job.

That's never, ever, ever, ever been the point.

Besides, it's easy to predict the outcome: an utterly unsurprising raise
in sexual harassment cases, sexual assaults and rapes.

Have you ever trained a dog to allow you to place raw meat on his nose,
and then not to eat it until you give him the command?

Why put a human male through that? Because you don't mind risking a
woman's life?

If you don't mind risking a woman's life, then you don't have a
civilization.

[Neolibertarian]

In article <ketrr8p3co54e7tlg...@4ax.com>,
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:37:33 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >If you're a male between the ages of 17-28, or you can still remember
> >being a male between the ages of 17-28, you can't convince me that, even
> >in a room where soldiers are killing enemies on tv monitors, that having
> >an attractive female of or about the same age group in the room isn't
> >distracting.
>

> Being "distracted" doesn't require action.

It does when you're 18. Believe it or not, not all males at that age or
later are all that adept at understanding women in general, let alone
the signals one might display in any given situation. Misinterpretation
is an always present hazard.

Women at 18 are hardly much better at interpreting the signals and
displays of males, either.

It's a lot to ask of both sexes. Especially when there's absolutely no
compelling reason to introduce those burdens upon men who are already
burdened enough.
>
> Taking "action" requires penalties----harsh ones.

Just ask Julian Assange.
>
> The opposite of present military policy
>
> There isn;t 2 separate citizen groups in america-

This may come as a shock, but there are, in fact, two sexes.

Your social engineering doesn't seem capable of eliminating those
differences.

For instance, a civilization is far more dependent upon women than it is
men.

Men are expendable, women are not.

[Neolibertarian]

In article <ultrr89dsr62nu9ih...@4ax.com>,
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:28:57 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >killing people all day gets tedious so you need some distractions....
> >so what if you're getting a blow JOB in the closet when your buddies are
> >yelling for some heavy support. You'll get to it, Clinton eventually
> >won his war between his blow Jobs.
>

> Since a blowjob had nothing to do with any government related
> issue---what's your point?
>
> Oh---sorry
>
> You fuckwits still can't believe you got that shoved up your ass too,
> right?
>
> Re-living the shame of being whipped requires you to remember it year
> after year.
>
> GOOD !!

If the man I hire to run my company is diddling the help in the closet
while he's on the clock, he's fired.

End of story.

I might not have any animosity towards him; I may not even be making a
moral judgement concerning his reckless, unwise actions.

It's nothing personal. Even if he "can still get his job done," be that
it may be, there's lots of bright, hardworking candidates who'd LOVE to
have the job, and who would be serious enough not do anything as utterly
stupid.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 13, 11:02 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article
> > <b38938b8-e5d1-4043-a954-75ad04d3c...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,

> > "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> >> Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???
>
> >> The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on White
> >> Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.
>

> >> -Ramon
>
> >> --------------------------------------------
>
> >> Dear  Ramon F --

>
> >> As a woman in politics, nothing makes me angrier than when
> >> Republicans make up outrageous claims to take away women's rights.
>

> > Laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh.  Dear,  it's the the Democrats who make
> > outrageous claims.
>
> > snicker
>
> When I read the Constitution, I see nothing that distinguishes "women" from
> "men" in it. So, the only laws against women that are on the books must have
> been made since the constitution, and are probably unconstitutional in
> nature. As a libertarian and a constitutionaslist, I am against any such
> laws. Affirmative action, for example is such a law. (if it is a law at all)
> If it is just a recommended practice, it is still basically unconstitutional
> in nature. If you want to stop discrimination, then start with your own
> house. Don't just blame someone else and pretend that your own hands are
> clean.

why can't "CONSERVATIVES" understand that rape is a crime. i do
believe "CONSERVATIVES" are incapable of know right from wrong. you
are not a constitutionalist, you rank up there with marvin the
martian, a true dimwit.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 13, 11:16 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> > On 6/13/2013 10:15 PM, NotMe wrote:
> >> "Harold Burton" <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:hal.i.burton-05AA...@d90-136-209-74.cust.tele2.de...
> >>> In article <kpbc12$o6...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Neolibertarian" <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:kpb7qi$73b$3...@dont-email.me...

> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <b38938b8-e5d1-4043-a954-75ad04d3c...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???
>
> >>>>>> The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on
> >>>>>> White Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.
>

> >>>>> Ramon and H.L. Mencken, two of Mendels' Peas in a Pod.
>

> >>>>>> As a woman in politics, nothing makes me angrier than when
> >>>>>> Republicans make up outrageous claims to take away women's
> >>>>>> rights.
>

> >>>>> This should make us care...why again?
>
> >>>>>> Here's what just happened: The House Judiciary Committee -- full
> >>>>>> of Republican men -- voted to dramatically restrict women's
> >>>>>> access to reproductive health care.
>
> >>>>> No it didn't, you hysterical loon.
>
> >>>>>> Trent Franks, the author of the extreme measure, said that there
> >>>>>> should be NO exceptions for victims of rape and incest because
> >>>>>> "the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low."
>
> >>>>>> This isn't just a reprehensible and utterly false claim. It's
> >>>>>> dangerous.
>
> >>>>> Statistics and data would easily discredit the white Republican
> >>>>> mens' claim.
>
> >>>>> How many cases of pregnancies resulting from rapes are there?
>

> >>>> Hard to say . . .
>

> >>> So you agree, there's no proof to discredit the claim "the

> >>> incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low."
>

> >> Conclusion not supported by facts.  Historically rape has been way
> >> under reported in part due to the actions of those to whom the rape

> >> is reported. Just look at the problems the DoD is facing.

>
> >> I work as a guardian ad litum in family court and with the foster
> >> program. In my experience with the system 1 in 10 rapes are
> >> reported.  When they are even fewer are prosecuted.
>

> > So the problem isn't Republicans but it's the Government system that
> > allows for so many rapes?
>
> > This means that Abortions are a band-aid that hide the problem so that
> > you don't have to cut government programs that enhances the
> > opportunity for rapes resulting in pregnancy.
>
> > Cure the disease rather than relieving the symptoms.
>
> The problem is, anyone can take advantage of the "cure". A woman can get an
> abortion wheather she was raped or not. And today, they even day after drugs
> that will terminate pregnancies immediately after the fact. AQnd, even as we
> speak, opther drug companies are coming up with newer, cheaper, and more
> effective ones. Soon, they will be for sale at candy counter check-out lines
> just like the candy bars that they sell right now, and for much the same
> price. So you are pissing against a gale, and soon it will become a
> typhoon......

you can always move to countries were the women know their place,
they wear burka's.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 14, 6:21 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 11:17 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/14/2013 12:02 AM, Bill Graham wrote:

>
> >>> Harold Burton wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <b38938b8-e5d1-4043-a954-75ad04d3c...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Are Conservatives biologically incapable of LEARNING???
>
> >>>>> The funniest aspect is how their system of beliefs id based on
> >>>>> White Supremacists and yet they are evolutionarily INFERIOR.
>

> >>>>> -Ramon
>
> >>>>> --------------------------------------------
>
> >>>>> Dear Ramon F --
>

> >>>>> As a woman in politics, nothing makes me angrier than when
> >>>>> Republicans make up outrageous claims to take away women's rights.
>

> >>>> Laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh. Dear, it's the the Democrats who
> >>>> make outrageous claims.
>
> >>>> snicker
>
> >>> When I read the Constitution, I see nothing that distinguishes
> >>> "women" from "men" in it. So, the only laws against women that are
> >>> on the books must have been made since the constitution, and are
> >>> probably unconstitutional in nature. As a libertarian and a
> >>> constitutionaslist, I am against any such laws. Affirmative action,
> >>> for example is such a law. (if it is a law at all) If it is just a
> >>> recommended practice, it is still basically unconstitutional in
> >>> nature.
>

