PDA

View Full Version : Barney Frank



hondo
08-29-2010, 08:39 PM
How many of you hard core Right wingers on here would be confident enough in your sexual orientation to share
a nice chablis and some quiche with Barney?

eg8r
08-30-2010, 10:04 AM
I'll pass. I don't drink wine or eat quiche.

eg8r

LAMas
08-30-2010, 12:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of you hard core Right wingers on here would be confident enough in your sexual orientation to share
a nice chablis and some quiche with Barney? </div></div>

I don't drink Chablis or do quickies with gay men.

Chopstick
08-30-2010, 12:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of you hard core Right wingers on here would be confident enough in your sexual orientation to share
a nice chablis and some quiche with Barney? </div></div>

Sexual orientation aside, I'd like to share a can of whoopass with him.

Deeman3
08-30-2010, 12:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of you hard core Right wingers on here would be confident enough in your sexual orientation to share
a nice chablis and some quiche with Barney? </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000"> Can you wear gloves when you shake hands with a U.S Congressman? I know, I know, he's one sexy guy to many. As long as you can't contract an STD from sharing lunch it would be o.k. for most of us I think. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>

pooltchr
08-30-2010, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of you hard core Right wingers on here would be confident enough in your sexual orientation to share
a nice chablis and some quiche with Barney? </div></div>

Would I? Yes.
Would I have any desire to do so? Absolutely not.

Steve

bobroberts
08-30-2010, 05:25 PM
I would also. I would also like to give hi a piece of my mind and a kick in the ass.

hondo
08-30-2010, 06:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of you hard core Right wingers on here would be confident enough in your sexual orientation to share
a nice chablis and some quiche with Barney? </div></div>

I don't drink Chablis or do quickies with gay men. </div></div>

It's about time you straightened up.
Good for you.

hondo
08-30-2010, 06:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of you hard core Right wingers on here would be confident enough in your sexual orientation to share
a nice chablis and some quiche with Barney? </div></div>

Sexual orientation aside, I'd like to share a can of whoopass with him. </div></div>

Homophobic, are we?

hondo
08-30-2010, 06:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would also. I would also like to give hi a piece of my mind and a kick in the ass. </div></div>

Homophobic, are we?

Sev
08-30-2010, 06:32 PM
No problem at all.

It would give a chance to ask him if he goes ass to mouth.

hondo
08-30-2010, 06:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of you hard core Right wingers on here would be confident enough in your sexual orientation to share
a nice chablis and some quiche with Barney? </div></div>

Would I? Yes.
Would I have any desire to do so? Absolutely not.

Steve </div></div>

What about LWW?

hondo
08-30-2010, 06:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No problem at all.

It would give a chance to ask him if he goes ass to mouth. </div></div>

LWW or Steve? I'm confused. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

pooltchr
08-30-2010, 07:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
LWW or Steve? I'm confused. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif </div></div>

Damn, Hondo....how difficult is it for you to keep up with the topic of a thread that you started????????????????

Steve

LAMas
08-30-2010, 10:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of you hard core Right wingers on here would be confident enough in your sexual orientation to share
a nice chablis and some quiche with Barney? </div></div>

I don't drink Chablis or do quickies with gay men. </div></div>

It's about time you straightened up.
Good for you. </div></div>

At my age when it straightens up...I do take my time.:-)
With the wife of course.

You can have Barney's Frank if your so inclined or not if your homophobic. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

hondo
08-31-2010, 06:14 AM
What you Right wingers fail to understand is that there are
more choices than (a) gay, (b) homophobic, (c) covering up being gay and bashing gays.

I am neither gay or homophobic.

Sev
08-31-2010, 06:17 AM
Ahhhh. A eunuch resides amongst us!!!

hondo
08-31-2010, 06:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ahhhh. A eunuch resides amongst us!!! </div></div>

I rest my case.
The far Right can't concieve of any other possibilites than
the first 3 choices I gave.
There is no middle ground on these forums.
The Limbergerers and Beckites are a different species from normal human beings.
A sub-species, if you will. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Sev
08-31-2010, 06:46 AM
Got nuts???

hondo
08-31-2010, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Got nuts??? </div></div>

Sure. Do you?

Sev
08-31-2010, 07:45 AM
Last I checked they were swinging nicely.

Deeman3
08-31-2010, 09:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you Right wingers fail to understand is that there are
more choices than (a) gay, (b) homophobic, (c) covering up being gay and bashing gays.

I am neither gay or homophobic. </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000">I am only fearful that if they carry disease, it might spread, a problem they ignore at their peril for years but cleaned up, now are facing a second time.

It seems the new game is again, unprotected sex and many who are HIV infected are spreading it among many on the left coast. As long as they keep it among their own people it should not amtter much to us but many are bi-sexual, child abusers and some work in the porn industry and a renewed spread of HIV is proably not a good thing, on the whole.

Their behaviour is now a norm. The next move is to legitimise man-child relationships and make that normal. Ask NAMBLA. They say man-boy relationships are the next step. It is in basically the same position politically that gay people were in 40 years ago. Watch Barney for the first legislation on this. I bet it won't be long beforethe first of their "Pride" marches. </span>

bobroberts
08-31-2010, 01:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would also. I would also like to give hi a piece of my mind and a kick in the ass. </div></div>

Homophobic, are we? </div></div>

Shirley you jest.
Some of my close friend have been gay.
Most of us dislike Frank because of what he has done with the housing market and wont admit to it.

