Uganda Proposes Death to Gays after US Evangelicals Conference...
johnny_t
and how to protect your family from the same. Uganda has responded with
a Death to Gays initiative and has started a firestorm in Africa.
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34684945/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
Irish Mike
Sounds like you and your boy friends should stay out of Uganda.
Irish Mike
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other
people's money."
-------�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Bob T.
> On Jan 4 2010 8:20 AM, johnny_t wrote:
>
> > After the loving conference by 3 US evangelicals about the Gay Agenda
> > and how to protect your family from the same. Uganda has responded with
> > a Death to Gays initiative and has started a firestorm in Africa.
>
> > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34684945/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
>
> Sounds like you and your boy friends should stay out of Uganda.
Yeah, they already know they should avoid Irish Catholic clergy, eh?
- Bob T
susan
"Bob T."
Yeah, they already know they should avoid Irish Catholic clergy, eh?
- Bob T
.................................................................................................
Don't you think it's time to move on from ButBush, ButClinton and
ButCaltholicClergy?
I mean lets get a new line.
Bob T.
> "Bob T."
>
> Yeah, they already know they should avoid Irish Catholic clergy, eh?
>
> - Bob T
>
>
> Don't you think it's time to move on from ButBush, ButClinton and
> ButCaltholicClergy?
Sorry, when a proud Catholic like Irish Mike makes a homophobic joke,
there is only one appropriate response.
>
> I mean lets get a new line.
We could try a "ButSusan", if you prefer. "Irish Mike said something
stupid and bigotted, but Susan ___________"
- Bob T
susan
"Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
news:2548f69b-b2a6-47fd...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
- Bob T
......................
works for me, but I don't think I'm quite as important in the vast realm of
history as Clinton, Bush or the Catholic Church. It's too early for
ButObama - I'm sure that one will get lots of play in a year or 2.
Bob T.
You mean in seven years, when Obama's VP, Chelsea Clinton, takes over.
- Bob T.
Travel A
Bob T.
> Oh well, there goes Bobtard's Gay Safari Extravaganza plans.
I wish you would stop fantasizing about me. It's creepy.
- Bob T
BTSinAustin
> On Jan 4 2010 8:20 AM, johnny_t wrote:
>
> > After the loving conference by 3 US evangelicals about the Gay Agenda
> > and how to protect your family from the same. Uganda has responded with
> > a Death to Gays initiative and has started a firestorm in Africa.
> >
> > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34684945/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
>
> Sounds like you and your boy friends should stay out of Uganda.
>
> Irish Mike
>
> "The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other
> people's money."
Mike,
Some of this may sound like a foreign language so try and keep up. Not
everyone who thinks this is bad is gay just as not everyone concerned with
the priest - pedophile thing is a pedophile or even a bigot. Seems to be
a common mistake with you. You must get most of your exercise from
jumping to conclusions.
"I owe Jordan $84 and he'll get his money, but not until there is NO
MENTION of it on RGP for 14 consecutive years. That's the new rule.� --
Rick "DaVoice" Charles 12-31-1999 �The Voice of Poker��
---�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Schmedley
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:q1n0n.14153$DY5....@newsfe08.iad...
In this thread, shouldn't it be "butt?"
>
Travel A
I wrote:
Oh well, there goes Bobtard's Gay Safari Extravaganza plans.
Bobtard heehawed:
I wish you would stop fantasizing about me. It's creepy.
- Bob T
I wrote:
Actually, it looks like you're fantasizing about people fantasizing
about you. That's creepy.
I'm just commenting on your various gay enterprises, don't be so easily
offended.
So, then, your Gay Safari Extravaganza trip is nixed, right?
misanthropic whackjob
> On Jan 4 2010 8:57 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4 2010 8:20 AM, johnny_t wrote:
> >
> > > After the loving conference by 3 US evangelicals about the Gay Agenda
> > > and how to protect your family from the same. Uganda has responded with
> > > a Death to Gays initiative and has started a firestorm in Africa.
> > >
> > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34684945/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
> >
> > Sounds like you and your boy friends should stay out of Uganda.
> >
> > Irish Mike
> >
> > "The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other
> > people's money."