> >> The 14th amendment.... and "equal under the law" makes government
> >> engaging in affirmative action, unconstitutional.
>
> >> You and I can discriminate, the constitution prevents the government
> >> from discriminating, including so called affirmative discrimination.
>
> >> The constitution is mostly about limiting the Government NOT the
> >> people. As far as the *government is allowed to see* , we are all
> >> the same. And that is where we are all equal. there was no other way
> >> a constitution could create any equality. Liberals and
> >> Progressive-Socialists are idiots that don't understand the U.S.
> >> Constitution.
>
> >> To try to apply this limit on "We the People" is unconstitutional.
>
> > It is always fascinating to witness the ideological contortions and

> > circus acts that the Far Right goes in order to justify their

> > selfishness and racism. We just witnessed another instance:
> > interpreting the Constitution backwards.
>
> > -Ramon
>
> > ps: John Roberts just called: your application to join the Justices
> > was tossed in the dumpster.
>
> >    http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/Swing-Vote.jpg
>
> > --------------------------------------
>
> > "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises
> > in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral
> > justification for selfishness."
>
> > -John Kenneth Galbraith
>
> In that case, Ramon, just who gets to decide whether its discrimination, or
> reverse discrimination? Or, do you just naturally assume that all
> discrimination against WASPS is really, "reverse discrimination", and all
> discrimination against third world people is the bad, original, real
> discrimination? And jusst who are these people? What do you do when someone
> is half WASP, and half third world? How about 70% WASP and 30% third world?
> WWhat if you donlt know? Who gets to decide? Some clerk in a government
> office or behind a government hand out window somewhere? Why can't you see
> how wrong you are? You must know that all discrimination based on racial
> background is bad. Nobody can go back and change his heritage. How would you
> like to be truned down for a job because of your grandparents and not
> because of something that you could be held accountqble for? And, if you
> wouldn't like that, then why do you assume that its OK to do it to me or to
> anybody else?

move to northern idaho, you will find lots of like mined people:)))

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 14, 6:34 pm, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote innews:K7adnf8ebrEfOCbM...@giganews.com:

>
> >> circus acts that the Far Right goes in order to justify their
>

> Ramon, how are we normal folks supposed to know who these "Far Right"
> people are?
>

> For that matter, how do we define you Far Left clowns?
>
> I find it strange that liberals have this mantra about "Far Right" and
> "Religious Right," but we never hear about "Far Left" or "Religious
> Left," i.e. professional Jesus hating atheists?
>

> You clearly drink the Far Left Kool Aid, because you insist that anyone
> and everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, but is your love of this
> reverse racism our only clue to your Far Leftness?
>
> Was JFK Far Left? How about LBJ - or Harry Truman, for that matter?
>

> Is Mitt Romney one of them there "Far Right Religious Righters?"

> How about John McCain? Is he a Far Right or a Right Democrat?
>

> It's really hard to define all these liberal labels...they keep changing
> as the days pass.
>
> Were you always Hard Left, or were you Middle once?
>



your problem is that ramon see's a duck, and you do not like it.



> --
> Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity:http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/
>
> Loathing of the religious right becomes an end in itself, a consuming
> passion. Liberals denouce Christian conservatives for being moralistic,
> for imposing their morality on others, for not separating morality from
> politics, and for bringing religious zeal to public life--and then work
> themselves into a frothing frenzy of righteous, moralistic zeal over
> their own moral excellence for being so rational, calm, and detached.
> One is reminded of the sadistic moralists from Dickens novels, who latch
> on to the idea that whipping is good for the child, so they can beat the

[Lanny Virgil Alley-Benedict]

Yoorghis: Real name Gary Richard Roselles. Before he was exposed he
changed his name every few days or weeks mainly because he's a
sociopathic coward, a pussy, and above all else a LIAR and a
time-waster. Gary is another example of a Complete Loser: He is
festering away in a one-bedroom apartment on Medicaid and Social
Security having wasted his entire life... (And he never served in the
US military...)

Gary uses "X-No-Archive: yes" in his message Header to force
server-side deletion of ALL of his posts and this is usually the only
way to detect his presence (unless you detect the strong odor of
shit).