Sev
08-31-2010, 03:58 PM
Um Bob. Some of your best friends have been gay?????

Did you do something to scare them straight??? If so should I be afraid to ask about the details of these transformations?????? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

hondo
08-31-2010, 04:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Um Bob. Some of your best friends have been gay?????

Did you do something to scare them straight??? If so should I be afraid to ask about the details of these transformations?????? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LAMas
09-01-2010, 05:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Got nuts??? </div></div>

Sure. Do you? </div></div>

Are you a Teabagger?

Gayle in MD
09-01-2010, 06:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you Right wingers fail to understand is that there are
more choices than (a) gay, (b) homophobic, (c) covering up being gay and bashing gays.

I am neither gay or homophobic. </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000">I am only fearful that if they carry disease, it might spread, a problem they ignore at their peril for years but cleaned up, now are facing a second time.

It seems the new game is again, unprotected sex and many who are HIV infected are spreading it among many on the left coast. As long as they keep it among their own people it should not amtter much to us but many are bi-sexual, child abusers and some work in the porn industry and a renewed spread of HIV is proably not a good thing, on the whole.

Their behaviour is now a norm. The next move is to legitimise man-child relationships and make that normal. Ask NAMBLA. They say man-boy relationships are the next step. It is in basically the same position politically that gay people were in 40 years ago. Watch Barney for the first legislation on this. I bet it won't be long beforethe first of their "Pride" marches. </span> </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Everything you wrote about homosexuals, can also be said about heterosexuals.

Heterosexual men, for example, carry the HPV, human papaloma virus, for which there is no prognostic test. It is one of the biggest causes of uterine and other cancers, among women. A man can spread that virus his whole life, think tiger, among his sexual partners, and spread the cancer causing infection, without ever being held to account.

Morman's??? Rape and child abuse, rampant.

Singling out homosexuals as the most damaging group is absurd. It's a fact, just as many heterosexual men, abuse children and spread STD's, as any other group, and in fact, more than any other group.

I've already posted the proof on here numerous times.

g.</span>

Deeman3
09-01-2010, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD[/color</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Everything you wrote about homosexuals, can also be said about heterosexuals.

Some can be applied to heterosexuals but not all.

Heterosexual men, for example, carry the HPV, human papaloma virus, for which there is no prognostic test. It is one of the biggest causes of uterine and other cancers, among women. A man can spread that virus his whole life, think tiger, among his sexual partners, and spread the cancer causing infection, without ever being held to account.


Tiger has been attacked by some for his choice of only wite women as partners. This could very well be because of the increased risk of STD's among the black female population, 56% vs. 17% of the general female population. This came from an NPR Program on risks to the black community. So, in his own way, Tiger may have been just reducing his risk, therefore the risk to the general population. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif



Morman's??? Rape and child abuse, rampant.


<span style="color: #FF0000"> Agreed. This is prosecuted and should be agressively.

</span>
Singling out homosexuals as the most damaging group is absurd. It's a fact, just as many heterosexual men, abuse children and spread STD's, as any other group, and in fact, more than any other group.

Of course, around the world and even here, all are at riak for HIV. However, the much larger infection rate of gays in the 1980 and 1990's is not antecdotial. The two main reasons behind it were the multitude of sexual partners they had vs. the normal population and the higher risk of the acts they tend to do in sex. They got wise as they started dropping like flies and changed their behavious in the 1990's.

Recently, this has changed back in the gay communities saome say because of drugs and the proliferation of multiple partners again. This is even covered in the gay press. They are once again concerned it will lead to a new epidemic in thier community.

I've already posted the proof on here numerous times.

No, you have not.

g.</span> [/quote]

Chopstick
09-01-2010, 12:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's a fact, just as many heterosexual men, abuse children and spread STD's, as any other group, and in fact, more than any other group.

I've already posted the proof on here numerous times.

</div></div>

That is absolutely incorrect. It is females that are responsible for child abuse at a rate of ( I forget whether it is two times or six times as often as men.) As far as spreading STDs, are you saying that men have more sexual opportunities that women? Nonsense. The average woman now days has twenty times the number of partners that the average man does. It's nothing to find a woman who has slept with over a hundred guys. If you find a guy who has slept with over 10 women, he is either lying of he has something extraordinary going for him.

Sev
09-01-2010, 12:48 PM
It would seem that the end product of the 60's generation was to turn females into a bunch of disease infested tramps rather than ladies.

hondo
09-01-2010, 03:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Got nuts??? </div></div>

Sure. Do you? </div></div>

Are you a Teabagger? </div></div>

No, but I've heard you brag about how much you admire them.
Goes along with everything else I've noticed about you.

hondo
09-01-2010, 03:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It would seem that the end product of the 60's generation was to turn females into a bunch of disease infested tramps rather than ladies. </div></div>

I blame Bush.

Sev
09-01-2010, 03:37 PM
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Emoticons/it-s-a-beautiful-thing.gif

LAMas
09-01-2010, 03:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Got nuts??? </div></div>

Sure. Do you? </div></div>

Are you a Teabagger? </div></div>

No, but I've heard you brag about how much you admire them.
Goes along with everything else I've noticed about you. </div></div>

I admire the Tea Party.
You bag on the Tea Party.
Teabagger.

hondo
09-01-2010, 04:43 PM
Is that right, Lamas?
You're such a slimy guy, "buddy."