>
> Mike,
>
> Some of this may sound like a foreign language so try and keep up. Not
> everyone who thinks this is bad is gay just as not everyone concerned with
> the priest - pedophile thing is a pedophile or even a bigot. Seems to be
> a common mistake with you. You must get most of your exercise from
> jumping to conclusions.
He should get a jump-to-conclusions mat, to make it easier.
>
>
>
> "I owe Jordan $84 and he'll get his money, but not until there is NO
> MENTION of it on RGP for 14 consecutive years. That's the new rule.� --
> Rick "DaVoice" Charles 12-31-1999 �The Voice of Poker��
--
I don't care about you! Fuck you! - FEAR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyM4uAJBujA
---�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
> On Jan 4 2010 8:57 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4 2010 8:20 AM, johnny_t wrote:
> >
> > > After the loving conference by 3 US evangelicals about the Gay Agenda
> > > and how to protect your family from the same. Uganda has responded with
> > > a Death to Gays initiative and has started a firestorm in Africa.
> > >
> > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34684945/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
> >
> > Sounds like you and your boy friends should stay out of Uganda.
> >
> > Irish Mike
> >
> > "The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other
> > people's money."
>
> Mike,
>
> Some of this may sound like a foreign language so try and keep up. Not
> everyone who thinks this is bad is gay just as not everyone concerned with
> the priest - pedophile thing is a pedophile or even a bigot.
A bigot is some one who constantly brings up the issue of pedophiles in
totally unrelated threads. Which is exactly what you do. You can try to
back peddle all you want but the clear fact remains, which is that you are
an anti-Catholic bigot.
Now this may sound like a foreign language so try to keep up. There are
nearly a billion Catholics on this planet and tens of thousands of
Priests. A few of them have been charged with being pedophiles - some
were guilty and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Others were falsely accused because greedy dishonest people filed lawsuits
just in the hope of getting some kind of settlement.
Pedophiles are reprehensible and the sad reality is that they exist in
every religion, profession, group, organization and association on the
planet. Another sad reality is that there are anti-Catholic bigots like
you who only focus on cases that occur in the Catholic church.
Irish Mike
BTSinAustin
I am very impressed, great answer. No really, not being sarcastic. No
more priest jokes.
But all that you just said should apply to everyone right, gays, blacks
etc?
"I owe Jordan $84 and he'll get his money, but not until there is NO
MENTION of it on RGP for 14 consecutive years. That's the new rule.� --
Rick "DaVoice" Charles 12-31-1999 �The Voice of Poker��
________________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
MrBookworm
> nearly a billion Catholics on this planet and tens of thousands of
> Priests. A few of them have been charged with being pedophiles - some
> were guilty and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> Others were falsely accused because greedy dishonest people filed lawsuits
> just in the hope of getting some kind of settlement.
>
> Pedophiles are reprehensible and the sad reality is that they exist in
> every religion, profession, group, organization and association on the
> planet. Another sad reality is that there are anti-Catholic bigots like
> you who only focus on cases that occur in the Catholic church.
All very good points. One question for you: Do you believe that your
Church (including its leaders) protected pedophiles and acted to keep them
from being arrested?
______________________________________________________________________�
Travel A
All very good points. One question for you: Do you believe that your
Church (including its leaders) protected pedophiles and acted to keep
them from being arrested?
______________________________________________
I wrote:
Have you looked at all the evidence? Are you qualified to interpret that
evidence. Is there reliable evidence at all? Are you going to be
specifice on individual case after individual case?
Are you going to give full weight to the "innocent until proven guilty"
concept in evaluating the motives of the Catholic church leaders?
Or, are you just going by left wing media, bigoted agenda attacks and
asking a loaded question in the most generalized possible way?
Because, that exactly what you're doing.
Mrs Iris Mike
> > Now this may sound like a foreign language so try to keep up. There are
> > nearly a billion Catholics on this planet and tens of thousands of
> > Priests. A few of them have been charged with being pedophiles - some
> > were guilty and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> > Others were falsely accused because greedy dishonest people filed lawsuits
> > just in the hope of getting some kind of settlement.
>
> > Pedophiles are reprehensible and the sad reality is that they exist in
> > every religion, profession, group, organization and association on the
> > planet. Another sad reality is that there are anti-Catholic bigots like
> > you who only focus on cases that occur in the Catholic church.