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

Gary Richard Roselles (DoB: 11/1942)
(Diane M Roselles)
4215 Cedar Ridge Pl, Apt 42
Rapid City, SD 57702-3190
(605) 341-2445

Gary's real Email: rose...@yahoo.com

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:30:49 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>ANYWHERE on Google---you can find the "jobloss" charts during the Bush
>regime.
>The last 4 months of Bush's regime jobs were lost at an average Rate
>of 800,000 PER MONTH

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

December 2008 524,000
November 2008 533,000
October 2008 240,000
September 2008 284,000
http://www.economicstimulusdetails.com/job-loss-totals.html

[Christiana Weimer]

Yoorghis: Real name Gary Richard Roselles. Before he was exposed he
changed his name every few days or weeks mainly because he's a
sociopathic coward, a pussy, and above all else a LIAR and a
time-waster. Gary is another example of a Complete Loser: He is
festering away in a one-bedroom apartment on Medicaid and Social
Security having wasted his entire life... (And he never served in the
US military...)

Gary uses "X-No-Archive: yes" in his message Header to force
server-side deletion of ALL of his posts and this is usually the only
way to detect his presence (unless you detect the strong odor of
shit).

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

Gary Richard Roselles (DoB: 11/1942)
(Diane M Roselles)
4215 Cedar Ridge Pl, Apt 42
Rapid City, SD 57702-3190
(605) 341-2445

Gary's real Email: rose...@yahoo.com

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:35:31 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>By 2009---6000 dead in two lied into wars

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4,852
http://icasualties.org/

[Bill Graham]

So, you are the one who seperates women from men in their ability to perform
equal work effectively in the society. Its OK for us men to kill the enemy,
but if women do it, it isn't somehow, "Ladylike". Even if they do it from
5000 miles away through a computer terminal. Why is this? Do you think they
won;t get into heaven because of their participation in this work? Is heaven
populated by mostly women because the warlike men all ended up in hell? And
if so, why would it matter? Do souls have sex? I claim thswt if cilling the
enemy is beneficial to men in our society, then it should also be equally
beneficial to the women. So they have the same responsibility to participate
in the effort. But then, I am an atheist, so I donlt believe in either
heaven or hell.

[Bill Graham]

Its almost that way right now. Soon, all, "battlefield" operations will be
obsolete. Drones and other robots will do all the actual fighting for us,
and it won't matter who gives them their instructions, women or men.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with this. "They also serve who only stand
and wait", has become, "They also serve who only operate a computer
console."

[deadrat]

Please keep telling women how precious they are and how they shouldn't
worry their pretty little heads about things they don't understand.

>
> You aren't acquainted with real, total war, and let's hope you never do
> become acquainted with it.

Anyone can play Patton in cyberspace.

>
>

[Scout]

"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:kplgv0$h2t$2...@dont-email.me...

Sorry, but life is full of distractions. If you can't keep your mind on the
job whether it's a woman beside you or your friend telling you a joke, then
you shouldn't be in that job.

You're just looking for excuses to support a conclusion you've already
decided on.

Sorry, but women can, do and should serve in the military.......as long as
that individual is able to fulfill the requirements of their position, be it
intel analysis, combat fighter pilot, or grunt. No different requirements
for men or women, only those necessary for the job. If your job requires you
to take a 70 pound pack and do a 45 mile hike in a certain period of
time...THAT'S the goal you have to meet. If you can't, then you're not
qualified for that job.

If you can't keep your mind on the job regardless of any sort of
distractions when lives are at risk....then you're not right for that job. I
don't care if you're piloting a drone on a combat mission, patching an
artery or calling in a fire mission. If a person of the opposite sex in the
nude should start trying to make out with you, or a general is yelling in
your ear, or you found out the night before that your spouse is screwing
everything on two legs....then you should STILL be able to do your job.
Otherwise, get yourself a job where your inability to avoid distractions
won't get people killed.

If simply having a female beside you is enough to distract you....then you
clearly shouldn't be in a job where you have to remain focused, and I don't
care what that job is, civilian or military.