You must be very proud.

Gayle in MD
09-01-2010, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD[/color</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Everything you wrote about homosexuals, can also be said about heterosexuals.

Some can be applied to heterosexuals but not all.

Heterosexual men, for example, carry the HPV, human papaloma virus, for which there is no prognostic test. It is one of the biggest causes of uterine and other cancers, among women. A man can spread that virus his whole life, think tiger, among his sexual partners, and spread the cancer causing infection, without ever being held to account.


Tiger has been attacked by some for his choice of only wite women as partners. This could very well be because of the increased risk of STD's among the black female population, 56% vs. 17% of the general female population. This came from an NPR Program on risks to the black community. So, in his own way, Tiger may have been just reducing his risk, therefore the risk to the general population. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif



Morman's??? Rape and child abuse, rampant.


<span style="color: #FF0000"> Agreed. This is prosecuted and should be agressively.

</span>
Singling out homosexuals as the most damaging group is absurd. It's a fact, just as many heterosexual men, abuse children and spread STD's, as any other group, and in fact, more than any other group.

Of course, around the world and even here, all are at riak for HIV. However, the much larger infection rate of gays in the 1980 and 1990's is not antecdotial. The two main reasons behind it were the multitude of sexual partners they had vs. the normal population and the higher risk of the acts they tend to do in sex. They got wise as they started dropping like flies and changed their behavious in the 1990's.

Recently, this has changed back in the gay communities saome say because of drugs and the proliferation of multiple partners again. This is even covered in the gay press. They are once again concerned it will lead to a new epidemic in thier community.

I've already posted the proof on here numerous times.

No, you have not.

g.</span> </div></div> [/quote]



Deeman,
Yes, I did post the proof, that Heterosexual men are just as likely to be pedophiles as homosexual men.

Also, As I stated, plenty of women have died of cancer because they had sex with a man who carried HPV, a sexually transmitted disease.

Don't try to tell me that heterosexual men don't spread diseases around, that kill people, they do. You just seem to have a "thing" about bashing homosexuals....

Demonizing a group of people because they were born "Different" from you, does not make the world a better place....

That's just my opinion, of course.

G.

Gayle in MD
09-01-2010, 05:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's a fact, just as many heterosexual men, abuse children and spread STD's, as any other group, and in fact, more than any other group.

I've already posted the proof on here numerous times.

</div></div>

That is absolutely incorrect. It is females that are responsible for child abuse at a rate of ( I forget whether it is two times or six times as often as men.) As far as spreading STDs, are you saying that men have more sexual opportunities that women? Nonsense. The average woman now days has twenty times the number of partners that the average man does. It's nothing to find a woman who has slept with over a hundred guys. If you find a guy who has slept with over 10 women, he is either lying of he has something extraordinary going for him. </div></div>

Rubbish!

G.

LAMas
09-01-2010, 11:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is that right, Lamas?
You're such a slimy guy, "buddy."

You must be very proud. </div></div>

I could be proud for slimy looks like fun,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3zik--Uzk&feature=related

hondo
09-02-2010, 07:15 AM
Perhaps I should have said "sleazy."
But, it is interesting that you admitted to being proud of
being slimy. I'm sure many of your fellow neo-cons feel the same way.

Believe me, I took note of the sheer delight you took
in my getting tossed from the other forum and the joy
you felt in informing me my pension was in danger.

You're one of the lowest of the low on these forums.
Have a nice day.

Deeman3
09-02-2010, 08:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD [/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">



Deeman,
Yes, I did post the proof, that Heterosexual men are just as likely to be pedophiles as homosexual men.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Tell that to the victims of Homosexual priests in the Catholic church. There are a few instances of male clerics, as in the Mormon Church, as petophiles but the vast majority of sex crimes against kids are priests and most of them are homosexuals, in that they go after little boys, not little girls. </span>

Also, As I stated, plenty of women have died of cancer because they had sex with a man who carried HPV, a sexually transmitted disease.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Plenty of woman have dies but, again, the disease first sprang out of the gay community and continues to be a major cause of death to that group around the world. Much of the early spread can be linked to the activities of bi-sexual persons infecting those women. </span>

Don't try to tell me that heterosexual men don't spread diseases around, that kill people, they do. You just seem to have a "thing" about bashing homosexuals....


<span style="color: #FF0000"> They do and I havenever said they do not. The subject was about the recently increasing ouotbreak among the gay people.

</span>
Demonizing a group of people because they were born "Different" from you, does not make the world a better place....

That's just my opinion, of course.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Of course, you are right. Bashing them simply because they are different is not a good thing. In my opinion, giving them a p[ass of everything, including public health issues they contributed to is not a good thing either. </span>

. </div></div>

Gayle in MD
09-02-2010, 08:40 AM
I respect your opinion, Deeman, I just don't see how it is at all reasonable to have no compassion for people who were born different, had no choice in the matter, and just as African Americans are more subject to Cicle Cell, annd the Irish more subject to alcoholism, in my worldthey, Homosexuals, deserve the same compassion as any other group which is subject to any particular disease.

The difference being that their sexual preference makes them more subject to getting it, but then, men like Tiger, are also more subject to getting it.