>
> All very good points. One question for you: Do you believe that your
> Church (including its leaders) protected pedophiles and acted to keep them
> from being arrested?
>
Protect the (ha ha) 'unborn babies', every sperm is sacred, no
rubbers on the thingy and all that. But suck one dick without wearing
the collar and it's off with their head!
Advice: When human life is valued, then human life will be of value.
Iris sees an Utopian America where everyone is the same as him. Too
bad he is the last of a dying breed. White people will no longer be
the majority within my lifetime. These bigots will quickly lose the
power they used to weld.
After one experiences a baby roasting with napalm on the end of a
bayonet, killing gay people is light entertainment.
Iris has been cheating on me and I found the bitch. Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HapFzhEr9Pk
Jerry Sturdivant
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:5ol917x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 4 2010 11:58 AM, BTSinAustin wrote:
>
>> On Jan 4 2010 8:57 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 4 2010 8:20 AM, johnny_t wrote:
>> >
>> > > After the loving conference by 3 US evangelicals about the Gay Agenda
>> > > and how to protect your family from the same. Uganda has responded
>> > > with
>> > > a Death to Gays initiative and has started a firestorm in Africa.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34684945/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
>> >
>> > Sounds like you and your boy friends should stay out of Uganda.
>> >
>> > Irish Mike
>> >
>> > "The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of
>> > other
>> > people's money."
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Some of this may sound like a foreign language so try and keep up. Not
>> everyone who thinks this is bad is gay just as not everyone concerned
>> with
>> the priest - pedophile thing is a pedophile or even a bigot.
> A bigot is some one who constantly brings up the
> issue of pedophiles in totally unrelated threads.
No, you're wrong again. (I see why you seldom enter threads; you're not very
bright).
> Which is exactly what you do. You can try to back peddle
> all you want but the clear fact remains, which is that you are
> an anti-Catholic bigot.
Because he stated fact? Again, you still have no clue as to what a bigot is.
> Now this may sound like a foreign language so try to keep up. There are
> nearly a billion Catholics on this planet and tens of thousands of
> Priests. A few of them have been charged with being pedophiles - some
> were guilty and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
But they're protected by the church hierarchy, aren't they, Mike? They can't
be punished when the church flies them out of the country and hides them.
They think more of protecting their priests and their money, than protecting
little kids.
> Others were falsely accused because greedy dishonest people filed
> lawsuits just in the hope of getting some kind of settlement.
"Falsely?" you know this for a fact? "Greedy?" Like your church that's spent
over $1 BILLION dollars, paying off their victims. Why wasn't that money
(much of it coming from the poor) being spent on the poor? So your priests
could travel in luxury to new territories and new little victims; rather
than jail?
> Pedophiles are reprehensible and the sad reality is that they exist in
> every religion, profession, group, organization and association on the
> planet.
But "other religions?" Do they protect them like yours does?
> Another sad reality is that there are anti-Catholic bigots like
> you who only focus on cases that occur in the Catholic church.
And you would rather they don't? You would rather your church be free to
bugger little kids? Free to force women to have children?
You're a fucking Catholic hypocrite.
Jerry 'n Vegas
ChrisRobin
> A bigot is some one who constantly brings up the issue of pedophiles in
> totally unrelated threads. Which is exactly what you do.
What about a person who slanders Muslims at every opportunity? What kind
of bigot is that?
----�
Mrs Iris Mike
...errr...crunchy?
MrBookworm
> Have you looked at all the evidence? Are you qualified to interpret that
> evidence. Is there reliable evidence at all? Are you going to be
> specifice on individual case after individual case?
Sure, Thomas O'Brien in Phoenix.
> Are you going to give full weight to the "innocent until proven guilty"
> concept in evaluating the motives of the Catholic church leaders?
No, "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal definition and it is
unreasonable to use that as the bar for moral behavior. As a human being,
you can choose to associate or not with such an organization based upon
your own moral compass. In my opinion yours is fucked up if you still
defend and support the catholic church.
Let's say a Boy Scout leader had transferred a pedophile rather than call
the authorities. What if that happened in multiple jurisdictions. Would
you continue to defend the organization and keep your children involved?