>> my issue is can that person
>> physically and mentally fulfill the necessary requirements for the job.
>> If
>> that means picking up your 200 pound team mate can carrying them to
>> safety...then you need to be able to do so.
>
> Well, there's that, but then everyone tells us there are other jobs in
> the military.

There are. I understand that women often make better pilots, they are
typically better at team work, concentration, multitasking, handling large
amounts of incoming information, etc

The question is do they have what it takes to fill the position? If they do,
then they should be able to. If they don't then they shouldn't be allowed
to. However, all this has to be determined on an individual basis.

>> If you job is flying a fighter,
>> then you need to be able to take the vertigo, g forces, and make the snap
>> judgements necessary for that job.
>
> Women are naturally (on average) superior to men in that instance. Their
> reaction times are slightly better too. There's a case to be made that
> women have superior decision making abilities in air combat situations
> as well.

Yep, on the flip side, most women would have a heck of a time doing what is
required of your average ground pounding grunt, but some could and if they
can they should be able to do so.

>> If you can't....then you don't need to be
>> in that job. Military or civilian. Personally, I think we should simply
>> make
>> our military fully co-ed. Sleep together, eat together, shower together,
>> etc. If you can't handle it then you're in the wrong job.
>
> That's never, ever, ever, ever been the point.

Ah, but it should. Duplication of facilities increases the logistical
burdens, decreases utilization ratios, and results in issues when it does
drop in the pot and you can't go behind a tree because you're too shy to
expose yourself to those around you. Now, in ground based permanent
facilities I think we should continue, but at the very least ALL boot camp
should be fully coed, and you demonstrate you can function in that
environment should it become necessary because your pretty little base as
been bombed flat and you have to start sharing the showers.

> Besides, it's easy to predict the outcome: an utterly unsurprising raise
> in sexual harassment cases, sexual assaults and rapes.

Yep, and those that can't control themselves need to be quickly eliminated
from the service.

> Have you ever trained a dog to allow you to place raw meat on his nose,
> and then not to eat it until you give him the command?

Yes.

> Why put a human male through that?

Because it's a job requirement.

> Because you don't mind risking a
> woman's life?

Why should I? You don't mind risking a man's life, do you?

Because, she may well have to deal with this risk if captured by the enemy.
If she can't accept the risk then she's in the wrong occupation.

> If you don't mind risking a woman's life, then you don't have a
> civilization.

Sorry, I don't see how allowing people to do what they are capable of, and
willing to do, means a lack of civilization.

I would tend to view the reverse to be uncivilized.

[Neolibertarian]

In article <OuCdnZ0-9OtZ_yPM...@giganews.com>,

You'll never come to the point when you can conduct a war by drones.
That's not what's happening to today, and you're completely
misinterpreting the trend.

The trend in military history is quite clear.

[Neolibertarian]

In article <JvKdnbguupR79CPM...@giganews.com>,

No one claimed anyone didn't understand, goofy, except you.

They removed logic from the curriculum at your peril.

Women have different roles in human society than men. Pretending
otherwise is dangerous on a whole host of levels.

It may not be "fair," whatever that means, but men are expendable to
civilization, women are not.

[Scout]

"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:kplhjt$h2t$3...@dont-email.me...

> In article <ketrr8p3co54e7tlg...@4ax.com>,
> Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:37:33 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >If you're a male between the ages of 17-28, or you can still remember
>> >being a male between the ages of 17-28, you can't convince me that, even
>> >in a room where soldiers are killing enemies on tv monitors, that having
>> >an attractive female of or about the same age group in the room isn't
>> >distracting.
>>
>> Being "distracted" doesn't require action.
>
> It does when you're 18. Believe it or not, not all males at that age or
> later are all that adept at understanding women in general, let alone
> the signals one might display in any given situation. Misinterpretation
> is an always present hazard.

Then such men should be paid off and told to find another job.

> Women at 18 are hardly much better at interpreting the signals and
> displays of males, either.

And yet, you think it's ok for men and women to work together in any other
occupation.