Now, your statement about women, being greater sex offenders? I have never read that, and in fact, the opposite, according to my studies, but if you can prove it to me, fine. I do recall, several years ago, posting the information, about Pedophilia, from a good source, and your statements about it do not coincide with what I read about it.


I will see if I can find it, however, both men and women, homosexual and heterosexual, spread the aides disease.

Promiscuous people, IMO, are foolish if they fail to protect themselves from STD's, but then, I have never understood promiscuity, at all.

Of course, we should factor in all of the women who are raped by carriers, who innocently become victims, and thier unborn, and all of the men in oher parts of the world, who believe that raping babies will cure them, all of the doctors and dentists, who spread it around through unsafe medical practices, there are many ways, and many groups of people, who spread the aid's disease through careless behavior.

I don't think all of the blame for it's spread, belongs on the gay community.

Whatever, I will look for the original study on the subject of child molestation, and provide it for you....

G.

Deeman3
09-02-2010, 09:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I respect your opinion, Deeman, I just don't see how it is at all reasonable to have no compassion for people who were born different, had no choice in the matter, and just as African Americans are more subject to Cicle Cell, annd the Irish more subject to alcoholism, in my worldthey, Homosexuals, deserve the same compassion as any other group which is subject to any particular disease.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Gayle,

Beyond the stastics, I do have comapssion for the people with HIV and even had a gay cousin, one of the nicest human beings one the planet, die of AIDS about 20 years ago. Some of the simple changes they made back in the 1980's has certainly reduced the incidence in the gay community. My point was that recent changes in that behaviour has now landed many at risk for a new epidemic. Again, this is now discussed in the gay press at some length which shows they know this and are trying to educate. </span>

The difference being that their sexual preference makes them more subject to getting it, but then, men like Tiger, are also more subject to getting it.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> True, except Tiger either for preference or with knowledge, selected a group of bimbos where his chances of getting a disease were reduced. This is a bigger discussion point among black women than you might expect. </span>

Now, your statement about women, being greater sex offenders? I have never read that, and in fact, the opposite, according to my studies, but if you can prove it to me, fine. I do recall, several years ago, posting the information, about Pedophilia, from a good source, and your statements about it do not coincide with what I read about it.

<span style="color: #FF0000">If I said that women were more often offenders than men I mis-spoke. I'll go back and read that as I certainly did not mean that. Was that something I said or Chopstick? I'll check it out but I did not mean to even imply that women were bigger offenders than men. I think we all know that men are most often violent offenders and my guess would be that men also offend in child crimes more ofter, much more often. </span>


I will see if I can find it, however, both men and women, homosexual and heterosexual, spread the aides disease.

<span style="color: #FF0000">They do. The facts that the very act of male on male homocesual acts are more invasive makes it easier to transmit as well as the multi-partner sex many of them practice.
</span>

Promiscuous people, IMO, are foolish if they fail to protect themselves from STD's, but then, I have never understood promiscuity, at all.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I agree. We should all be safe and it is in the interest of society as well as public health that we be more monogomus. This, in both the hetero and homosexual communities in Sub Saharan Africa is why they are seeing record cases and entire communities being killed off, many of which are now passed directly from parents to children in birth! The wide range of sexual partners along with the traditional valus of no condom use for "real "men there is making it a tragic situation. </span>

Of course, we should factor in all of the women who are raped by carriers, who innocently become victims, and thier unborn, and all of the men in oher parts of the world, who believe that raping babies will cure them, all of the doctors and dentists, who spread it around through unsafe medical practices, there are many ways, and many groups of people, who spread the aid's disease through careless behavior.

<span style="color: #FF0000">As I said above, there are many reasons as you point out here. It is terrible the way the world, the UN and all of us, really, ignore this. If it were happening anywhere in the U.S. outside the black community, we would do more. </span>

I don't think all of the blame for it's spread, belongs on the gay community.

<span style="color: #FF0000">It does not but they have a part of the blame as do we all. They just happen to be a situation where the cure is much easier than for some parts of society. </span>

Whatever, I will look for the original study on the subject of child molestation, and provide it for you....

G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">I find much of my info on this in the federal prison records, state court logs and such. You know, many are slanted for various reasons but a ture openig of all this data and an open discussion would be needed to both shut up loudmouths like me and to really address the root causes. I have even spoke to anthropoligists at universities and they say, "We can't go there!" Much of the data, on race, for instance, is tooeasy to use for real haters but some can be used if applied properly to learn and help. Problem is, they never know which group you fit into. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Gayle in MD
09-02-2010, 09:18 AM
As promised, Deeman,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reality of pedophilia:
We get often caught in a semantic conflict when discussing the sexual abuse and molestation of children. Depending upon our exact definitions of terms, it can be shown:
that homosexual abuse of children is widespread, and
that abuse of boys by gays is rare, and
that the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still.
If we define the phrase "homosexual abuse of children" in the first statement to mean adults molesting and abusing children of the same sex, then this statement is true: Child sexual abuse is widespread. It is perpetrated by males in the vast majority of cases. And a substantial minority of their victims are boys. Data relating to men abusing boys is hungrily pounced upon by opponents to equal rights for homosexuals, who often use it against both gays and lesbians in civil rights battles. But it is not homosexuals, as the term is generally understood, who are responsible for the abuse. It is rather pedophiles who are attracted to children, and have decided to abuse them.
However, if we define the phrase "abuse of boys by gays", and "abuse of girls by lesbians" to mean adult persons with a homosexual orientation abusing children of the same sex, then these statements 2 and 3 above are also true. Gays and lesbians rarely abuse children.