> Or, are you just going by left wing media, bigoted agenda attacks and
> asking a loaded question in the most generalized possible way?
> Because, that exactly what you're doing.
So, you believe that the catholic church's leadership behaved in a way
that is morally consistent with the church's teachings and that the left
wing media conspired to attack the church?
Dean
--
"You think that's bad? Sometimes I think about RGP when I'm having sex."
- Paul Popinjay 3/16/2009
-------�
da pickle
> In my opinion yours is fucked up if you still
> defend and support the catholic church.
Some folks hear "Democrat" and can only see a party of those that lynched
blacks with impunity.
Some folks hear "Roman Catholic" and can only see a pedophile priest.
Both are equally fucked up.
Irish Mike
> > Now this may sound like a foreign language so try to keep up. There are
> > nearly a billion Catholics on this planet and tens of thousands of
> > Priests. A few of them have been charged with being pedophiles - some
> > were guilty and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> > Others were falsely accused because greedy dishonest people filed lawsuits
> > just in the hope of getting some kind of settlement.
> >
> > Pedophiles are reprehensible and the sad reality is that they exist in
> > every religion, profession, group, organization and association on the
> > planet. Another sad reality is that there are anti-Catholic bigots like
> > you who only focus on cases that occur in the Catholic church.
>
> All very good points. One question for you: Do you believe that your
> Church (including its leaders) protected pedophiles and acted to keep them
> from being arrested?
In a few cases it seems clears the area Bishop or Cardinal tried to avoid
dealing with the situation promptly and directly. I have no sympathy for
those men, believe what they did was criminal as well as morally
reprehensible and that they should face the appropriate consequences for
their actions, and lack of action.
However, the Pope, in his written decrees and in his addresses to the
church has unequivocally denounced their actions as well as those of the
pedophile Priests. He made this very clear during his visit to the US.
In addition to what ever criminal charges they may have faced, those
involved have been required to step down from their previous positions and
postings and, to the best of my knowledge, any Priest who was convicted of
a sex crime against children is no longer part of the clergy.
The Catholic church has also taken some very strong measures to ensure
that this doesn't happen again. Just one example is the "Protecting God's
Children" program, which was implemented for church employees and
volunteers. It is a series of classes for any one who is employed by the
church or volunteers to do work for the church, even if their volunteer
work does not involve children.
I don't work with kids but I do volunteer work for my local Parish. I
work bingo and help run Las Vegas Night type fund raisers among other
things. I had to complete the "Saving God's Children" class which
involves being registered, having a police background check conducted and
having your finger prints kept on file. We listened to lectures on child
abuse from Police offices, social workers, Children's Services Directors
and Psychologists. As well as police detectives from a task force that
specializes in catching pedophiles who try to meet kids on the internet.
The information and stories they shared about pedophiles and their methods
was just stunning. You can not believe how truly devious these evil
bastards really are. And the worst thing is that most of them are serial
molesters with a very high probability to re-offend if they are released
from incarceration. And believe me there is not a religion, occupation,
organization or association that does not have child molesters in their
ranks. Not to mention the kids who are abused and molested by their own
parents and relatives.
And the other side of the coin are the people who file false child
molestation charges for the attention and/or in the hopes of getting a big
financial settlement. So any one who deals with children in a position of
authority (clergy, teachers, scout leaders, summer camp supervisors,
guidance counselors etc.) needs to make sure they take steps to protect
themselves as well as protecting the children.
Irish Mike
_______________________________________________________________________�
Travel A
I wrote:
Have you looked at all the evidence? Are you qualified to interpret that
evidence. Is there reliable evidence at all? Are you going to be
specifice on individual case after individual case?
Bookworm:
Sure, Thomas O'Brien in Phoenix.
I wrote:
So, in other words, you can't/won't answer the question and you failed
miserably in trying.
I wrote:
Are you going to give full weight to the "innocent until proven guilty"
concept in evaluating the motives of the Catholic church leaders?
Bookworm:
No, "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal definition and it is
unreasonable to use that as the bar for moral behavior.
I wrote:
Moral behavior? What are you talking about?