> It's a lot to ask of both sexes

Not really. Rather it's a result of our rather sick social concepts on
nudity, sex and even relationships.

> Especially when there's absolutely no
> compelling reason to introduce those burdens upon men who are already
> burdened enough.

Ah, so we should discriminate against women because you think men shouldn't
be asked to keep it in their pants at work?

>>
>> Taking "action" requires penalties----harsh ones.
>
> Just ask Julian Assange.
>>
>> The opposite of present military policy
>>
>> There isn;t 2 separate citizen groups in america-
>
> This may come as a shock, but there are, in fact, two sexes.
>
> Your social engineering doesn't seem capable of eliminating those
> differences.

I will simply ask you to contrast two things.

Your typical European beach in the summer vs your typical American beach in
the summer.

Now, which indicates a greater inability of men and women to deal with each
other without being distracted by sex?

Maybe we need some social engineering to combat the silly Puritanism about
nudity.

[Neolibertarian]

In article <u72dnffmuqLz_CPM...@giganews.com>,

No one is referring to abilities except you.

> Its OK for us men to kill the enemy,
> but if women do it, it isn't somehow, "Ladylike".

Killing is only half the equation of war, friend.

> Even if they do it from
> 5000 miles away through a computer terminal.

That's not war. It's not even the future of war.

> Why is this? Do you think they
> won;t get into heaven because of their participation in this work? Is heaven
> populated by mostly women because the warlike men all ended up in hell? And
> if so, why would it matter? Do souls have sex? I claim thswt if cilling the
> enemy is beneficial to men in our society, then it should also be equally
> beneficial to the women. So they have the same responsibility to participate
> in the effort. But then, I am an atheist, so I donlt believe in either
> heaven or hell.

You're an idiot, and I say that with all due respect.

You don't know what war is.

After WWI, France was near collapse. Of all the costs paid by all the
nations during that conflict, France had borne the greatest cost and
suffered the harshest sacrifices.

The rotting corpses of almost an entire generation lay dead in the mud
of Flanders in 1918. After the war, there were virtually no Frenchmen
left of military age. Of those Frenchmen between the ages of 18 and 35,
all were either dead, or their bodies horribly deformed and broken.

Demographers estimated that it should take at least four generations for
France to restore itself to pre-war population levels.

And yet in fact, it only took one generation for France to /surpass/ its
pre-war population levels.

Can you guess why?

[deadrat]

Please, please keep advancing this argument. Women love to hear how men
think women are so important to civilization that they need to be
protected by men from making individual choices that are reserved for men.

Women love to hear men deciding on what's "fair" for "civilization."
That's because they know that they can't make up their minds for
themselves without putting "civilization" in peril.

Please, please keep making this argument until they understand. My
guess is that they'll understand so clearly that you'll want to repeal
the 19th Amendment.

[Harold Burton]

In article <kplht8$h2t$4...@dont-email.me>,

Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <ultrr89dsr62nu9ih...@4ax.com>,
> Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:28:57 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >
> > >killing people all day gets tedious so you need some distractions....
> > >so what if you're getting a blow JOB in the closet when your buddies are
> > >yelling for some heavy support. You'll get to it, Clinton eventually
> > >won his war between his blow Jobs.
> >
> > Since a blowjob had nothing to do with any government related
> > issue---what's your point?
> >
> > Oh---sorry
> >
> > You fuckwits still can't believe you got that shoved up your ass too,
> > right?
> >
> > Re-living the shame of being whipped requires you to remember it year
> > after year.
> >
> > GOOD !!
>

> If the man I hire to run my company . . .



hahahahahaha. Like you own a company. What BS, but feel free to tell
us what company you "own"


Leftard rule #1: lie, lie again, then lie about lying



Hahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha

[Harold Burton]