The fact behind these conflicting statements is that most pedophiles are not homosexuals! Or to put it another way, most homosexual molestation is not done by homosexuals.



Studies on the nature of pedophilia:
It is necessary to delve into the sexual interest and focus of child abusers in order to understand pedophilia. Unfortunately, this is too rarely done. An excellent, brief essay on this topic can be found in Gregory M. Herek's web site. 2
Sexual orientation is normally thought of in terms of an adult's sexual attraction to other adults, whether to members of the same gender, opposite gender or both genders. When we think of the term "lesbian" we normally visualize a women who has been sexually attracted to (or involved with) another woman. But there are adults who do not fit this definition. They may have never developed a sexual orientation towards other adults. Rather, they are primarily sexually attracted to children. Often, the gender of the child victim is immaterial. One researcher defines a "fixated child molesters" as any adult who is solely attracted to children. They also define the term "regressed child molester" as any adult who has developed a sexual orientation towards other adults, but is also attracted to children.

One study involved 175 male adults who had been convicted in Massachusetts of child sexual assault. They found that none of them were homosexuals; all of them would fit the description of a fixated child molester. They were sexually attracted only to children and not to other adults. 2 Another researcher studied sexually abused children seen in a hospital. Only 2 perpetrators (less than 1% of the total) were homosexuals (i.e. were attracted to same-sex adults).

The Massachusetts study includes a reference to a survey of literature of child sexual abuse by Paul Cameron in 1985. Cameron's conclusion was that (on a per-capita basis) homosexuals were more liable to abuse children than bisexuals, and that bisexuals were more apt to abuse than heterosexuals. The fatal flaw in this survey was that the articles that Cameron studied assumed that in any case where a male adult abused a male child, then the perpetrator was, by his definition, a homosexual.



Example of misinformation on pederasty
A report by Focus on the Family attempts to disseminate a Christian interpretation of homosexuality in a manner that appears to be scientific and objective. 3 Their section Pedophilia and Age of Consent Laws includes statements such as: "Studies indicate that around 35 percent of pedophiles are homosexuals"

"...a child molester is 17 times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual"

"...whereas heterosexual pedophiles commit an average of 20 acts of child molestation, for homosexuals the number is 150."

"Thus, in terms of the likelihood and the extent of child sexual molestation, homosexuals, as a group, represent a serious threat."

They cite three reports to support their assertions. 3,4,5 They make two very serious errors in this section of their report:

They assume that all males who molest boys are homosexuals. This is not true; they are generally pedophiles with no sexual attraction to other adults. And many, if not most, are sexually attracted to both boys and girls.

They assume that all homosexuals are males. They find something negative that they feel they can say about male homosexuals and extend it to all homosexuals; lesbians included. It is also seen very commonly in discussions of AIDS. Such groups will typically condemn gays for levels of HIV infections which are higher than among heterosexuals; they ignore the fact that HIV infections among lesbians are lower than among heterosexuals.



References
D. Colasanto, "Gay rights support has grown since 1982, Gallup poll finds", San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco CA, 1989-OCT-25, Page A21
Web page on various aspects of homosexuality by researcher Gregory M. Herek at: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/
Larry Burtoft, "Setting the record Straight: What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality", Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, CO, (1994), Page 64-67
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation


See Dr. Herek's blog
for updates.











Open bibliography
in a separate
window
Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [Bibliographic references are on a different web page]

In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard.

It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained.



Public belief in
the stereotype The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."1
By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer 9% of men and 6% of women regarded most lesbians as child molesters.

Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 54% in 2005, compared to 27% in 1977.


Examining the
Research Even though most Americans don't regard gay people as child molesters, confusion remains widespread in this area. To understand the facts, it is important to examine the results of scientific research. However, when we evaluate research on child molestation, our task is complicated by several problems.
One problem is that none of the studies in this area have obtained data from a probability sample, that is, a sample that can be assumed to be representative of the population of all child molesters. Rather, most research has been conducted only with convicted perpetrators or with pedophiles who sought professional help. Consequently, they may not accurately describe child molesters who have never been caught or have not sought treatment.


Terminology A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms.
Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.

Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.

Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.

Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.


Typologies of
Offenders The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various systems for categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators' sexual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum from exclusive interest in children at one extreme, to exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end.

Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category those with a more or less exclusive interest in children have been labeled fixated. Fixation means "a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being "stuck" at an early stage of psychological development.

By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is "a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.

Some typologies of child molesters divide the fixation-regression distinction into multiple categories, and some include additional categories as well (e.g., Knight, 1989).

For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals who are often characterized as fixated are attracted to children, not to men or women.

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).


Other
Approaches Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).
In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.




</div></div>http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html



Just two studies, with many scientific links included, however, "the google" lol, has loads of them, and virtually all scientific studies, support this thesis. <span style="color: #FF0000"> </span>

Gayle in MD
09-02-2010, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's a fact, just as many heterosexual men, abuse children and spread STD's, as any other group, and in fact, more than any other group.