You took the question out of context and bogusly answered an entirely
different, irrelevant question that has nothing to do with the point at
hand.
You claimed that the leaders of the Catholic church were protecting
pedophiles. You have zero evidence of this and it most certainly is
reasonable for the Catholic leaders to protect their
under-attack-priests and proceed under the premise of "innocent until
proven guilty." Until the accused priests are proven guilty, why
shouldn't the Catholic Church leaders offer support to their accused
priests.
No, Bookworm, what's unreasonabe is "guilt by accusation." That's what
you believe in.
Again, you have zero proof that the Catholic church transferred priests,
etc., because they "knew" certain priests were guilty. You're going
purely by left wing propaganda, and your own personal bias and obvious
bigotry.
How many priests on average have been transferred for routine reasons in
any given period of time ? What are the chances that the left wing will
cherry pick a transfer record and falsely accociate it with an accused
priest. How many priests are transferred who aren't accused of anyhing?
Did the media publish those stats?
I wrote:
Or, are you just going by left wing media, bigoted agenda attacks and
asking a loaded question in the most generalized possible way? Because,
that exactly what you're doing.
Bookworm:
So, you believe that the catholic church's leadership behaved in a way
that is morally consistent with the church's teachings and that the left
wing media conspired to attack the church?
Dean
I wrote:
You just "answered" a question with an other loaded question. You failed
miserably once again, but this time you're suggesting unsubstantiated
accusation and a bogus, made-up premise.
Of which, the first part has been sufficiently addressed above, and the
second part about the media attacks is blatantly obvious: of course the
left wing media was attacking the Catholic church; and they don't even
have to conspire, they're on the same anti-religion page automatically.
Just like you.
You're not doing very well. You can't answer the questions, and yet
you're posting a lot of double talk and weaseling, anyway. Why bother?
You won't even admit that such a sweeping accusation against the
Catholic church requires objective, case by case scrutiny, at least;
where exculpatory evidence can be discovered. Yet, you prefer parroting
and hiding behind massive generalization and propaganda from the biased,
anti-religion left wing media "for some reasson."
The bottom line is that you have no idea what the Catholic leaders were
thinking, or evidence to support your attack on their motives. You only
spout your own bias and bigotry.
Patrick Karl
You seem to be forgetting the action of the Pope in whisking Cardinal
Law from his post in Boston over to a nice cushy job in Rome. Cardinal
Law was in charge of some of the worst pedophile priests. He did little
to stop the pedophilia, and did much to whisk offending priests to
different parishes or to the cozy vacation area in New Mexico.
MrBookworm
> I wrote:
> Have you looked at all the evidence? Are you qualified to interpret that
> evidence. Is there reliable evidence at all? Are you going to be
> specifice on individual case after individual case?
>
> Bookworm:
> Sure, Thomas O'Brien in Phoenix.
>
>
> I wrote:
> So, in other words, you can't/won't answer the question and you failed
> miserably in trying.
I gave you a specific case, a catholic leader in Phoenix. "Even without
the accident, it has been a tumultuous 10 months for Bishop O'Brien, who
early last summer avoided a criminal indictment for obstruction of justice
by acknowledging that he had long covered up accusations of sexual abuse
by priests under his command. He admitted that he had allowed at least 50
priests and church employees to continue overseeing children for years
after it was clear that the men were pedophiles, and that he transferred
suspect priests to other parishes without revealing their histories."
> I wrote:
> Moral behavior? What are you talking about?
> You took the question out of context and bogusly answered an entirely
> different, irrelevant question that has nothing to do with the point at
> hand.
Sure, you're right. The church leadership never did anything wrong.
Pulease...
> You claimed that the leaders of the Catholic church were protecting
> pedophiles. You have zero evidence of this and it most certainly is
> reasonable for the Catholic leaders to protect their
> under-attack-priests and proceed under the premise of "innocent until
> proven guilty." Until the accused priests are proven guilty, why
> shouldn't the Catholic Church leaders offer support to their accused
> priests.
See Thomas O'Brien above, "Even without the accident, it has been a
tumultuous 10 months for Bishop O'Brien, who early last summer avoided a
criminal indictment for obstruction of justice by acknowledging that he
had long covered up accusations of sexual abuse by priests under his
command. He admitted that he had allowed at least 50 priests and church
employees to continue overseeing children for years after it was clear
that the men were pedophiles, and that he transferred suspect priests to
other parishes without revealing their histories."