In article
<3558ddbc-e4d5-4417...@c3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 6:34 pm, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
> > "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote
> > innews:K7adnf8ebrEfOCbM...@giganews.com:
> >
> > >> circus acts that the Far Right goes in order to justify their
> >
> > Ramon, how are we normal folks supposed to know who these "Far Right"
> > people are?
> >
> > For that matter, how do we define you Far Left clowns?
> >
> > I find it strange that liberals have this mantra about "Far Right" and
> > "Religious Right," but we never hear about "Far Left" or "Religious
> > Left," i.e. professional Jesus hating atheists?
> >
> > You clearly drink the Far Left Kool Aid, because you insist that anyone
> > and everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, but is your love of this
> > reverse racism our only clue to your Far Leftness?
> >
> > Was JFK Far Left? How about LBJ - or Harry Truman, for that matter?
> >
> > Is Mitt Romney one of them there "Far Right Religious Righters?"
> > How about John McCain? Is he a Far Right or a Right Democrat?
> >
> > It's really hard to define all these liberal labels...they keep changing
> > as the days pass.
> >
> > Were you always Hard Left, or were you Middle once?
> >
>
>
>

> your problem is that ramon see's (sic) a duck . . .


Your problem is that you're illiterate.


laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh

[Harold Burton]

In article
<6e1dcfc4-b898-425e...@v2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:


> why can't "CONSERVATIVES" understand that rape is a crime

Same reason Bill Clinton couldn't?


snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<d3369b93-1a38-433e...@o8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:


> move to northern idaho, you will find lots of like mined people:)))

yeah, we're always in search of "like mined" people. But ya gotta dig
for them.

[Harold Burton]

In article <0v-dnUj3qPW15yPM...@giganews.com>,

No.


snicker

[Scout]

"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:kplsu1$aks$1...@dont-email.me...

Well you certainly don't want to talk about abilities or it might undermine
your whole sexist argument.

>> Its OK for us men to kill the enemy,
>> but if women do it, it isn't somehow, "Ladylike".
>
> Killing is only half the equation of war, friend.

So what part do you consider unladylike?

>> Even if they do it from
>> 5000 miles away through a computer terminal.
>
> That's not war. It's not even the future of war.

Really? Drones aren't in the future of war?

Then why are they being used in that role?

So what you're telling us is that woman should stay home and make baby.

Is that about it?

[Bill Graham]

Like it or not, women doing complex technical jobs and military duties, are
a way of life. You are going to have a hell of a time stopping them, so you
better get used to it.

[deadrat]

Preposterous. Do you just make this stuff up? An estimated 1.4M
Frenchmen died in World War I. When the war started, there were 8.7M
men of military age (20-50). Maybe 6M men between 20 and 40. 8.5M men
of military age served. You do the math.

> After the war, there were virtually no Frenchmen left of military age.

As horrific as French losses were, it's simply absurd to believe that
there were no Frenchmen of military left on armistice day. Over 300K
French baby boys were born in 1900. A small fraction of them died
during the war, few as military casualties, and the survivors turned 18
when World War I ended. The census of 1930 shows over 200K Frenchmen
for each year of military age during the war.

Go here:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/business/FBE/seminars/papers/M_3-2-12_VANDENBROUCKE.pdf

> Of those Frenchmen between the ages of 18 and 35,
> all were either dead, or their bodies horribly deformed and broken.

Really? Close to 3M French veterans survived the war unwounded.

<snip/>

[deadrat]

Clinton may have been a horndog but there's never been an accusation
that he wouldn't take no for an answer.

[Bill Graham]

Never say, "never". You can't predict the future. Many very learned people
have said never in the past, and have since been proven wrong. Several of
them have said it to me, and I have seen them proved wrong in my lifetime.
And I am talking about physicists and pepople with PhD's.

[Bill Graham]

But "roles" change. They are not carved in stone. And women want them to
change and seem to be willing to take their chances in a, "man's world". And
I, for one, say "Go get 'em, baby!"

[Bill Graham]

No, but what has this got to do with whether women should join today's
modern military? For one thing, they already are, and there is nothing you
can do about it, so you are pissing against a very strong wind which is fast
becoming a gale.

[Bill Graham]

I haven't seen any statistics that show Conservatives are more likely to
rape than liberals. I doubt if the police ask whether a convicted rapist is
a conservative or a liberal. Why would or should they care?

[Bill Graham]

Out at the gun range, I believe the women are just as good with their guns
as are the men. After all, it doesn't take a hell of a lot of strength to
fire a gun, and their eyesight is just as good. Why would anyone think they
are less capable than men at it?

[Joe Cooper]

Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
news:6e1dcfc4-b898-425e...@v2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

> why can't "CONSERVATIVES" understand that rape is a crime. i do
> believe "CONSERVATIVES" are incapable of know right from wrong. you
> are not a constitutionalist, you rank up there with marvin the
> martian, a true dimwit.

I am a conservative, and rape is indeed a crime, but thanks for playing.

--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/

Loathing of the religious right becomes an end in itself, a consuming
passion. Liberals denouce Christian conservatives for being moralistic,
for imposing their morality on others, for not separating morality from
politics, and for bringing religious zeal to public life--and then work
themselves into a frothing frenzy of righteous, moralistic zeal over
their own moral excellence for being so rational, calm, and detached.
One is reminded of the sadistic moralists from Dickens novels, who latch
on to the idea that whipping is good for the child, so they can beat the

[Joe Cooper]

Far Leftie Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote
in
news:3558ddbc-e4d5-4417...@c3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 14, 6:34˙pm, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote

>> innews:K7adnf8ebrEfOCbMnZ2dnUVZ5gy
> dn...@giganews.com:

>>
>> >> circus acts that the Far Right goes in order to justify their
>>
>> Ramon, how are we normal folks supposed to know who these "Far Right"
>> people are?
>>
>> For that matter, how do we define you Far Left clowns?
>>
>> I find it strange that liberals have this mantra about "Far Right"
>> and "Religious Right," but we never hear about "Far Left" or
>> "Religious Left," i.e. professional Jesus hating atheists?
>>
>> You clearly drink the Far Left Kool Aid, because you insist that
>> anyone and everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, but is your
>> love of this reverse racism our only clue to your Far Leftness?
>>
>> Was JFK Far Left? How about LBJ - or Harry Truman, for that matter?
>>
>> Is Mitt Romney one of them there "Far Right Religious Righters?"
>> How about John McCain? Is he a Far Right or a Right Democrat?
>>
>> It's really hard to define all these liberal labels...they keep
>> changing as the days pass.
>>
>> Were you always Hard Left, or were you Middle once?

> your problem is that ramon see's a duck, and you do not like it.

Don't want to answer my questions, do you? Can't say I blame you, Far
Leftie.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

>>>>>> In article <COOdnVcBitKEoSPM...@giganews.com>,
>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the corporate world, this distraction can usually be
>>>>>>>> considered a wash. The distraction, the various negative
>>>>>>>> effects on office morale the opposite sex may bring can be
>>>>>>>> offset by several factors, not the least of which are the
>>>>>>>> skills and abilities the persons of opposite sex may bring to
>>>>>>>> the table.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the purpose of a corporation is completely different from
>>>>>>>> the purpose of the military.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And war is not conducted from inside a room full of tv monitors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But a little distraction can't be helped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Distractions get you killed in war.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not an excuse for relegating
>>>>>>> all women to a kitchen somewhere in the Midwest, however.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a pretty silly straw woman argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I worked at a job
>>>>>>> where men and women operated a huge multi million dollar high
>>>>>>> energy research machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not even close to the military's mission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We were not any different in our ability to operate the
>>>>>>> machine, and the difference in sex dodn't bother us at all. We
>>>>>>> even used the
>>>>>>> same foul language and laughed at the same dirty jokes.

And how's the court-marshal going for the sexual harassment going ?



Did she pee in a jar inside that tank or was she stopping for direction
and a piss break?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

If they are a Conservative then the Liberal Union police get a bounty if
they report them to the IRS where the Conservatives can really be in
trouble.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

When did you grow a uterus?

[Harold Burton]

In article <hZqdnc6zSZVzPiPM...@giganews.com>,

Juanita Broaddrick