I've already posted the proof on here numerous times.

</div></div>

That is absolutely incorrect. It is females that are responsible for child abuse at a rate of ( I forget whether it is two times or six times as often as men.) As far as spreading STDs, are you saying that men have more sexual opportunities that women? Nonsense. The average woman now days has twenty times the number of partners that the average man does. It's nothing to find a woman who has slept with over a hundred guys. If you find a guy who has slept with over 10 women, he is either lying of he has something extraordinary going for him. </div></div>


http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html

LAMas
09-03-2010, 10:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps I should have said "sleazy."
But, it is interesting that you admitted to being proud of
being slimy. I'm sure many of your fellow neo-cons feel the same way.

Believe me, I took note of the sheer delight you took
in my getting tossed from the other forum and the joy
you felt in informing me my pension was in danger.

You're one of the lowest of the low on these forums.
Have a nice day. </div></div>

Take ownership of your life.
You made your bed....now you sleep in it.
You are more careful not to offend here on BD...lessons learned?
My bio is not sleazy, you have admitted that yours has been.

Adios.

LWW
09-04-2010, 04:30 AM
H is simply going through the different stages of denial.

This is being brought on by him realizing that his omnipotent state, which he has sacrificed all to, is in the process of betraying him.

Commandment #1 was placed at #1 for a reason.

And, FWIW, I truly have sympathy for all of those who believed in the false god of the state.

LWW

LAMas
09-04-2010, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">H is simply going through the different stages of denial.

This is being brought on by him realizing that his omnipotent state, which he has sacrificed all to, is in the process of betraying him.

Commandment #1 was placed at #1 for a reason.

And, FWIW, I truly have sympathy for all of those who believed in the false god of the state.

LWW </div></div>

Aye...and continue to defend them....conitive dissonance.

hondo
09-04-2010, 11:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps I should have said "sleazy."
But, it is interesting that you admitted to being proud of
being slimy. I'm sure many of your fellow neo-cons feel the same way.

Believe me, I took note of the sheer delight you took
in my getting tossed from the other forum and the joy
you felt in informing me my pension was in danger.

You're one of the lowest of the low on these forums.
Have a nice day. </div></div>

Take ownership of your life.
You made your bed....now you sleep in it.
You are more careful not to offend here on BD...lessons learned?
My bio is not sleazy, you have admitted that yours has been.

Adios. </div></div>

Dear lamas, perhaps your bio is NOT sleezy.
All I can judge is by your posts.

LAMas
09-05-2010, 12:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps I should have said "sleazy."
But, it is interesting that you admitted to being proud of
being slimy. I'm sure many of your fellow neo-cons feel the same way.

Believe me, I took note of the sheer delight you took
in my getting tossed from the other forum and the joy
you felt in informing me my pension was in danger.

You're one of the lowest of the low on these forums.
Have a nice day. </div></div>

Take ownership of your life.
You made your bed....now you sleep in it.
You are more careful not to offend here on BD...lessons learned?
My bio is not sleazy, you have admitted that yours has been.

Adios. </div></div>

Dear lamas, perhaps your bio is NOT sleezy.
All I can judge is by your posts.
</div></div>

Don't forget that by my working and paying into SS, I am helping to pay for the SS that you draw - you won't/can't mine.

There's nothing I can do to help with your bankrupt pension....wait, I pay taxes and may be compelled to bail your WV pension out.

Accepting your thanks in advance.

LWW
09-05-2010, 05:07 AM
Hopefully he will cease biting the very hands that feed his belly and reject the spoon which feeds his mind.

LWW

hondo
09-05-2010, 09:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of you hard core Right wingers on here would be confident enough in your sexual orientation to share
a nice chablis and some quiche with Barney? </div></div>

I don't drink Chablis or do quickies with gay men. </div></div>

It's about time you straightened up.
Good for you. </div></div>

At my age when it straightens up...I do take my time.:-)
With the wife of course.

You can have Barney's Frank if your so inclined or not if your homophobic. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Comma after wife. "you're" , not "your" in both cases.
Just little tips from "your" friendly neighborhood
grammar police.

hondo
09-05-2010, 09:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps I should have said "sleazy."
But, it is interesting that you admitted to being proud of
being slimy. I'm sure many of your fellow neo-cons feel the same way.

Believe me, I took note of the sheer delight you took
in my getting tossed from the other forum and the joy
you felt in informing me my pension was in danger.

You're one of the lowest of the low on these forums.
Have a nice day. </div></div>


My bio is not sleazy, you have admitted that yours has been.

</div></div>

Comma splice after "sleazy." Were you home-schooled?
Your grammar police hard at work. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

hondo
09-05-2010, 09:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">H is simply going through the different stages of denial.

This is being brought on by him realizing that his omnipotent state, which he has sacrificed all to, is in the process of betraying him.

Commandment #1 was placed at #1 for a reason.

And, FWIW, I truly have sympathy for all of those who believed in the false god of the state.

LWW </div></div>

Aye...and continue to defend them....conitive dissonance. </div></div>

"conitive" ????
Can't find that word in the dictionary.
Did you mean " connotative"?
Your grammar police hard at work.

pooltchr
09-05-2010, 09:47 PM
Do you wake up in the morning and ask yourself just how much of a petty pain in the asp you can be every day?