> No, Bookworm, what's unreasonabe is "guilt by accusation." That's what
> you believe in.
Again, I am not making a legal decision here. And yes, if you belong to an
organization that protect pedophiles then I will certainly question your
judgement. If the church is so innocent in all of this why all the big
payouts?
> Again, you have zero proof that the Catholic church transferred priests,
> etc., because they "knew" certain priests were guilty. You're going
> purely by left wing propaganda, and your own personal bias and obvious
> bigotry.
You have your head in the sand.
> How many priests on average have been transferred for routine reasons in
> any given period of time ? What are the chances that the left wing will
> cherry pick a transfer record and falsely accociate it with an accused
> priest. How many priests are transferred who aren't accused of anyhing?
> Did the media publish those stats?
Beats me, but it doesn't matter when even one transfer was made to protect
pedophiles.
> I wrote:
> Or, are you just going by left wing media, bigoted agenda attacks and
> asking a loaded question in the most generalized possible way? Because,
> that exactly what you're doing.
Again, your head is in the sand. It is funny how religion causes people to
do that.
> Bookworm:
> So, you believe that the catholic church's leadership behaved in a way
> that is morally consistent with the church's teachings and that the left
> wing media conspired to attack the church?
> Dean
>
>
> I wrote:
> You just "answered" a question with an other loaded question. You failed
> miserably once again, but this time you're suggesting unsubstantiated
> accusation and a bogus, made-up premise.
>
> Of which, the first part has been sufficiently addressed above, and the
> second part about the media attacks is blatantly obvious: of course the
> left wing media was attacking the Catholic church; and they don't even
> have to conspire, they're on the same anti-religion page automatically.
> Just like you.
Yep, when children are being molested and it is being covered up then the
organization should expect to be attacked.
> You're not doing very well. You can't answer the questions, and yet
> you're posting a lot of double talk and weaseling, anyway. Why bother?
>
> You won't even admit that such a sweeping accusation against the
> Catholic church requires objective, case by case scrutiny, at least;
> where exculpatory evidence can be discovered. Yet, you prefer parroting
> and hiding behind massive generalization and propaganda from the biased,
> anti-religion left wing media "for some reasson."
>
> The bottom line is that you have no idea what the Catholic leaders were
> thinking, or evidence to support your attack on their motives. You only
> spout your own bias and bigotry.
Blah blah blah, kids got fucked and the church leadership covered it up
and did not do the moral thing and report it. You don't want to believe it
then you are a moron.
Dean
--
"You think that's bad? Sometimes I think about RGP when I'm having sex."
- Paul Popinjay 3/16/2009
--------�
mo_charles
> and how to protect your family from the same. Uganda has responded with
> a Death to Gays initiative and has started a firestorm in Africa.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34684945/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
who are we to tell the rest of the world how to live?
mo_charles
________________________________________________________________________�
Mrs Iris Mike
We are Americans!
Mighty might Americans.
Everywhere we go,
People want to know
Who we are!
So we tell them
(what to do-ooo).
We are Americans!
We had one cheerleader in the White House already. If we get President
Palin, I can see much of our education system being directed to making
more and better cheerleaders.
mo_charles
>
> Mighty might Americans.
> Everywhere we go,
> People want to know
> Who we are!
> So we tell them
> (what to do-ooo).
> We are Americans!
>
> We had one cheerleader in the White House already. If we get President
> Palin, I can see much of our education system being directed to making
> more and better cheerleaders.
what we need is another minority in office so we can dance around
celebrating diversity (of skin color, not thought). imagine the holidays
we could have!
mo_charles
------�
Mrs Iris Mike
Conversly, we should never have anyone in the White House who isn't
White. Why do you think they call it "White' House?
Travel A
I wrote:
Have you looked at all the evidence? Are you qualified to interpret that
evidence. Is there reliable evidence at all? Are you going to be
specifice on individual case after individual case?
Bookworm:
Sure, Thomas O'Brien in Phoenix.
I wrote:
So, in other words, you can't/won't answer the question and you failed
miserably in trying.
Bookworm:
I gave you a specific case, a catholic leader in Phoenix. "Even without
the accident, it has been a tumultuous 10 months for Bishop O'Brien, who
early last summer avoided a criminal indictment for obstruction of
justice by acknowledging that he had long covered up accusations of
sexual abuse by priests under his command. He admitted that he had
allowed at least 50 priests and church employees to continue overseeing
children for years after it was clear that the men were pedophiles, and
that he transferred suspect priests to other parishes without revealing
their histories."
I wrote:
No, you didn't do any of this: Have you looked at all the evidence? Are
you qualified to interpret that evidence. Is there reliable evidence at
all? Are you going to be specifice on individual case after individual
case?
Out of all the priests, you cite one left wing, hearsay collaborator;
cooperating treasonably.
That's not carefully examining each case, one at a time by any stretch
of the imagination.
I wrote:
Moral behavior? What are you talking about? You took the question out of
context and bogusly answered an entirely different, irrelevant question
that has nothing to do with the point at hand.
Bookworm:
Sure, you're right. The church leadership never did anything wrong.
Pulease...
I wrote:
I see, eveyone should believe your biased, bigotry based imagination.
I wrote:
You claimed that the leaders of the Catholic church were protecting
pedophiles. You have zero evidence of this and it most certainly is
reasonable for the Catholic leaders to protect their
under-attack-priests and proceed under the premise of "innocent until
proven guilty." Until the accused priests are proven guilty, why
shouldn't the Catholic Church leaders offer support to their accused
priests.
Bookworm:
See Thomas O'Brien above, "Even without the accident, it has been a
tumultuous 10 months for Bishop O'Brien, who early last summer avoided a
criminal indictment for obstruction of justice by acknowledging that he
had long covered up accusations of sexual abuse by priests under his
command. He admitted that he had allowed at least 50 priests and church
employees to continue overseeing children for years after it was clear
that the men were pedophiles, and that he transferred suspect priests to
other parishes without revealing their histories."
I wrote:
Uh huh, "avoided criminal indictment... by... acknowledging"
So, they got one to cop a plea and there was something "in it" for him.
I wrote:
No, Bookworm, what's unreasonabe is "guilt by accusation." That's what
you believe in.
Bokworm:
Again, I am not making a legal decision here. And yes, if you belong to
an organization that protect pedophiles then I will certainly question
your judgement. If the church is so innocent in all of this why all the
big payouts?
I wrote:
No, your just making a judgement on the entire Caytholic Church without
proof. You're believing "guilt by accusation." The "big payouts" prove
zero, besides the understandable desire to put the whole thing behind as
soon as possible; it was a "hold-up" by the left wing; typical of
settlements. A settlement in a case doesn't mean an admission of guilt,
and it certainly doesn't give you the right to open-season vitriol and
accusations pointed anywhere you please.
I wrote:
Again, you have zero proof that the Catholic church transferred priests,
etc., because they "knew" certain priests were guilty. You're going
purely by left wing propaganda, and your own personal bias and obvious
bigotry.
Bookworm:
You have your head in the sand.
I wrote:
You have your head in the left-wing Kool-aid, propaganda bucket.
I wrote:
How many priests on average have been transferred for routine reasons in
any given period of time ? What are the chances that the left wing will
cherry pick a transfer record and falsely accociate it with an accused
priest. How many priests are transferred who aren't accused of anyhing?
Did the media publish those stats?
Bokworm:
Beats me, but it doesn't matter when even one transfer was made to
protect pedophiles.
I wrote:
Ya, it beats you, alright. When it comes to proof offering, it "beats
you" all of a sudden.
What if even one priest is falsely accused? That doesn't seem to matter
to you. In fact, you're more than willing to say that the whole Catholic
Church is guilty.
I wrote:
Or, are you just going by left wing media, bigoted agenda attacks and
asking a loaded question in the most generalized possible way? Because,
that exactly what you're doing.
Bookworm:
Again, your head is in the sand. It is funny how religion causes people
to do that.
I wrote:
Again, your head is in the left wing kool-aid, propaganda bucket. It is
funny how religion bigotry causes people to do that.
Bookworm:
So, you believe that the catholic church's leadership behaved in a way
that is morally consistent with the church's teachings and that the left
wing media conspired to attack the church? Dean
I wrote:
You just "answered" a question with an other loaded question. You failed
miserably once again, but this time you're suggesting unsubstantiated
accusation and a bogus, made-up premise.
Of which, the first part has been sufficiently addressed above, and the
second part about the media attacks is blatantly obvious: of course the
left wing media was attacking the Catholic church; and they don't even
have to conspire, they're on the same anti-religion page automatically.
Just like you.
Bookworm:
Yep, when children are being molested and it is being covered up then
the organization should expect to be attacked.
I wrote:
Yep, just take your little victory and gloat and lie by accusing the
whole Catholic Church.
I wrote:
You're not doing very well. You can't answer the questions, and yet
you're posting a lot of double talk and weaseling, anyway. Why bother?
You won't even admit that such a sweeping accusation against the
Catholic church requires objective, case by case scrutiny, at least;
where exculpatory evidence can be discovered. Yet, you prefer parroting
and hiding behind massive generalization and propaganda from the biased,
anti-religion left wing media "for some reasson."
The bottom line is that you have no idea what the Catholic leaders were
thinking, or evidence to support your attack on their motives. You only
spout your own bias and bigotry.
Bookworm:
Blah blah blah, kids got fucked and the church leadership covered it up
and did not do the moral thing and report it. You don't want to believe
it then you are a moron.
Dean
I wrote:
That's right, hater, just make broad, sweeping attacks based on zero
evidence and hide behind a political witchhunt. If you don't want to
believe that you're a bigot with an agenda, then you're a moron.
MrBookworm
> No, your just making a judgement on the entire Caytholic Church without
> proof. You're believing "guilt by accusation." The "big payouts" prove
> zero, besides the understandable desire to put the whole thing behind as
> soon as possible; it was a "hold-up" by the left wing; typical of
> settlements. A settlement in a case doesn't mean an admission of guilt,
> and it certainly doesn't give you the right to open-season vitriol and
> accusations pointed anywhere you please.
Since you believe that "big payouts" do not prove anything and the 1
bishop is also not proof for you I am not going to reply anymore. Long
winded replies by you that essentially say you don't believe any of it
until there are convictions in a court of law. I'm sure if that were to
occur you would find a problem with the verdict as well.
joeturn
The Anunaki were all gay, they only cross bred for reproduction
purposes.
If your blood type is RH positive your DNA can be traced back to R-
eptilian H-eritage!
Travel A
I wrote:
Actually, Bookworm, if a jury found even a single priest not guilty, or
the Catholic church not guilty of any wrongdoing, it's you who'd be
squawking. It's you who believes in guilt by accusation, bias over truth
and bigotry over reason.
I wrote, previously:
Travel A
Mrs Iris Mike
Fact: Of the 11,000 allegations reported by bishops in the John Jay
study, 3300 were not investigated because the allegations were made
after the accused priest had died. 6700 allegations were
substantiated, leaving 1000 which could not be substantiated.
Claim: Only a few preists were involved.
Fact: ...The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of
Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States or John
Jay Report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made
against 4,392 priests in the USA, which constituted approximately 4%
of the 110,000 priests who had served during 1950–2002, 3% of all
priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2%
received prison sentences and over the 52-year period covered by the
study, "the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95%
of the dioceses and approximately 60% of religious communities."
Much more detail is given in the Wili article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases , all facts are
annointed and peer reviewed.
Personally, I was invoved with the Church to an extent (whatever that
means) and know that in the late sixties onward, the seminaries were
filled with clseted gay priests, pedophiles and the sexually naive.
Without proper supervision, what was to be expected?
fffurken
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paedophiles do exist in every walk of life, that is true.
I'm sure you are aware of the extent of the clerical abuse that has
been revealed in Ireland recently.
It's not a group of individuals that is making the country so angry as
much as the systemic nature of the abuse and the cover up, going right
to the very top of the Catholic church. A cover up which not only
prevented paedophiles being brought to justice but allowed them to
continue abusing children uninterrupted.
To me, that represents an organisation i.e. the Catholic church, that
is sick to the core.