Steve

hondo
09-06-2010, 07:26 AM
I thought an asp was a snake? So, no.

pooltchr
09-06-2010, 07:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought an asp was a snake? So, no. </div></div>

You know exactly what I meant, and chose to play the "ignorance" card.

You really are a loser.

Steve

hondo
09-06-2010, 07:37 AM
Dear stevie, perhaps you deserve a better answer.
lameass has decided that in the interest of making this a friendlier place, he would scrutinize my posts, searching for typos and then mocking me for being a former English teacher.

I suggested that with his struggles with English grammar and syntax it might not be wise for him to cast the first stone.
I then proceeded to prove that to him.

LWW and you have tried similar ploys in the past and emerged looking just as foolish.

I, for one, am sick of you and your clan calling everyone who disagrees with you "stupid", and then, of course, we have to respond in kind.
What's sad is that most of us are old men who should know better.

hondo
09-06-2010, 08:11 AM
After posting this, I noticed that little stevie is now
searching for all of Gayle's typos and making it a big deal.

Where does it end around here?

P.S. Did you notice that I'm not even bothering with typos?
There are plenty of actual errors in their writings.

Gayle in MD
09-06-2010, 09:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After posting this, I noticed that little stevie is now
searching for all of Gayle's typos and making it a big deal.

Where does it end around here?

P.S. Did you notice that I'm not even bothering with typos?
There are plenty of actual errors in their writings. </div></div>



Dear Hondo,


The most ignorant statement ever written on this forum was the statement: "The debts don't matter...." written the same week that Dick Cheney uttered this absurd and utterly dishonest, illogical, lie, intended to dilute the dangers of the Bush Administration's mounting debts, prosescuted against this country by the Bush/Cheney/war/oil/profiteering pigs.


The one time when governments should and must spend money is to stimulate a crashed economy, and dried up credit market, during a global recession, while teetering on a global depression, as even The American Enterprise Institute, Greenspan, and a slew of economists have written over the decades.

Republicans have been obstructing a recovery, for political gain, and had the President had cooperation from the obstructionists in the Republican Party, the stimulus would have surely been larger, and the recovery more effective.

This is what we see, over and over, from the Republican Party. While in power, they create devastation, with bad policy, and then obstruct progress, while the Democratics are trying to turn around their many massive messes.

The fact that one third of the stimulus was actually for tax cuts, isn't even noticed by them, and their efforts to twist the truth, such as, once one adds up the average number of Republicans in the polls, including those who think Obama is a Muslim, and those who say they aren't sure if he is, or not, you find that fifty percent of them still don't know the proven, documented facts regarding this typical Republican, slanderous fear mongering lie.


Yet, as all informed citizens are aware, the Bush administration, and the Republican majority, broke the earmark spending record, broke the Geneva Conventions, Broke the FISA Laws, outed a CIA Secret Agent, cherry picked intelligence, lied during a SOTU Address about a manufactured threat to our country, and Bush, never picked up his veto pen throughout his six years of serving the Republican Majority's record breaking earmark spending, during war time.

Obviously, no comparison to having to spend money to overturn Bush's collapsed economy.

Economists such as Greenspan, have stated that tax cuts and wars, paid for with borrowed money, and the resulting interest on the loans, crippled our economy, and tax cuts paid for with borrowed money, do not pay for themselves, and surely, not tax cuts which favor the wealthy.

Numerous economists have stated over the decades that tax cuts during war time are pure insanity!

The simple fact is, Bush, his appointed regulatory agency heads, and the Republican majority, destroyed the American Economy, partly through their overly zealous policies of deregulation, privatization, tax cuts for corporations which were outsourcing AMerican Jobs, the unaddressed influx of a massive number of illegal aliens, which greatly increased after REagan's Amnesty, and as we all know, the Middle Class, historically, and consistantly, lost economic power, jobs, and peace of mind, as they always do, under Republican Presidents.


No one I know of in the field of economic expertise, expected the dire circumstances left by the Bush Administration, to show a speedy recovery.

As historians have noted, we are still struggling to survive the Bush Recession, the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The childish behavior of the radical right, on this forum, who were proven wrong over and over by the obvious, multi-devastating results of Bush et al, prompts their dishonest, and unrealistic expectations for a speedy recovery, which no respected economist, OR Think Tank, right or left, predicted, and their nastiness here on the forum is proof that they cannot deal with their own failures.

From the very beginning, this recession was predicted to have a long, slow recovery, jobs, always the last element to recover in any deep recession, and this one of Bush's, was far worse than anything we had seen in recent decades, far deeper than even most economists realized, dire as their predictions were all along.


Hence, the nastiness and relentless attacks from the right, persist, since those of us from the left, predicted the very events which evolved over time, one of them that the rich would get richer, and the poor and Middle Class would suffer and lose economic power.


A few of those predictions would include, also, our immediate outrage when we learned that Bush et al, lied us into a war by using fear mongering, broke law after law, tortured prisoners, lied about so called positive results of the torture, when our own NSE stated the exact opposite.

Bush borrowed and spent us into a near depression, leaving the country so ar in debt, we were impotent to deal effectively and swiftly with his deep recession, worsened by Republican obstructionism, Bush having failed miseranbly to promote oversight of government regulatory agencies, charged with overseeing the health of the econoomy.

Gross corruption by corporate thieves, in the health care industry, and in the energy industry, all the while allowing Halliburton, and other greedy corporations, to which Cheney and the Bush Family had long term ties, committed the worst war profiteering ever witnessed in the history of our country, after being rewarded no-bid contracts!!!!


The fact that the most respected historians agree that Bush was the worst president in recent history, proves us right, and proves them wrong.

That's what they can't stand, and why they must resort to attacking people here who don't even read what they write as a general rule.

They do not understand the definition of the word, "Surplus" any more than they understand the definition of the word, "Bubba" or the meaning of fundamentalism.

Their own unacknowledged insecurities, cover them with "buttons" easily pushed inadvertantly, and reveal why they take such offense over the use of certain political phrases, like "Fly-over States" which are used broadly by political pundits from both sides of the coin, and have been for decades.

Some people are no win people, usually they are emotionally unbalanced, unevolved, and one is far better served, IMO, by avoiding such people. They are truly irrelevant to an educated man such as yourself.

Love,
Gayle

Sev
09-06-2010, 10:19 AM
I see your trying your hand at comedy Gayle.
Dont make any rash decisions such as quitting your day job.

pooltchr
09-06-2010, 10:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After posting this, I noticed that little stevie is now
searching for all of Gayle's typos and making it a big deal.

</div></div>

I guess you forgot that you were the one who made it a point to start monitoring the spelling and typos of other posters. I thought you had finally found your reason to exist around here, so I thought I would help you out.

Steve

hondo
09-06-2010, 12:39 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

hondo
09-06-2010, 12:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see your trying your hand at comedy Gayle.
Dont make any rash decisions such as quitting your day job. </div></div>

Nor you.

hondo
09-06-2010, 12:41 PM
Wrong again, little stevie.
lameass started it. Pay attention, darnit!

pooltchr
09-06-2010, 01:18 PM
Hondo,

KMA

Steve

hondo
09-06-2010, 01:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hondo,

KMA

Steve </div></div>

stevie, have a wonderful day and may God bless.

pooltchr
09-06-2010, 02:31 PM
honduh

See my last post to you.

Steve

Sev
09-06-2010, 02:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see your trying your hand at comedy Gayle.
Dont make any rash decisions such as quitting your day job. </div></div>

Nor you. </div></div>

I dont have a day job.

hondo
09-06-2010, 03:36 PM
Little stevie, see my last post to you.
I'm pulling for you, friend.

hondo
09-06-2010, 03:37 PM
Then you've got nothing to lose.

pooltchr
09-06-2010, 05:16 PM
I would rather you not send out any messages on my behalf.
I would hate to be condemned due to guilt by association with you.

Steve

hondo
09-06-2010, 08:04 PM
No problem.
But you won't go to Hell through association with me.
I can't promise that for you with that clan you hang around with.

I do not believe they know Jesus and I worry about your salvation quite frankly.

You seem so deeply troubled and full of hate towards those
who simply do not share your point of view.

hondo
09-06-2010, 08:11 PM
Look carefully at some of your friends, little stevie.

LWW swears to God that he wasn't Montgomery and that other username he took up when everybody knows he was.

Sev wishes key Democrats would die and says vile things to Gayle when he's drunk.

lotter wants to murder doctors.

lamas and slide rule and yugo taunt and try to humiliate anyone who dares disagree with them.

And you worry about me? I'm a saint compared to that pack you call your friends.

Wake up, little buddy.

LWW
09-07-2010, 01:48 AM
http://0.tqn.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/q/5/crucified.jpg

LWW

hondo
09-07-2010, 05:03 AM
SSDD, "Monty". /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif

pooltchr
09-07-2010, 06:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You seem so deeply troubled and full of hate towards those
who simply do not share your point of view. </div></div>

Wrong again, Honduh. I have no hate whatsoever toward you or anyone else with different political beliefs. I do have pity for anyone who can't see what is planely happening with our government these days, and the inability to admit that, as bad as the reps have been, the dems are far worse.

Yes, I am deeply troubled by the state of our country today, and I place much of the blame on the radical leftist who have taken over Washington.

And I do have problems with people who are constantly on the attack, and hurling veiled and not so veiled insults at those who don't agree with them. (get out a mirror if that comment confuses you)

As for my salvation, don't lose any sleep over it. I am at peace.

Steve

hondo
09-07-2010, 06:49 AM
If you are truly at peace, perhaps it will start to be exhibited in your posts.
Yours truly, " honduh."

pooltchr
09-07-2010, 08:48 AM
As I hope it does in yours as well.

stevie

LAMas
09-07-2010, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">H is simply going through the different stages of denial.

This is being brought on by him realizing that his omnipotent state, which he has sacrificed all to, is in the process of betraying him.

Commandment #1 was placed at #1 for a reason.

And, FWIW, I truly have sympathy for all of those who believed in the false god of the state.

LWW </div></div>

Aye...and continue to defend them....conitive dissonance. </div></div>

"conitive" ????
Can't find that word in the dictionary.
Did you mean " connotative"?
Your grammar police hard at work. </div></div>

Grammar police,
" connotative"?
Wrong. I didn't type the "g" in co[g]nitive.
Thanks.

hondo
09-07-2010, 11:09 AM
Well, I was trying to find your word.
I did the best I could.
I suppose now you claim it was just a typo. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif