Another insider blows the whistle [Archive]

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 22nd 04, 05:48 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Socky does a danse macabre.
>
> > > And being enamored of the horrid Dubya, Cheney, Rice, et al. And for
> > > embracing their fascist agendas in the social, fiscal, and religious
> > > arenas. And for your heartlessness towards society's underclass. Etc.
> > > etc. etc.
>
> > First of all, the Bush agenda is not at all Fascist.
>
> You have to face reality at some point. Their agendas (plural, note)
> are quite fascist. (Also note the correct lowercase spelling, as
> opposed to your uncalled-for false capitalization, which refers
> specifically to a certain Fascist party that is not of our era.)
>
> The Bushies, in the form of Ashcroft, have taken wild and destructive
> swings at the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. Personal
> freedoms are threatened by their police-state policies. How is that
> not fascistic?
>

It is merely conservative. The libs are just as anvious
to trash the Bill of Rights to further their gun control
and 'secularism as a religion' agendas. And let's
not forget anti-free speech codes on campus

> Dubya himself wants the government to institutionalize his own
> religion as the official state religion, contrary to the express and
> hallowed precept of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Again,
> personal freedoms are threatened in the name of a state-sponsored
> agenda. How is that not fascistic?
>

Making Christianoity the official
State religion is not on the agenda.

> Cheney and the circle-jerk of corporate lackeys who shape the fiscal
> policy have endeavored to line the pockets of people who are already
> too wealthy. The tactics they use are coercive and discriminatory. How
> is that not fascistic?
>

If proven, that would fall under the ususal category of corruption, which
knows no party boundaries

> Dubya has, for the second time, appointed extremist judges to the
> federal bench while the Senate is in recess. This sneaky, slimy
> behavior undercuts the spirit of the Constitution in favor of an
> extreme ideological agenda. How is that not fascistic?
>

Thay are not all that extreme. Of course, to you, anyone
to the right of Ginsburg is a fascist.

>
> > I agree with some,
> > but not much of their social agenda, a lot of their fiscal agenda,
> > and hardly any of their religious agenda. As far as my feelings
> > towards the underclass, I wish them all the best fortune in their
> > efforts to rise to the middle and upper class.
>
> As we've suspected, you're lying to yourself.

Don't be an idiot. I don't hate poor people. I want them
to be more well off. My parents grew up poor. My
grandparents were poor immigrants. Success is the
American Dream, and I want as many of the poor
to be able to experience it as is possible.

>
> > > > Anybody who opposes your positions on those matters deserves
> > > > your vitriolic[sic]. So tell me about all the 'love' on the left!
> > > > Bunch of hatemongers, most of them.
> > >
> > > If you say so, Captain Heartless.
> > >
> >
> > I favor public programs that offer education and opportunity
> > rather than gifts, benefits, and handouts, which serve to perpetuate
> > helplessness. I favor public education, school vouchers,
> > libraries, small business loans, public transportation,
> > paratransportation for the disabled, head start, and various
> > programs for the elderly. I suppose that qualifies me
> > for a promotion to Major Heartless.
>
> You can't favor such programs at the same time you support an
> administration that is doing away with them.
>

They support some, and don't support others. My support of
the administration covers lots of issues. I don't agree
with them on all issues, but I find the Democratic agenda
to much more dangerous.

> > > This post reformatted by the Resistance,
> > > laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.
>
> You are such a slob.
>

Since my former tenant, who is gay, moved out,
my house has become such a mess.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael McKelvy

February 22nd 04, 08:14 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Socky joins with the Terrierdork in emulating duh-Mikey.
>
> > Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of
them.
>
> I hope you don't mean people on RAO by "they". You deserve the vitriol
> because of the statements you post.
>

Oh dear God, yes. Anybody that might be to the right of center, must be
dealt with. What would happen to the world you love if people chose to be
other than Liberal?

You must not discuss their ideas on the merits. They must be cursed and
derided. Nmaes must called. They can't be human. Can they?

Sandman

February 22nd 04, 08:19 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:GZTZb.27497$tM5.4711@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
> > neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.
> >
> > Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.
> >
> > From webster
> > neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
> >
> > BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
> > Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.
> >
> > ScottW
> >
>
> Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of them.
> But I feel more that the cause perverted itself and lost me, rather than
> that I changed all that much.

You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive liars.

So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone but
Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.

"neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this ng, is
something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It has
nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.

Michael McKelvy

February 22nd 04, 10:12 AM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:GZTZb.27497$tM5.4711@fed1read04...
> > >
> > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
> > > neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.
> > >
> > > Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.
> > >
> > > From webster
> > > neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
> > >
> > > BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
> > > Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of
them.
> > But I feel more that the cause perverted itself and lost me, rather than
> > that I changed all that much.
>
> You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive
liars.
>
> So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone but
> Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.
>
> "neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this ng,
is
> something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It has
> nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.
>
>
>
You mean like Liberal has nothing to with anything but liberalizing laws
that make it easier to tax away the paychecks of those who work and give it
to those who don't?

It must really terrify you to think that people could get along with less
government.

Sandman

February 22nd 04, 12:28 PM

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > news:GZTZb.27497$tM5.4711@fed1read04...
> > > >
> > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
> > > > neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.
> > > >
> > > > Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.
> > > >
> > > > From webster
> > > > neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
> > > >
> > > > BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
> > > > Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.
> > > >
> > > > ScottW
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of
> them.
> > > But I feel more that the cause perverted itself and lost me, rather
than
> > > that I changed all that much.
> >
> > You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive
> liars.
> >
> > So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone but
> > Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.
> >
> > "neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this
ng,
> is
> > something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It
has
> > nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.
> >
> >
> >
> You mean like Liberal has nothing to with anything but liberalizing laws
> that make it easier to tax away the paychecks of those who work and give
it
> to those who don't?
>
> It must really terrify you to think that people could get along with less
> government.

The resident tele-tubbies weighed in, tipping the scales with their obtuse
stupidity, and sure enough, their tag-team bug-eater predictably contributes
his indeterminate drivel to the babble or the rabble. The maroon brigade
sinks itself once again in its pussheap of inanity.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 22nd 04, 01:34 PM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:GZTZb.27497$tM5.4711@fed1read04...
> > >
> > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
> > > neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.
> > >
> > > Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.
> > >
> > > From webster
> > > neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
> > >
> > > BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
> > > Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of
them.
> > But I feel more that the cause perverted itself and lost me, rather than
> > that I changed all that much.
>
> You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive
liars.
>
> So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone but
> Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.
>
> "neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this ng,
is
> something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It has
> nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.
>

Why do you take this so personally? I don't want to throw
insults at you, but I don't want to recieve any of yours, either.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sander deWaal

February 22nd 04, 02:07 PM

"ScottW" > said:

>BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
>Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.

Would you please leave me out of this, kind Sir?
I'm neither senile nor liberal.
Well, maybe only a little :)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 22nd 04, 05:13 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Socky said:
>
> > Why do you take this so personally? I don't want to throw
> > insults at you, but I don't want to recieve any of yours, either.
>
> Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You shouldn't
> throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.
>

To you, any differnce of opinion with yours is
hate mongering. Anyone opposed to gya marraiges is
a hate monger. Anyone opposed to the liberal
agenda is a hate mongerer. ANyone supporting Bush is
a hate mongerer. And you still can't see why I am
so disillusioned with the left.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger

February 22nd 04, 06:00 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You shouldn't
> throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.

If you could only live by those words, Middius.

ScottW

February 22nd 04, 06:48 PM

ScottW

February 22nd 04, 06:55 PM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive
liars.

The love from the left. How sweet it is.
>
> So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone but
> Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.

You mean like when I used geographical facts to point out the flaws
in your assessment of the state of the invasion.
>
> "neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this ng,
is
> something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It has
> nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.

Then why do you toss it around inappropriately so frequently?

ScottW

Sandman

February 22nd 04, 07:25 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Socky takes to outright lying.
>
> > > Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You shouldn't
> > > throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.
>
> > To you, any differnce of opinion with yours is
> > hate mongering.
>
> That is false. Are you aware of the falseness of this claim, Arnii?
>
> > Anyone opposed to gya marraiges is
> > a hate monger.
>
> That is true. If you still don't understand that, you must be an idiot
> as well as a bigot.

More evidence that Sacky's claim to be a registered Democrat is a sham. He
voted for Bush in 2000 and he'll vote for him again in 2004. He once
claimed to support a few "liberal" social issues, all of which are
vehemently opposed by his sworn master, Dubya.

To add to the morass of self-contradictory behavior by Sacky, he bashes gays
and is opposed to gays having equal rights under the Equal Protection Clause
of federal and state constitutions.

I personally suspect he's a closet gay who is ashamed of his "weakness", or
"condition", like the character Joe Pesci played in the movie JFK, as he
must imagine it. Here's a guy in his early to mid fifties, who, when I
first met him, and inquired if he were married, replied "no", and when I
inquired if he'd ever been married, replied "I never make the same mistake
once". Yet he's recently professed right here to know what the love between
two straight married people is all about, merely as a lead-in to his
gay-bashing agenda. I suppose if you walked a mile in his shoes, you'd
really know what getting lost going around and around in circles really
means.

Michael McKelvy

February 22nd 04, 09:50 PM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > > news:GZTZb.27497$tM5.4711@fed1read04...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I glance through these articles and wonder why they think
> > > > > neoconservative is such an awful thing to label someone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I realize, to a liberal it means traiter.
> > > > >
> > > > > From webster
> > > > > neoconservative: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, how long did Sander's self imposed break last this time?
> > > > > Our senile citizen thinks fall has arrived early this year.
> > > > >
> > > > > ScottW
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that is why they are so vitriolic towards me. I yustabe one of
> > them.
> > > > But I feel more that the cause perverted itself and lost me, rather
> than
> > > > that I changed all that much.
> > >
> > > You're both grossly fat, terminably stupid, hypocritical, compulsive
> > liars.
> > >
> > > So terminably stupid you both *still* don't understand that everyone
but
> > > Duh-Mikey laughs at your idiocy when it comes to world issues.
> > >
> > > "neoconservative", btw, as has already been explained clearly on this
> ng,
> > is
> > > something the ultra-right-wing PNAC extremists labeled themselves. It
> has
> > > nothing to do with liberals supposedly becoming conservatives.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > You mean like Liberal has nothing to with anything but liberalizing laws
> > that make it easier to tax away the paychecks of those who work and give
> it
> > to those who don't?
> >
> > It must really terrify you to think that people could get along with
less
> > government.
>
> The resident tele-tubbies weighed in, tipping the scales with their obtuse
> stupidity, and sure enough, their tag-team bug-eater predictably
contributes
> his indeterminate drivel to the babble or the rabble. The maroon brigade
> sinks itself once again in its pussheap of inanity.
>
>
Non-response to the points acknowledged.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 22nd 04, 10:09 PM

"Le Artiste" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :
>
> >> Dubya himself wants the government to institutionalize his own
> >> religion as the official state religion, contrary to the express and
> >> hallowed precept of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Again,
> >> personal freedoms are threatened in the name of a state-sponsored
> >> agenda. How is that not fascistic?
> >
> >Making Christianoity the official
> >State religion is not on the agenda.
>
> It does not go unnoticed that your head of state believes he is doing
> the work of God. The religious clap-trap permeates throughout policy
> making, from foreign affairs (Axis of "evil") to sex education.
>

The concept of good vs evil goes way beyond the bounds
of Christianity.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 23rd 04, 01:00 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> So it's just a coincidence that Dubya, the simple-minded,
> Bible-thumping, former drug addict and current tool of the greedy
> robber barons who are bleeding this country dry, is the only President
> in memory who declared war on the basis of "good vs. evil", and who
> also declared a "Crusade" to slay the evildoers?
>

Seems that my memory is better than yours.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 23rd 04, 01:40 AM

"Le Artiste" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :
>
> >> So it's just a coincidence that Dubya, the simple-minded,
> >> Bible-thumping, former drug addict and current tool of the greedy
> >> robber barons who are bleeding this country dry, is the only President
> >> in memory who declared war on the basis of "good vs. evil", and who
> >> also declared a "Crusade" to slay the evildoers?
> >
> >Seems that my memory is better than yours.
>
> Aren't you going to explain why or how?
>

I thought it 'self evident'
The cold war and WWII
were matters of good vs evil.
It's sad that I would have to explain this to anyone.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 23rd 04, 02:53 AM

"Le Artiste" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :
>
> >> >> So it's just a coincidence that Dubya, the simple-minded,
> >> >> Bible-thumping, former drug addict and current tool of the greedy
> >> >> robber barons who are bleeding this country dry, is the only
President
> >> >> in memory who declared war on the basis of "good vs. evil", and who
> >> >> also declared a "Crusade" to slay the evildoers?
> >> >
> >> >Seems that my memory is better than yours.
> >>
> >> Aren't you going to explain why or how?
> >
> >I thought it 'self evident'
> >The cold war and WWII
> >were matters of good vs evil.
> >It's sad that I would have to explain this to anyone.
>
> Name the president who..
>
> "declared war on the basis of "good vs. evil", and who also declared a
> "Crusade" to slay the evildoers?"
>
> Then we can look up the quotes.
>

First let's dispel the myth that Bush declared war at all.
Now, lets go to the fact that Reagan verbally
expressed the cold war in terms of good and evil,
as Bush has done about the war on terror.
If you want to get 'technical', so will I.
The nut of the matter is that Bush verbally
framed the conflict as good vs evil, Reagan verbally
framed the cold war as good vs. evil. I think that
'Kennedy did, and I would not be surprised if Johnson
and Truman said the equivalent. I don't know the exact
uttereances of Roosevvelt, but everyone here took
it as a struggle between good vs evil.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 23rd 04, 03:13 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > >> So it's just a coincidence that Dubya, the simple-minded,
> > > >> Bible-thumping, former drug addict and current tool of the greedy
> > > >> robber barons who are bleeding this country dry, is the only
President
> > > >> in memory who declared war on the basis of "good vs. evil", and who
> > > >> also declared a "Crusade" to slay the evildoers?
> > > >
> > > >Seems that my memory is better than yours.
> > >
> > > Aren't you going to explain why or how?
> > >
> >
> > I thought it 'self evident'
>
> I know what self-evident means, but I don't know what 'self-evident'
> means. Perhaps you can explain that distinction to begin with.
>
> > The cold war and WWII
> > were matters of good vs evil.
> > It's sad that I would have to explain this to anyone.
>
> You might explain how the Soviet Union viewed the USA. I'm sure your
> take on it is ..... unanticipated, let's say.
>

I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev had
thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,
and that the freedom and high standard of living
here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
could imagine..

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 23rd 04, 04:12 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Der Sockfuehrer hat gesacht:
>
> > > > I thought it 'self evident'
> > >
> > > I know what self-evident means, but I don't know what 'self-evident'
> > > means. Perhaps you can explain that distinction to begin with.
>
> Unable to answer the question?
>

It's a silly question

>
> > > > The cold war and WWII
> > > > were matters of good vs evil.
> > > > It's sad that I would have to explain this to anyone.
> > >
> > > You might explain how the Soviet Union viewed the USA. I'm sure your
> > > take on it is ..... unanticipated, let's say.
> > >
> >
> > I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev had
> > thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
> > inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,
> > and that the freedom and high standard of living
> > here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
> > could imagine..
>
> Now you're pretending to be as dumb as Mikey. How sad.
>

Then give me your answer to the question.
Don't expect me to guess what your answer is.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 23rd 04, 04:14 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Socky goes into hiding.
>
> > First let's dispel the myth that Bush declared war at all.
>
> So that's it. You've committed yourself.
>
We are fighting undeclared wars. Congress declares war.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

S888Wheel

February 23rd 04, 05:06 AM

>
>I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev had
>thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
>inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,

Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system. I thought that was
us up until the civil war. Death? Did capitalism cure death? Starvation? People
don't starve in other non-communist countries?

>and that the freedom and high standard of living
>here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
>could imagine..

Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian working class
under communism? Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom and
standard of living when the Czars ruled Russia?

Sandman

February 23rd 04, 07:02 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I was alerted to this post by somebody whose stomach is stronger than
> mine. I'm un-KFing you, Sanders, because Socky is making such a
> spectacle of himself, and there's no such thing as too big a bonfire
> when it's time to burn a witch.
>
> > > Socky takes to outright lying.
> > >
> > > > > Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You
shouldn't
> > > > > throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.
> > >
> > > > To you, any differnce of opinion with yours is
> > > > hate mongering.
> > >
> > > That is false. Are you aware of the falseness of this claim, Arnii?
> > >
> > > > Anyone opposed to gya marraiges is
> > > > a hate monger.
> > >
> > > That is true. If you still don't understand that, you must be an idiot
> > > as well as a bigot.
> >
> > More evidence that Sacky's claim to be a registered Democrat is a sham.
He
> > voted for Bush in 2000 and he'll vote for him again in 2004. He once
> > claimed to support a few "liberal" social issues, all of which are
> > vehemently opposed by his sworn master, Dubya.
> >
> > To add to the morass of self-contradictory behavior by Sacky, he bashes
gays
> > and is opposed to gays having equal rights under the Equal Protection
Clause
> > of federal and state constitutions.
> >
> > I personally suspect he's a closet gay who is ashamed of his "weakness",
or
> > "condition", like the character Joe Pesci played in the movie JFK, as he
> > must imagine it. Here's a guy in his early to mid fifties, who, when I
> > first met him, and inquired if he were married, replied "no", and when I
> > inquired if he'd ever been married, replied "I never make the same
mistake
> > once". Yet he's recently professed right here to know what the love
between
> > two straight married people is all about, merely as a lead-in to his
> > gay-bashing agenda. I suppose if you walked a mile in his shoes, you'd
> > really know what getting lost going around and around in circles really
> > means.
>
>
> So he's never been married, and in fact he's afraid of being married,
> but he claims to hold the institution sacrosanct in its consecrated
> hetero form. Hallelujah.
>
> I suspect your suspicion is likely to be true. Socky made a startling
> admission in another post -- he said he empathizes with Gays who are
> unhappy about being persecuted for being Gay. I have to admit I used
> to have some sympathy for closet cases. That was a while ago, though,
> before the '90s changed everything. Nowadays, even Falwell has allowed
> that Gays should be allowed to live their lives in peace, making a
> contribution alongside the majority. (That Rev. Jerry also espouses
> the "right" to hate Gays is unfortunate, but progress is progress.)
>
> Socky is a "confirmed bachelor": Never married, afraid of women, but
> in awe of the unattainable institution of Holy Marriage. I don't
> believe he's religious, so his slippery dodging on the subject of
> tradition is probably not rooted in that sort of rigmarole. Most
> telling is his forthright declaration of having empathy for Gays who
> are not well adjusted to being Gay. I think this gives a whole new
> coloration to his brainless "conservatism" -- he's trying to hide in
> plain sight.
>
> Come out of your closet, Art. The politics are fine.

In view of your insight about Sacky's "slippery dodging", and in view of his
evasions and obfuscations on this and numerous other issues, I should amend
my above statement as follows: "I suppose if you walked a mile in his shoes,
you'd know how tortuously long it takes to get thoroughly lost going around
and around in circles walking backwards, amidst seemingly endless
side-stepping."

I think what's happening in Massachusetts and San Francisco is fantastic,
and *about time*. It looks like what started as a protest is going to be
turning into a nationwide movement. And kudos to those Superior Court
judges in S.F. that just kicked those right-wing religious fanatics' arses
into late March.

And to think it all began when an obscure Governor of a small State took the
first brave step in pushing through a conservative legislature the country's
first "civil union" law. Remember, it was just a few decades ago that
statutes across this country prohibited inter-racial marriages. Isn't it
about time Americans woke up to the fact that the gay population has always
been here, is not going away, and as American citizens are entitled to *all*
of the rights the U.S. and State Constitutions guarantee to *all* American
citizens?

So what threat does Sacky really think that loving gay couple living down
the block personally poses to him, especially if they hold a marriage
license and perhaps an adopted child in their hands? Is he jealous?

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 23rd 04, 12:41 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev had
> >thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
> >inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,
>
> Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system. I thought that
was
> us up until the civil war. Death? Did capitalism cure death? Starvation?
People
> don't starve in other non-communist countries?
>

Come on, we are talking about all the atrocities under Lenin and Stalin.
People were treated as slaves of the state. Forced labor
Forced relocations, breakup of families, forced starvations.

If you wish to make a moral equivalency between the US, and
Russia (under Communism), I can't cure the blind.

>
> >and that the freedom and high standard of living
> >here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
> >could imagine..
>
> Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian working
class
> under communism? Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom
and
> standard of living when the Czars ruled Russia?

The issue at hand is good vs evil and the Cold War.
But, for wahtever it is worth, the Tsars sucked too.

Standard of living isn't the issue, either.
Good vs Evil.
I know just thinking about it might cause discomfort
in some people.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger

February 23rd 04, 01:05 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev had
>> thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
>> inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,

> Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system.

Shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how
forgetful.

It was a nifty 2-step. First you declare vast numbers of citizens to be
criminals, and then you put all these millions of *criminals* into prison
camps where they are worked to death.

>I thought that was us up until the civil war.

That was then, and this was how things were in USSR through most of the 20th
century.

> Death? Did capitalism cure death?

Stalin ordered the murder of about 29 million of my ancestors during the
first half of the 20th century. I believe his justification went something
like "To make an omelet, you have to crack some eggs". Again, this shows how
incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how forgetful. Do
Mensa IQ tests cover things like this? I suspect not!

> Starvation? People don't starve in other non-communist countries?

People starve in houses that are full of food, occasional starvation is not
the problem. No capitalism can't do away with all of the effects of
naturally-caused famines, but in the past century capitalist countries have
pretty much managed to avoid the kinds of government-policy-induced famines
seen in North Korea, USSR, China, etc.

>> and that the freedom and high standard of living
>> here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
>> could imagine..

> Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian working
> class under communism?

In accordance with communist state policy in the USSR, increases in the
standard of living vastly underperformed such mediocre or worse increases in
worker productivity that somehow took place despite state mismanagement of
the economy. The issue was called "Guns versus butter"

>Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom and standard of
living when the Czars ruled Russia?

From the time of the organization of the USA onward, improvements in the
standard of living of virtually all social classes in the US vastly outpaced
increases in the standard of living in the USSR. Communism, if anything
increased this disparity.

I think this anecdote is relevant. I associated with a Cameroonian who was
working on his PhD in Math for a number of years. He ended up living in one
of the nastier public housing projects in downtown Detroit, which was so bad
that it was subsequently dynamited. He received his undergraduate degree
from the University of Moscow, as I recall. He said that his Detroit housing
situation was vastly superior to that *enjoyed* by middling-high communist
party members in Moscow. His apartment in Detroit did have its nasty
aspects, but it was relatively spacious for two people, well-heated in the
winter, served by a working modern elevator, and had other refinements that
were according to him, fairly rare in Moscow, even among their equivalent of
the middle class.

S888Wheel

February 23rd 04, 04:08 PM

>
>> >I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev had
>> >thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
>> >inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,
>>
>> Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system. I thought that
>was
>> us up until the civil war. Death? Did capitalism cure death? Starvation?
>People
>> don't starve in other non-communist countries?
>>
>
>Come on, we are talking about all the atrocities under Lenin and Stalin.
>People were treated as slaves of the state. Forced labor
>Forced relocations, breakup of families, forced starvations.
>
>If you wish to make a moral equivalency between the US, and
>Russia (under Communism), I can't cure the blind.

Where did I make any such moral equivalency? We certainly were guilty of having
slavery. I don't think the Soviet Union was guilty of such. More people were
starving in Russia before communism than after. I am not defending communism
but I am not going to attack it with propaganda. I am not going to deny facts
that don't jive with my political ideals.

>
>>
>> >and that the freedom and high standard of living
>> >here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
>> >could imagine..
>>
>> Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian working
>class
>> under communism? Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom
>and
>> standard of living when the Czars ruled Russia?
>
>The issue at hand is good vs evil and the Cold War.
>But, for wahtever it is worth, the Tsars sucked too.

You cannot simply trust a country out of the context of it's own history. The
Russian people did not turn communist becuase they decided it was time to be
evil.

>
>Standard of living isn't the issue, either.
>Good vs Evil.
>I know just thinking about it might cause discomfort
>in some people.

It does cause me tremendous discomfort when people decide that their political
or economic ideologies boil down to good vs. evil rather than a difference of
opinion. Communism vs. capitalism was not a struggle of good versus evil. It
was a struggle between economic systems. It seems that capitalism works better
in many ways and seems to be prefered by most people. That would include
myself. But it isn't about good vs. evil. It is about finding the economic
system that best serves the needs and desires of the people.

S888Wheel

February 23rd 04, 04:25 PM

>>
>>> I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev had
>>> thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
>>> inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,
>
>> Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system.
>
>Shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how
>forgetful.
>
>It was a nifty 2-step. First you declare vast numbers of citizens to be
>criminals, and then you put all these millions of *criminals* into prison
>camps where they are worked to death.
>

Thanks for showing you don't know the difference between slavery and political
oppression.

>>I thought that was us up until the civil war.
>
>That was then, and this was how things were in USSR through most of the 20th
>century.
>

Really. Tell us about the slaves in the USSR Arny. What was the average price
of a slave in the twentieth centry USSR?

>> Death? Did capitalism cure death?
>
>Stalin ordered the murder of about 29 million of my ancestors during the
>first half of the 20th century. I believe his justification went something
>like "To make an omelet, you have to crack some eggs". Again, this shows how
>incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how forgetful. Do
>Mensa IQ tests cover things like this? I suspect not!
>

Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and communism? Thanks
for proving you didn't understand the point. The ability to understand and
solve problems is covered on the Mensa test. The test you are afraid to take.

>> Starvation? People don't starve in other non-communist countries?
>
>People starve in houses that are full of food, occasional starvation is not
>the problem. No capitalism can't do away with all of the effects of
>naturally-caused famines, but in the past century capitalist countries have
>pretty much managed to avoid the kinds of government-policy-induced famines
>seen in North Korea, USSR, China, etc.
>

Again you missed my point. here is a simple question Arny. Did more people
starve in Russia before or after communism?

>>> and that the freedom and high standard of living
>>> here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
>>> could imagine..
>
>> Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian working
>> class under communism?
>
>In accordance with communist state policy in the USSR, increases in the
>standard of living vastly underperformed such mediocre or worse increases in
>worker productivity that somehow took place despite state mismanagement of
>the economy. The issue was called "Guns versus butter"
>

Maybe you could repost this claim using a sentence that actually makes sense.
In the mean time your challenge is to diagram your own sentence.

>>Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom and standard of
>living when the Czars ruled Russia?
>
>From the time of the organization of the USA onward, improvements in the
>standard of living of virtually all social classes in the US vastly outpaced
>increases in the standard of living in the USSR. Communism, if anything
>increased this disparity.
>

Thanks for once again missing the point. You might want to go back and review
specifically what I did and di not compare. Here is a hint, capitalism wasn't
included in my comparisons.

>I think this anecdote is relevant. I associated with a Cameroonian who was
>working on his PhD in Math for a number of years. He ended up living in one
>of the nastier public housing projects in downtown Detroit, which was so bad
>that it was subsequently dynamited. He received his undergraduate degree
>from the University of Moscow, as I recall. He said that his Detroit housing
>situation was vastly superior to that *enjoyed* by middling-high communist
>party members in Moscow. His apartment in Detroit did have its nasty
>aspects, but it was relatively spacious for two people, well-heated in the
>winter, served by a working modern elevator, and had other refinements that
>were according to him, fairly rare in Moscow, even among their equivalent of
>the middle class.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
His was one opinion. I am sure that most people prefer our system to that of
the Soviet Union.Certainly some don't. I certainly do. Maybe you should get
back to us when you can figure out what is being said in the thread. Here is
yet another hint, nowhere in any of my posts did I say communism was better
than capitalism. That should be a good enough anyone including an idiot such as
yourself. How about the Mensa test Arny? Still chicken?

Arny Krueger

February 23rd 04, 05:04 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>>> I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev had
>>>> thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
>>>> inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,

>>> Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system.

>> Shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how
>> forgetful.

>> It was a nifty 2-step. First you declare vast numbers of citizens to
>> be criminals, and then you put all these millions of *criminals*
>> into prison camps where they are worked to death.

> Thanks for showing you don't know the difference between slavery and
> political oppression.

Tell that to every historian and writer who called this particular
implementation of political oppression "slavery".

>>> I thought that was us up until the civil war.
>>
>> That was then, and this was how things were in USSR through most of
>> the 20th century.

> Really. Tell us about the slaves in the USSR Arny. What was the
> average price of a slave in the twentieth centry USSR?

There is no such place as twentieth centry USSR.

Please explain the meaning of "price" in a Communist society.

>>> Death? Did capitalism cure death?

>> Stalin ordered the murder of about 29 million of my ancestors during
>> the first half of the 20th century. I believe his justification went
>> something like "To make an omelet, you have to crack some eggs".
>> Again, this shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet
>> wheel. Or how forgetful. Do Mensa IQ tests cover things like this? I
>> suspect not!

> Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and
> communism?

There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.

> Thanks for proving you didn't understand the point.

Thanks for discrediting yourself, sockpuppet wheel.

>The
> ability to understand and solve problems is covered on the Mensa
> test. The test you are afraid to take.

Never said that, straw man argument noted.

>>> Starvation? People don't starve in other non-communist countries?

>> People starve in houses that are full of food, occasional starvation
>> is not the problem. No capitalism can't do away with all of the
>> effects of naturally-caused famines, but in the past century
>> capitalist countries have pretty much managed to avoid the kinds of
>> government-policy-induced famines seen in North Korea, USSR, China,
>> etc.
>>

> Again you missed my point. here is a simple question Arny. Did more
> people starve in Russia before or after communism?

Never said that, straw man argument noted.

>>>> and that the freedom and high standard of living
>>>> here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
>>>> could imagine..

>>> Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian
>>> working class under communism?

>> In accordance with communist state policy in the USSR, increases in
>> the standard of living vastly underperformed such mediocre or worse
>> increases in worker productivity that somehow took place despite
>> state mismanagement of the economy. The issue was called "Guns
>> versus butter"

> Maybe you could repost this claim using a sentence that actually
> makes sense. In the mean time your challenge is to diagram your own
> sentence.

Unlike you sockpuppet wheel, I don't have any mean time. However, it is
clear that you revel in your mean time.

>>> Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom and
>>> standard of
>> living when the Czars ruled Russia?

>> From the time of the organization of the USA onward, improvements in
>> the standard of living of virtually all social classes in the US
>> vastly outpaced increases in the standard of living in the USSR.
>> Communism, if anything increased this disparity.

> Thanks for once again missing the point. You might want to go back
> and review specifically what I did and di not compare. Here is a
> hint, capitalism wasn't included in my comparisons.

I'm quite sure that you di not compare anything, sockpuppet wheel.

You obviously can't remember what you wrote, even when it is presented in
the previous paragraph. You explicitly mentioned the American level of
freedom and standard of living.

Oh, I get it sockpuppet, you don't think that we practice capitalism in the
US.

How novel!

How wrong!

>> I think this anecdote is relevant. I associated with a Cameroonian
>> who was working on his PhD in Math for a number of years. He ended
>> up living in one of the nastier public housing projects in downtown
>> Detroit, which was so bad that it was subsequently dynamited. He
>> received his undergraduate degree from the University of Moscow, as
>> I recall. He said that his Detroit housing situation was vastly
>> superior to that *enjoyed* by middling-high communist party members
>> in Moscow. His apartment in Detroit did have its nasty aspects, but
>> it was relatively spacious for two people, well-heated in the
>> winter, served by a working modern elevator, and had other
>> refinements that were according to him, fairly rare in Moscow, even
>> among their equivalent of the middle class.

> His was one opinion.

It was based on personal experience. Tell us about your personal experiences
with living in the USSR, sockpuppet wheel. Given how little you're willing
to admit about your pathetic life here in the US, that will be quite
entertaining!

> I am sure that most people prefer our system to
> that of the Soviet Union.Certainly some don't. I certainly do. Maybe
> you should get back to us when you can figure out what is being said
> in the thread.

It's true that "I think I'm without fault and my opinions are
unquestionable" is being said between the lines by you in this thread,
sockpuppet wheel. What's new?

> Here is yet another hint, nowhere in any of my posts
> did I say communism was better than capitalism.

I still haven't said that, so take this straw man argument of yours and put
it with the rest of them, sockpuppet wheel.

>That should be a good
> enough anyone including an idiot such as yourself. How about the
> Mensa test Arny? Still chicken?

Never was chicken about Mensa tests. Unlike you, I've always had more
productive things to do. It's quite clear that your allegedly high Mensa IQ
test score is the one accomplishment in your miserable life of failure that
you're willing to discuss.

ScottW

February 23rd 04, 05:09 PM

"Sandman" > wrote in message >...
>
> So what threat does Sacky really think that loving gay couple living down
> the block personally poses to him, especially if they hold a marriage
> license and perhaps an adopted child in their hands?

There is the question. Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?

And don't try to deny the horrors of abuse the other children will
heap upon these poor kids. It will happen and there isn't a damn
thing you idealistic liberals can do about it. Is it right? No. Is it
real? Yes.

Gay unions, fine. Adoption? No, Not yet. Perhaps foster care is a
better trial run at gay parenting.

ScottW

dave weil

February 23rd 04, 05:11 PM

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.

There is no such thing as "bevavior" in the Soviet Union (or anywhere
*else* for that matter).

S888Wheel

February 23rd 04, 05:22 PM

>
> There is the question. Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt?
>
> While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
>from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
>poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
>undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?
>

The fatc that it is a stigma is IMO a problem with those who make it so. This
is an unfortunate issue when people adopt children of another race. One could
ask the question of Muslims given the common dislike for Muslims. I think the
answer is simple. Fear of prejudice should have no bearing on the issue.

>
> And don't try to deny the horrors of abuse the other children will
>heap upon these poor kids.

People who commit such horrors of abuse are the real problem and they are the
one who should be punished for creating such horrors.

> It will happen and there isn't a damn
>thing you idealistic liberals can do about it. Is it right? No. Is it
>real? Yes.

Yes, people do bad things but there is something that can be done about it.
Hate crimes can be addressed by the justice system as well as any other crime.
People do get away with crimes but that is not a reason to give up on fighting
it nor is it a reason to run and hide under a rock.

>
> Gay unions, fine. Adoption? No, Not yet. Perhaps foster care is a
>better trial run at gay parenting.
>

Because of fear of prejudice? I think not.

Arny Krueger

February 23rd 04, 05:38 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>>888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and
>>> communism?

>> There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.

> There is no such thing as "bevavior" in the Soviet Union (or anywhere
> *else* for that matter).

Weil, you might want to tell that to sockpuppet wheel. Obviously, it is his
"bevavior" that I am noting here.

Noted: Weil is so dense he doesn't "get it" when I nail sockpuppet wheel for
his sloppy writing.

dave weil

February 23rd 04, 05:50 PM

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:38:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>
>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>
>>>888Wheel" > wrote in message

>
>>>> Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and
>>>> communism?
>
>>> There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.
>
>> There is no such thing as "bevavior" in the Soviet Union (or anywhere
>> *else* for that matter).
>
>Weil, you might want to tell that to sockpuppet wheel. Obviously, it is his
>"bevavior" that I am noting here.
>
>Noted: Weil is so dense he doesn't "get it" when I nail sockpuppet wheel for
>his sloppy writing.

I see. It was your "capitol" idea, right?

S888Wheel

February 23rd 04, 05:56 PM

>>>>> I suppose that Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev had
>>>>> thought that the slavery, death, starvation, and torture
>>>>> inherent in their rule were just wonderfully good things,
>
>>>> Slavery? I don't recall slavery being a part of the system.
>
>>> Shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet wheel. Or how
>>> forgetful.
>
>>> It was a nifty 2-step. First you declare vast numbers of citizens to
>>> be criminals, and then you put all these millions of *criminals*
>>> into prison camps where they are worked to death.
>
>> Thanks for showing you don't know the difference between slavery and
>> political oppression.
>
>Tell that to every historian and writer who called this particular
>implementation of political oppression "slavery".
>

Cite them, prove they said this and give me their e mail address and I will.

>
>>>> I thought that was us up until the civil war.
>>>
>>> That was then, and this was how things were in USSR through most of
>>> the 20th century.
>
>> Really. Tell us about the slaves in the USSR Arny. What was the
>> average price of a slave in the twentieth centry USSR?
>
>There is no such place as twentieth centry USSR.
>

Failure to answer the question noted. Given the fact that you have claimed that
nitpicking over typos is an admission of defeat I accept your admission of
defeat on this matter.

>
>Please explain the meaning of "price" in a Communist society.
>

Thanks for admitting you don't understand simple words dip****. Or are you
simply so ignorant that you believe there was no monetary system in the USSR
and people didn't pay for goods with money?

>
>>>> Death? Did capitalism cure death?
>
>>> Stalin ordered the murder of about 29 million of my ancestors during
>>> the first half of the 20th century. I believe his justification went
>>> something like "To make an omelet, you have to crack some eggs".
>>> Again, this shows how incredibly poorly-educated you are sockpuppet
>>> wheel. Or how forgetful. Do Mensa IQ tests cover things like this? I
>>> suspect not!
>
>> Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and
>> communism?
>
>There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.
>

Thanks for admitting defeat again.

>
>> Thanks for proving you didn't understand the point.
>
>Thanks for discrediting yourself, sockpuppet wheel.
>

Projecting again I see.

>
>>The
>> ability to understand and solve problems is covered on the Mensa
>> test. The test you are afraid to take.
>
>Never said that, straw man argument noted.

You have admitted it by your standards of admission. Of course you can always
prove me wrong and take the test and publish the results. Yoy can prove you
aren't a coward with a substantial bet on top of it. You are chicken.

>
>>>> Starvation? People don't starve in other non-communist countries?
>
>>> People starve in houses that are full of food, occasional starvation
>>> is not the problem. No capitalism can't do away with all of the
>>> effects of naturally-caused famines, but in the past century
>>> capitalist countries have pretty much managed to avoid the kinds of
>>> government-policy-induced famines seen in North Korea, USSR, China,
>>> etc.
>>>
>
>> Again you missed my point. here is a simple question Arny. Did more
>> people starve in Russia before or after communism?
>
>Never said that, straw man argument noted.

No, I said it dip****. Your inability to understand what I said is noted. Look
where I said *my point* and see if you can figure out what the **** is going on
in this thread.

>
>>>>> and that the freedom and high standard of living
>>>>> here in the US were just about as bad an evil as anyone
>>>>> could imagine..
>
>>>> Do you think the standard of living went down for the Russian
>>>> working class under communism?
>
>>> In accordance with communist state policy in the USSR, increases in
>>> the standard of living vastly underperformed such mediocre or worse
>>> increases in worker productivity that somehow took place despite
>>> state mismanagement of the economy. The issue was called "Guns
>>> versus butter"
>
>> Maybe you could repost this claim using a sentence that actually
>> makes sense. In the mean time your challenge is to diagram your own
>> sentence.
>
>Unlike you sockpuppet wheel, I don't have any mean time. However, it is
>clear that you revel in your mean time.

Guess you can't repost your car wreck of a sentence in proper English. Figures.

>
>>>> Were the peasants enjoying an American level of freedom and
>>>> standard of
>>> living when the Czars ruled Russia?
>
>>> From the time of the organization of the USA onward, improvements in
>>> the standard of living of virtually all social classes in the US
>>> vastly outpaced increases in the standard of living in the USSR.
>>> Communism, if anything increased this disparity.
>
>> Thanks for once again missing the point. You might want to go back
>> and review specifically what I did and di not compare. Here is a
>> hint, capitalism wasn't included in my comparisons.
>
>I'm quite sure that you di not compare anything, sockpuppet wheel.
>

Thanks for yet another admission of defeat.

>
>You obviously can't remember what you wrote, even when it is presented in
>the previous paragraph. You explicitly mentioned the American level of
>freedom and standard of living.

Thanks for showing just what an idiot you are Arny. I guess yo can't remember
what I wrote or the context in which I wrote it. I was clearly pointing out
that when looking at communist Russia one has to consider where they came from.
the comparison was between communist Russia and russia under the rule of the
Czars. Duh.

>
>Oh, I get it sockpuppet, you don't think that we practice capitalism in the
>US.

Obviously you don't get it. No wonder you avoid the Mensa test like the plague.

>
>How novel!
>
>How wrong!

Indeed your misrepresentations of my positions are, as usual, quite wrong.

>
>>> I think this anecdote is relevant. I associated with a Cameroonian
>>> who was working on his PhD in Math for a number of years. He ended
>>> up living in one of the nastier public housing projects in downtown
>>> Detroit, which was so bad that it was subsequently dynamited. He
>>> received his undergraduate degree from the University of Moscow, as
>>> I recall. He said that his Detroit housing situation was vastly
>>> superior to that *enjoyed* by middling-high communist party members
>>> in Moscow. His apartment in Detroit did have its nasty aspects, but
>>> it was relatively spacious for two people, well-heated in the
>>> winter, served by a working modern elevator, and had other
>>> refinements that were according to him, fairly rare in Moscow, even
>>> among their equivalent of the middle class.
>
>> His was one opinion.

>
>It was based on personal experience.

I never said it wasn't dip****.

>Tell us about your personal experiences
>with living in the USSR, sockpuppet wheel.

I never lived there. I did however spend a lot of time in communist
Czechoslavakia. I spent a lot of time talking to the people who lived there all
their lives. You have talke d to one guy eho lived through it and I have talke
dot many. That is perhaps why I know opinions vary and you don't.

> Given how little you're willing
>to admit about your pathetic life here in the US, that will be quite
>entertaining!

You are easily entertained by your sociopathic fantasies about the lives of
others. That is probably due to your bitterness over having lived such an
unextraordinary life of underachievement and failure to excel at anything. You
live what little life you have on the internet. Sad.

>
>> I am sure that most people prefer our system to
>> that of the Soviet Union.Certainly some don't. I certainly do. Maybe
>> you should get back to us when you can figure out what is being said
>> in the thread.
>
>It's true that "I think I'm without fault and my opinions are
>unquestionable" is being said between the lines by you in this thread,
>sockpuppet wheel. What's new?

I told you to get back to us when you can figure out what is being said in the
thread. Your failure to follow instructions is noted. Of course how can I
expect you to follow instructions when it is clear you cannot even understand
them.

>
>> Here is yet another hint, nowhere in any of my posts
>> did I say communism was better than capitalism.
>

>
>I still haven't said that, so take this straw man argument of yours and put
>it with the rest of them, sockpuppet wheel.
>

So who are you agruing with when you make points about the superiority of
capitalism over communism? Are you hearing voices as you read my posts?

>
>>That should be a good
>> enough anyone including an idiot such as yourself. How about the
>> Mensa test Arny? Still chicken?
>
>Never was chicken about Mensa tests.

Sure you were and you still are. Put up or stut up. What say we put a bet on
the results to make it more interesting. Say $500.00? Chicken?

> Unlike you, I've always had more
>productive things to do.

Like 90,000 posts on Usenet? LOL

> It's quite clear that your allegedly high Mensa IQ
>test score is the one accomplishment in your miserable life of failure that
>you're willing to discuss.

What score did I allege? You are amazingly stupid. You might want to talk about
your projections of a miserable life of failuere with Dr. Richman. He might be
willing to give you some free counciling. Arny we know what a miserable life of
underachievement you have lived. I'm sorry you feel compelled to make up such
fantasies about me to feel better about yourself.

S888Wheel

February 23rd 04, 06:01 PM

>
>>>> Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and
>>>> communism?
>
>>> There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.
>
>> There is no such thing as "bevavior" in the Soviet Union (or anywhere
>> *else* for that matter).
>
>Weil, you might want to tell that to sockpuppet wheel. Obviously, it is his
>"bevavior" that I am noting here.
>
>Noted: Weil is so dense he doesn't "get it" when I nail sockpuppet wheel for
>his sloppy writing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Arny is "definately" quite a "characture."

Professor Midnite

February 23rd 04, 07:18 PM

For today's class, let us analyze the below:

>From:

>While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
>from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
>poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
>undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?

Let's change one word and expose this thinking (sic) for what is:

"While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents an *inter-racial*
couple
from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
undeniable social stigma of having *inter-racial* parents?"

Class (as well as bigoted, muddle-headed inane logic) dismissed

Professor Midnite

Joseph Oberlander

February 23rd 04, 08:39 PM

ScottW wrote:

> While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
> from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
> poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
> undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?

Replace mixed racial or religous marriage and subtract 50 years and
you get the exact same question.

Joseph Oberlander

February 23rd 04, 08:49 PM

Professor Midnite wrote:

> "While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents an *inter-racial*
> couple
> from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
> poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
> undeniable social stigma of having *inter-racial* parents?"
>
> Class (as well as bigoted, muddle-headed inane logic) dismissed

Amen :)

All that really matters is that you have a parent(or two or an extended
family or sometihng simmilar - the more the better, of course) that
loves and cares for the child more than they do for themselves.

Most gay or lesbian couples get around this by having a child
themselves - either giving birth to or getting a surrogate to
help out. Then there's no legal problems.

Sandman

February 23rd 04, 09:45 PM

"Professor Midnite" > wrote in message
...
> For today's class, let us analyze the below:
>
> >From:
>
> >While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
> >from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
> >poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
> >undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?
>
>
> Let's change one word and expose this thinking (sic) for what is:
>
> "While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents an
*inter-racial*
> couple
> from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
> poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
> undeniable social stigma of having *inter-racial* parents?"
>
> Class (as well as bigoted, muddle-headed inane logic) dismissed
>
> Professor Midnite

BINGO!

I know several gay and lesbian couples who have adopted children from Russia
and Guatemala and (1) they make wonderful parents, (2) the children are very
happy and outgoing, (3) they suffer no "horrors" from any kind of
abusiveness at their schools - Scott is living in the past - parents,
teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and their
adopted children these days.

Bruce J. Richman

February 23rd 04, 10:05 PM

Jim Sanders wrote:

>"Professor Midnite" > wrote in message
...
>> For today's class, let us analyze the below:
>>
>> >From:
>>
>> >While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
>> >from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
>> >poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
>> >undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?
>>
>>
>> Let's change one word and expose this thinking (sic) for what is:
>>
>> "While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents an
>*inter-racial*
>> couple
>> from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
>> poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
>> undeniable social stigma of having *inter-racial* parents?"
>>
>> Class (as well as bigoted, muddle-headed inane logic) dismissed
>>
>> Professor Midnite
>
>BINGO!
>
>I know several gay and lesbian couples who have adopted children from Russia
>and Guatemala and (1) they make wonderful parents, (2) the children are very
>happy and outgoing, (3) they suffer no "horrors" from any kind of
>abusiveness at their schools - Scott is living in the past - parents,
>teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and their
>adopted children these days.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I would hope that the majority of us have moved beyond the intolerance of gay,
inter-racial, or inter-religious couples bringing up children or doing anything
else that is legal, for that matter.

Bruce J. Richman

ScottW

February 23rd 04, 11:32 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
> >
> > There is the question. Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt?
> >
> > While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
> >from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
> >poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
> >undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?
> >
>
> The fatc that it is a stigma is IMO a problem with those who make it so. This
> is an unfortunate issue when people adopt children of another race. One could
> ask the question of Muslims given the common dislike for Muslims. I think the
> answer is simple. Fear of prejudice should have no bearing on the issue.

Idealism rarely has any bearing on reality.
>
> >
> > And don't try to deny the horrors of abuse the other children will
> >heap upon these poor kids.
>
> People who commit such horrors of abuse are the real problem and they are the
> one who should be punished for creating such horrors.

That would be the other children.

>
> > It will happen and there isn't a damn
> >thing you idealistic liberals can do about it. Is it right? No. Is it
> >real? Yes.
>
> Yes, people do bad things but there is something that can be done about it.
> Hate crimes can be addressed by the justice system as well as any other crime.

There is no justice system for hate crimes in our public schools.

> People do get away with crimes but that is not a reason to give up on fighting
> it nor is it a reason to run and hide under a rock.

>
>
> >
> > Gay unions, fine. Adoption? No, Not yet. Perhaps foster care is a
> >better trial run at gay parenting.
> >
>
> Because of fear of prejudice? I think not.

I don't fear prejudice. I fear for the children who must bear the
burden of your idealism.

ScottW

ScottW

February 23rd 04, 11:41 PM

(Professor Midnite) wrote in message >...
> For today's class, let us analyze the below:
>
> >From:
>
> >While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
> >from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
> >poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
> >undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?
>
>
> Let's change one word and expose this thinking (sic) for what is:
>
> "While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents an *inter-racial*
> couple
> from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
> poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
> undeniable social stigma of having *inter-racial* parents?"

It is a fair point however at this point in time, male gay parents
cannot procreate and must adopt. This creates a significant difference
between inter-racial parents and male gay parents. I believe there was
a transition period during the repeal of laws against inter-racial
marriages where inter-racial adoption was restricted. I am not
suggesting that society won't be ready for gay parents, I am
suggesting that our society might not be ready today.
We are talking about putting children at the forefront of this civil
rights movement, which I think calls for additional caution.

>
> Class (as well as bigoted, muddle-headed inane logic) dismissed

I raise a real point for discussion without denigrating anyones
lifestyle
and I get insults in return.

So much for allowing open free discussion of issues without
incrimination and retribution.

Bigots against free exchange of thoughts and ideas and concerns can
stick their heads in their asses and eat **** AFAIAC.

ScottW

Professor Midnite

February 24th 04, 12:04 AM

>From:

>Bigots against free exchange of thoughts and ideas and concerns can
>stick their heads in their asses and eat **** AFAIAC.

I find the appellation and concomitant sentiment as flattering as if it had
come from either a Holocaust denier or a White Supremacist whose 'free exchange
of ideas' are only slightly more offensive than yours, thanks.

Class (and Scott) Dismissed

Professor Midnite

S888Wheel

February 24th 04, 12:18 AM

>
> It is a fair point however at this point in time, male gay parents
>cannot procreate and must adopt.

Actually they can procreate just as well as heterosexual males provided they
are fertile.

> This creates a significant difference
>between inter-racial parents and male gay parents.

I don't think so given the issue was couples adopting. I don't see how the
ability or willingness to procreate should or would affect the issue of who
should and should not be adopting children.

>I believe there was
>a transition period during the repeal of laws against inter-racial
>marriages where inter-racial adoption was restricted.

Such laws were basically wrong just as the laws prohibiting inter-racial
marriage were basically wrong.

> I am not
>suggesting that society won't be ready for gay parents, I am
>suggesting that our society might not be ready today.

Then they should get ready. The same arguments were made in support of
segregation back during the civil rights movement of the sixties. aren't we all
glad those people who made such arguments lost those arguments?

> We are talking about putting children at the forefront of this civil
>rights movement, which I think calls for additional caution.
>

I understand your concern but I think it is simply a profound mistake to give
into the bullies who wish to stop social progress.

>
>> Class (as well as bigoted, muddle-headed inane logic) dismissed
>
> I raise a real point for discussion without denigrating anyones
>lifestyle
>and I get insults in return.
>
> So much for allowing open free discussion of issues without
>incrimination and retribution.
>
> Bigots against free exchange of thoughts and ideas and concerns can
>stick their heads in their asses and eat **** AFAIAC.
>

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 12:30 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I was alerted to this post by somebody whose stomach is stronger than
> mine. I'm un-KFing you, Sanders, because Socky is making such a
> spectacle of himself, and there's no such thing as too big a bonfire
> when it's time to burn a witch.
>
> > > Socky takes to outright lying.
> > >
> > > > > Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You
shouldn't
> > > > > throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.
> > >
> > > > To you, any differnce of opinion with yours is
> > > > hate mongering.
> > >
> > > That is false. Are you aware of the falseness of this claim, Arnii?
> > >
> > > > Anyone opposed to gya marraiges is
> > > > a hate monger.
> > >
> > > That is true. If you still don't understand that, you must be an idiot
> > > as well as a bigot.
> >
> > More evidence that Sacky's claim to be a registered Democrat is a sham.
He
> > voted for Bush in 2000 and he'll vote for him again in 2004. He once
> > claimed to support a few "liberal" social issues, all of which are
> > vehemently opposed by his sworn master, Dubya.
> >
> > To add to the morass of self-contradictory behavior by Sacky, he bashes
gays
> > and is opposed to gays having equal rights under the Equal Protection
Clause
> > of federal and state constitutions.
> >
> > I personally suspect he's a closet gay who is ashamed of his "weakness",
or
> > "condition", like the character Joe Pesci played in the movie JFK, as he
> > must imagine it. Here's a guy in his early to mid fifties, who, when I
> > first met him, and inquired if he were married, replied "no", and when I
> > inquired if he'd ever been married, replied "I never make the same
mistake
> > once". Yet he's recently professed right here to know what the love
between
> > two straight married people is all about, merely as a lead-in to his
> > gay-bashing agenda. I suppose if you walked a mile in his shoes, you'd
> > really know what getting lost going around and around in circles really
> > means.
>
>
> So he's never been married, and in fact he's afraid of being married,
> but he claims to hold the institution sacrosanct in its consecrated
> hetero form. Hallelujah.
>
> I suspect your suspicion is likely to be true. Socky made a startling
> admission in another post -- he said he empathizes with Gays who are
> unhappy about being persecuted for being Gay. I have to admit I used
> to have some sympathy for closet cases. That was a while ago, though,
> before the '90s changed everything. Nowadays, even Falwell has allowed
> that Gays should be allowed to live their lives in peace, making a
> contribution alongside the majority. (That Rev. Jerry also espouses
> the "right" to hate Gays is unfortunate, but progress is progress.)
>
> Socky is a "confirmed bachelor": Never married, afraid of women, but
> in awe of the unattainable institution of Holy Marriage. I don't
> believe he's religious, so his slippery dodging on the subject of
> tradition is probably not rooted in that sort of rigmarole. Most
> telling is his forthright declaration of having empathy for Gays who
> are not well adjusted to being Gay. I think this gives a whole new
> coloration to his brainless "conservatism" -- he's trying to hide in
> plain sight.
>
> Come out of your closet, Art. The politics are fine.

If I didn't have empathy for persecuted gays, I would be
characterized as heartless, if I did have empathy for them,
I would be characterized as a closet gay.

As to Sanders, I strongly resent his divulging personal information
about me to the group. I thought that my discussions with him were
part of a friendshiip, and friends should respect each others privacy.
Despite my disappointment with his actions, I am still
going to refrain from talking about his personal life in any deprecating
manner, unless he persists in this behavior.

However, the record is that I am straight, I am attracted to women,
and not attracted to men. Some people just aren't meant to be in
lifelong monogamous relationships. Some of those people keep
trying, marrying, divorcing, marrying, divorcing, and on aad on, many
times over, failing again and again, leaving children iin broken
homes in their wake. I have enouh slef awareness to know that,
at least up to this point iin my life, marraige doesn't suit me, and
I am not suited to marraige.

This has nothing to do with straighness vs gayness. I suppose there
are many gay people who are also not suited to committed
monogamous relationships.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 12:36 AM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > I was alerted to this post by somebody whose stomach is stronger than
> > mine. I'm un-KFing you, Sanders, because Socky is making such a
> > spectacle of himself, and there's no such thing as too big a bonfire
> > when it's time to burn a witch.
> >
> > > > Socky takes to outright lying.
> > > >
> > > > > > Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You
> shouldn't
> > > > > > throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.
> > > >
> > > > > To you, any differnce of opinion with yours is
> > > > > hate mongering.
> > > >
> > > > That is false. Are you aware of the falseness of this claim, Arnii?
> > > >
> > > > > Anyone opposed to gya marraiges is
> > > > > a hate monger.
> > > >
> > > > That is true. If you still don't understand that, you must be an
idiot
> > > > as well as a bigot.
> > >
> > > More evidence that Sacky's claim to be a registered Democrat is a
sham.
> He
> > > voted for Bush in 2000 and he'll vote for him again in 2004. He once
> > > claimed to support a few "liberal" social issues, all of which are
> > > vehemently opposed by his sworn master, Dubya.
> > >
> > > To add to the morass of self-contradictory behavior by Sacky, he
bashes
> gays
> > > and is opposed to gays having equal rights under the Equal Protection
> Clause
> > > of federal and state constitutions.
> > >
> > > I personally suspect he's a closet gay who is ashamed of his
"weakness",
> or
> > > "condition", like the character Joe Pesci played in the movie JFK, as
he
> > > must imagine it. Here's a guy in his early to mid fifties, who, when
I
> > > first met him, and inquired if he were married, replied "no", and when
I
> > > inquired if he'd ever been married, replied "I never make the same
> mistake
> > > once". Yet he's recently professed right here to know what the love
> between
> > > two straight married people is all about, merely as a lead-in to his
> > > gay-bashing agenda. I suppose if you walked a mile in his shoes,
you'd
> > > really know what getting lost going around and around in circles
really
> > > means.
> >
> >
> > So he's never been married, and in fact he's afraid of being married,
> > but he claims to hold the institution sacrosanct in its consecrated
> > hetero form. Hallelujah.
> >
> > I suspect your suspicion is likely to be true. Socky made a startling
> > admission in another post -- he said he empathizes with Gays who are
> > unhappy about being persecuted for being Gay. I have to admit I used
> > to have some sympathy for closet cases. That was a while ago, though,
> > before the '90s changed everything. Nowadays, even Falwell has allowed
> > that Gays should be allowed to live their lives in peace, making a
> > contribution alongside the majority. (That Rev. Jerry also espouses
> > the "right" to hate Gays is unfortunate, but progress is progress.)
> >
> > Socky is a "confirmed bachelor": Never married, afraid of women, but
> > in awe of the unattainable institution of Holy Marriage. I don't
> > believe he's religious, so his slippery dodging on the subject of
> > tradition is probably not rooted in that sort of rigmarole. Most
> > telling is his forthright declaration of having empathy for Gays who
> > are not well adjusted to being Gay. I think this gives a whole new
> > coloration to his brainless "conservatism" -- he's trying to hide in
> > plain sight.
> >
> > Come out of your closet, Art. The politics are fine.
>
> In view of your insight about Sacky's "slippery dodging", and in view of
his
> evasions and obfuscations on this and numerous other issues, I should
amend
> my above statement as follows: "I suppose if you walked a mile in his
shoes,
> you'd know how tortuously long it takes to get thoroughly lost going
around
> and around in circles walking backwards, amidst seemingly endless
> side-stepping."
>
> I think what's happening in Massachusetts and San Francisco is fantastic,
> and *about time*. It looks like what started as a protest is going to be
> turning into a nationwide movement. And kudos to those Superior Court
> judges in S.F. that just kicked those right-wing religious fanatics' arses
> into late March.
>
> And to think it all began when an obscure Governor of a small State took
the
> first brave step in pushing through a conservative legislature the
country's
> first "civil union" law. Remember, it was just a few decades ago that
> statutes across this country prohibited inter-racial marriages. Isn't it
> about time Americans woke up to the fact that the gay population has
always
> been here, is not going away, and as American citizens are entitled to
*all*
> of the rights the U.S. and State Constitutions guarantee to *all* American
> citizens?
>
> So what threat does Sacky really think that loving gay couple living down
> the block personally poses to him, especially if they hold a marriage
> license and perhaps an adopted child in their hands? Is he jealous?
>

I just feel a little sorry for the kid. I would not have wanted to grow up
with two same sex parents.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 01:04 AM

"Le Artiste" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" emitted :
>
> >> So what threat does Sacky really think that loving gay couple living
down
> >> the block personally poses to him, especially if they hold a marriage
> >> license and perhaps an adopted child in their hands?
> >
> > There is the question. Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt?
> >
> > While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
> >from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
> >poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
> >undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?
>
> Why should people be submissive in the face of oppression? Should
> blacks in predominantly white societies avoid having children because
> there is a minority of people who are hostile to them? Things would
> always stay the same if nobody had the balls to stick up for their
> beliefs and challenge the status quo. Those who cling to beliefs that
> are incongruous with the modern world view shall in due course be
> ostracized in society, just like racists are today. He who wishes to
> perpetuate homosexuals exclusion from being full and true participants
> in society are fearful of change - the sort of fear which breeds
> intolerance. Get rid of the fear, get rid of the intolerance, what you
> have left is a better integrated society.
>

What you have left is a kid who has to explain why he has two mommies
and no daddies.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

S888Wheel

February 24th 04, 01:42 AM

>
>What you have left is a kid who has to explain why he has two mommies
>and no daddies.
>

No. he doesn't owe anyone any explinations for anything.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 02:34 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Socky dances on the invisible fence.
>
> > > So he's never been married, and in fact he's afraid of being married,
> > > but he claims to hold the institution sacrosanct in its consecrated
> > > hetero form. Hallelujah.
> > >
> > > I suspect your suspicion is likely to be true. Socky made a startling
> > > admission in another post -- he said he empathizes with Gays who are
> > > unhappy about being persecuted for being Gay. I have to admit I used
> > > to have some sympathy for closet cases. That was a while ago, though,
> > > before the '90s changed everything. Nowadays, even Falwell has allowed
> > > that Gays should be allowed to live their lives in peace, making a
> > > contribution alongside the majority. (That Rev. Jerry also espouses
> > > the "right" to hate Gays is unfortunate, but progress is progress.)
> > >
> > > Socky is a "confirmed bachelor": Never married, afraid of women, but
> > > in awe of the unattainable institution of Holy Marriage. I don't
> > > believe he's religious, so his slippery dodging on the subject of
> > > tradition is probably not rooted in that sort of rigmarole. Most
> > > telling is his forthright declaration of having empathy for Gays who
> > > are not well adjusted to being Gay. I think this gives a whole new
> > > coloration to his brainless "conservatism" -- he's trying to hide in
> > > plain sight.
> > >
> > > Come out of your closet, Art. The politics are fine.
> >
> > If I didn't have empathy for persecuted gays, I would be
> > characterized as heartless, if I did have empathy for them,
> > I would be characterized as a closet gay.
>
> I don't have empathy for persecuted gays. Nor am I in the closet.
>
> Want to try again?
>

Not really. You apply a different standard
to others as you apply to yourself.

> > As to Sanders, I strongly resent his divulging personal information
> > about me to the group. I thought that my discussions with him were
> > part of a friendshiip, and friends should respect each others privacy.
> > Despite my disappointment with his actions, I am still
> > going to refrain from talking about his personal life in any deprecating
> > manner, unless he persists in this behavior.
>
> I think he dared you to talk about him.
>

Well, he'll have to try again, though
I don't want him to.

>
> > However, the record is that I am straight, I am attracted to women,
> > and not attracted to men. Some people just aren't meant to be in
> > lifelong monogamous relationships. Some of those people keep
> > trying, marrying, divorcing, marrying, divorcing, and on aad on, many
> > times over, failing again and again, leaving children iin broken
> > homes in their wake. I have enouh slef awareness to know that,
> > at least up to this point iin my life, marraige doesn't suit me, and
>
> blah blah blah
>
> > I am not suited to marraige.
>
> You have constructed an untenable "position" regarding marriage,
> alternating between a meaning of the word you want to be sacrosanct
> and denying what you just said.
>
> Furthermore, you've admitted to feeling empathy for persecuted gays.
> If you are as straight as you claim (and I have strong doubts), you
> couldn't really have such empathy. Possibly for persecuted Jews,
> depending on how much you suffered at the hands of anti-Jewish bigots.
>
>
> > This has nothing to do with straighness vs gayness. I suppose there
> > are many gay people who are also not suited to committed
> > monogamous relationships.
>
> You propound an agenda of hatred, and you're not ashamed. You adore
> Dubya, and you're not ashamed. It's sad.
>

I support W, for most of his policies and actions, but not
for all. I do not adore him.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 02:37 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Socky said:
>
> > I just feel a little sorry for the kid. I would not have wanted to grow
up
> > with two same sex parents.
>
> This is a virtual dictionary definition of homophobia.
>

I think that about 80 to 90% of Americans would agree with my sentiment,
not wanting to to have grow up with a pair of same sex parents.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 02:50 AM

"Le Artiste" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :
>
> >> >> So what threat does Sacky really think that loving gay couple living
down
> >> >> the block personally poses to him, especially if they hold a
marriage
> >> >> license and perhaps an adopted child in their hands?
> >> >
> >> > There is the question. Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt?
> >> >
> >> > While I think in general, there is nothing that prevents a gay couple
> >> >from being good parents, I must raise this question. Why should the
> >> >poor defenseless child who has no choice in this matter, suffer the
> >> >undeniable social stigma of having gay parents?
> >>
> >> Why should people be submissive in the face of oppression? Should
> >> blacks in predominantly white societies avoid having children because
> >> there is a minority of people who are hostile to them? Things would
> >> always stay the same if nobody had the balls to stick up for their
> >> beliefs and challenge the status quo. Those who cling to beliefs that
> >> are incongruous with the modern world view shall in due course be
> >> ostracized in society, just like racists are today. He who wishes to
> >> perpetuate homosexuals exclusion from being full and true participants
> >> in society are fearful of change - the sort of fear which breeds
> >> intolerance. Get rid of the fear, get rid of the intolerance, what you
> >> have left is a better integrated society.
> >
> >What you have left is a kid who has to explain why he has two mommies
> >and no daddies.
>
> When is a kid required to do that and for what purpose?
>
A) When asked by another kid
B) To try to prevent being physically or verbally abused, when asked by
another kid.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 02:51 AM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >What you have left is a kid who has to explain why he has two mommies
> >and no daddies.
> >
>
> No. he doesn't owe anyone any explinations for anything.

I am sure that will make him feel a lot better.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 02:53 AM

"Le Artiste" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :
>
> >What you have left is a kid who has to explain why he has two mommies
> >and no daddies.
>
> Oh yeah - and what's your problem with such an explanation, should it
> be required, anyway?
>

Its up to the kid if he wants to explain. But it
sure puts little Johnnie behind the 8 ball.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 03:09 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Socky said:
>
> > > > If I didn't have empathy for persecuted gays, I would be
> > > > characterized as heartless, if I did have empathy for them,
> > > > I would be characterized as a closet gay.
> > >
> > > I don't have empathy for persecuted gays. Nor am I in the closet.
> > >
> > > Want to try again?
> > >
> >
> > Not really. You apply a different standard
> > to others as you apply to yourself.
>
> How can you empathize with an experience you claim never to have had?
>
>
> > > > I am not suited to marraige.
> > >
> > > You have constructed an untenable "position" regarding marriage,
> > > alternating between a meaning of the word you want to be sacrosanct
> > > and denying what you just said.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, you've admitted to feeling empathy for persecuted gays.
> > > If you are as straight as you claim (and I have strong doubts), you
> > > couldn't really have such empathy. Possibly for persecuted Jews,
> > > depending on how much you suffered at the hands of anti-Jewish bigots.
>
> Shall we take your silence as an admission you're cornered?

If you want to be like Krooger.

>
> Still waiting on your explanation of the difference between
> self-evident and 'self-evident'.
>

The answer is self evident

>
> > > > This has nothing to do with straighness vs gayness. I suppose there
> > > > are many gay people who are also not suited to committed
> > > > monogamous relationships.
> > >
> > > You propound an agenda of hatred, and you're not ashamed. You adore
> > > Dubya, and you're not ashamed. It's sad.
>
> > I support W, for most of his policies and actions, but not
> > for all. I do not adore him.
>
>
> And yet, you're still not ashamed. Incredible.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 03:11 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockbigot said:
>
> > > This is a virtual dictionary definition of homophobia.
>
> > I think that about 80 to 90% of Americans would agree with my sentiment,
> > not wanting to to have grow up with a pair of same sex parents.
>
> That reminds of something that happened in the '30s.....
>
>

Gimme a break!!
I am sure there are millions of Americans who woke up this
morning and said "Damn, I wish I grew up having two daddies
instead of a mommie and a daddie!"
>
>

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

S888Wheel

February 24th 04, 03:26 AM

>
>> >What you have left is a kid who has to explain why he has two mommies
>> >and no daddies.
>> >
>>
>> No. he doesn't owe anyone any explinations for anything.
>
>I am sure that will make him feel a lot better.
>

It will if he gets it.

S888Wheel

February 24th 04, 03:30 AM

>
>I think that about 80 to 90% of Americans would agree with my sentiment,
>not wanting to to have grow up with a pair of same sex parents.
>

I think it might be interesting to ask kids who have. You might be surprised by
their answers. Once people learn who the real villans are in discrimination
they tend to not feel ashamed of themselves.

ScottW

February 24th 04, 05:31 AM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >> >What you have left is a kid who has to explain why he has two mommies
> >> >and no daddies.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No. he doesn't owe anyone any explinations for anything.
> >
> >I am sure that will make him feel a lot better.
> >
>
> It will if he gets it.

You're asking a lot of a child and underestimating the potential of cruelty
in the other kids.
Look at George for example.

ScottW

ScottW

February 24th 04, 05:43 AM

"Professor Midnite" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >From:
>
> >Bigots against free exchange of thoughts and ideas and concerns can
> >stick their heads in their asses and eat **** AFAIAC.
>
> I find the appellation and concomitant sentiment as flattering as if it
had
> come from either a Holocaust denier or a White Supremacist whose 'free
exchange
> of ideas' are only slightly more offensive than yours, thanks.

Or those who find the expressions of nude art offensive.

No one made you the supreme judge of what is offensive.
I don't care if you find my concerns for the children offensive
or not, take your insults and denigration and choke on it.

ScottW

ScottW

February 24th 04, 06:12 AM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...

- Scott is living in the past - parents,
> teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and their
> adopted children these days.

You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
children inflict on one another.
Take your false idealism and blow it up the
sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.

ScottW

S888Wheel

February 24th 04, 08:33 AM

>
>> >> >What you have left is a kid who has to explain why he has two mommies
>> >> >and no daddies.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> No. he doesn't owe anyone any explinations for anything.
>> >
>> >I am sure that will make him feel a lot better.
>> >
>>
>> It will if he gets it.
>
> You're asking a lot of a child and underestimating the potential of cruelty
>in the other kids.

Kids have killed other kids out of pure cruelty. I am not underestimating the
potential. I simply think it is wrong to give into it when the instigators are
clearly the villans. I think kids are better off with loving parents than
without them. I think the notion that parents must conform to the status quo in
order to protect their kids from bullies is not acceptable.

>Look at George for example.

George seems to take good enough care of himself here.

Sandman

February 24th 04, 08:42 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:LXB_b.6840$aZ3.2820@fed1read04...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> - Scott is living in the past - parents,
> > teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and their
> > adopted children these days.
>
> You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
> children inflict on one another.
> Take your false idealism and blow it up the
> sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
> A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.

I have a lot more experience with people from all backgrounds, and with
children in particular, than you'd ever imagine in your wildest dreams. And
from seeing what a lousy father you are, you're hardly one to be
pontificating about children.

Sure, there are isolated incidents of hate crimes in our schools -
Columbine, etc. The children apparently learn to hate from their parents,
either directly or through neglect. Good parents do not produce hateful
children.

Sandman

February 24th 04, 08:46 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Le Artiste" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :
> >
> > >What you have left is a kid who has to explain why he has two mommies
> > >and no daddies.
> >
> > Oh yeah - and what's your problem with such an explanation, should it
> > be required, anyway?
> >
>
> Its up to the kid if he wants to explain. But it
> sure puts little Johnnie behind the 8 ball.

Not if little Johnnie has the kind of loving and principled parents who have
taught little Johnne in advance how to deal with it - e.g., to be a
self-confident leader, not a passive follower of bad bahaviors. Children
who are good leaders attract other children to them by their good qualities,
and whatever bullies exist on the playground (full of the hate their lousy
parents instilled in them), they bullies wouldn't dare pick on a child who
has a large following of devoted, principled, friends.

Sandman

February 24th 04, 08:47 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> SimplePuppet said:
>
> > > Sockbigot said:
> > >
> > > > > This is a virtual dictionary definition of homophobia.
> > >
> > > > I think that about 80 to 90% of Americans would agree with my
sentiment,
> > > > not wanting to to have grow up with a pair of same sex parents.
> > >
> > > That reminds of something that happened in the '30s.....
>
> > Gimme a break!!
> > I am sure there are millions of Americans who woke up this
> > morning and said "Damn, I wish I grew up having two daddies
> > instead of a mommie and a daddie!"
>
> Uh..... The point is not whether your claim is true, or testable, or
> totally specious. The point is that you are endorsing catering to
> bigots because, presumably, you can't let go of your own emotional and
> irrational hangups.

That sure is a very scary closet Sacky has locked himself in.

Sandman

February 24th 04, 08:56 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > I was alerted to this post by somebody whose stomach is stronger than
> > mine. I'm un-KFing you, Sanders, because Socky is making such a
> > spectacle of himself, and there's no such thing as too big a bonfire
> > when it's time to burn a witch.
> >
> > > > Socky takes to outright lying.
> > > >
> > > > > > Hatemongering is a well-known way to attract insults. You
> shouldn't
> > > > > > throw up your hands in mock surprise at this response.
> > > >
> > > > > To you, any differnce of opinion with yours is
> > > > > hate mongering.
> > > >
> > > > That is false. Are you aware of the falseness of this claim, Arnii?
> > > >
> > > > > Anyone opposed to gya marraiges is
> > > > > a hate monger.
> > > >
> > > > That is true. If you still don't understand that, you must be an
idiot
> > > > as well as a bigot.
> > >
> > > More evidence that Sacky's claim to be a registered Democrat is a
sham.
> He
> > > voted for Bush in 2000 and he'll vote for him again in 2004. He once
> > > claimed to support a few "liberal" social issues, all of which are
> > > vehemently opposed by his sworn master, Dubya.
> > >
> > > To add to the morass of self-contradictory behavior by Sacky, he
bashes
> gays
> > > and is opposed to gays having equal rights under the Equal Protection
> Clause
> > > of federal and state constitutions.
> > >
> > > I personally suspect he's a closet gay who is ashamed of his
"weakness",
> or
> > > "condition", like the character Joe Pesci played in the movie JFK, as
he
> > > must imagine it. Here's a guy in his early to mid fifties, who, when
I
> > > first met him, and inquired if he were married, replied "no", and when
I
> > > inquired if he'd ever been married, replied "I never make the same
> mistake
> > > once". Yet he's recently professed right here to know what the love
> between
> > > two straight married people is all about, merely as a lead-in to his
> > > gay-bashing agenda. I suppose if you walked a mile in his shoes,
you'd
> > > really know what getting lost going around and around in circles
really
> > > means.
> >
> >
> > So he's never been married, and in fact he's afraid of being married,
> > but he claims to hold the institution sacrosanct in its consecrated
> > hetero form. Hallelujah.
> >
> > I suspect your suspicion is likely to be true. Socky made a startling
> > admission in another post -- he said he empathizes with Gays who are
> > unhappy about being persecuted for being Gay. I have to admit I used
> > to have some sympathy for closet cases. That was a while ago, though,
> > before the '90s changed everything. Nowadays, even Falwell has allowed
> > that Gays should be allowed to live their lives in peace, making a
> > contribution alongside the majority. (That Rev. Jerry also espouses
> > the "right" to hate Gays is unfortunate, but progress is progress.)
> >
> > Socky is a "confirmed bachelor": Never married, afraid of women, but
> > in awe of the unattainable institution of Holy Marriage. I don't
> > believe he's religious, so his slippery dodging on the subject of
> > tradition is probably not rooted in that sort of rigmarole. Most
> > telling is his forthright declaration of having empathy for Gays who
> > are not well adjusted to being Gay. I think this gives a whole new
> > coloration to his brainless "conservatism" -- he's trying to hide in
> > plain sight.
> >
> > Come out of your closet, Art. The politics are fine.
>
> If I didn't have empathy for persecuted gays, I would be
> characterized as heartless, if I did have empathy for them,
> I would be characterized as a closet gay.

You can't have "empathy" for persecuted gays unless you *are* a persecuted
gay. If you're a straight man, the most you can have is *sympathy* for
persecuted gays.

> As to Sanders, I strongly resent his divulging personal information
> about me to the group.

What's so personal about your joking about never being married?

> I thought that my discussions with him were
> part of a friendshiip, and friends should respect each others privacy.

Oh? You made the comment during the first five minutes of our first
meeting, at the bar of the Il Forniao restaraurant in Del Mar. We were
hardly "friends" at that time - we had just met! And the truth is, we never
really became "friends" - just periodic acquaintances, meeting a few times
(generally with others) for about a year. And considering your personal
attacks against me on RAO during the past year, your complaint reeks of rank
hypocrisy.

> Despite my disappointment with his actions, I am still
> going to refrain from talking about his personal life in any deprecating
> manner, unless he persists in this behavior.

So now you're going to take the high road for a change? Guess all it took
was discussing your silly joke about "never making the same mistake once"
when we first met.

> However, the record is that I am straight, I am attracted to women,
> and not attracted to men. Some people just aren't meant to be in
> lifelong monogamous relationships. Some of those people keep
> trying, marrying, divorcing, marrying, divorcing, and on aad on, many
> times over, failing again and again, leaving children iin broken
> homes in their wake. I have enouh slef awareness to know that,
> at least up to this point iin my life, marraige doesn't suit me, and
> I am not suited to marraige.

I sincerely hope that's true. You may look forward to having your own Bill
Mahr program someday.

> This has nothing to do with straighness vs gayness. I suppose there
> are many gay people who are also not suited to committed
> monogamous relationships.

No argument there.

Joseph Oberlander

February 24th 04, 09:54 AM

> It is a fair point however at this point in time, male gay parents
> cannot procreate and must adopt. This creates a significant difference
> between inter-racial parents and male gay parents. I believe there was
> a transition period during the repeal of laws against inter-racial
> marriages where inter-racial adoption was restricted. I am not
> suggesting that society won't be ready for gay parents, I am
> suggesting that our society might not be ready today.
> We are talking about putting children at the forefront of this civil
> rights movement, which I think calls for additional caution.
>
> ScottW

Actually, for about $10K, or so , you can get an anonymous egg donor
and pay for the fertilization then implant it into a surrogate mother.
Costs incured for the 99 months by the woman also are on topof that.

But it will be 50% yours and nobody else will have legal claim to
the child anymore than if a woman went to a sperm bank.

Joseph Oberlander

February 24th 04, 10:05 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Le Artiste" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :
>>
>>
>>>What you have left is a kid who has to explain why he has two mommies
>>>and no daddies.
>>
>>Oh yeah - and what's your problem with such an explanation, should it
>>be required, anyway?
>>
>
>
> Its up to the kid if he wants to explain. But it
> sure puts little Johnnie behind the 8 ball.

Just how daft ARE you?

What if the child lives with relatives, grandparents, a single
parent(death or other reasons), a divorced parent, or just doesn't
know who the father is?

Today all of these are so common that adding yet another
one to the list is meaningless. In fact, stable, 2-parent
homes of ANY sexual orientation are becoming the "odd"
example these days.

dave weil

February 24th 04, 10:59 AM

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:12:32 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> - Scott is living in the past - parents,
>> teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and their
>> adopted children these days.
>
> You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
>children inflict on one another.

Wow, I didn't know that your kids had been so traumatized.

I understand your bitterness now.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 12:35 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >I think that about 80 to 90% of Americans would agree with my sentiment,
> >not wanting to to have grow up with a pair of same sex parents.
> >
>
> I think it might be interesting to ask kids who have. You might be
surprised by
> their answers. Once people learn who the real villans are in
discrimination
> they tend to not feel ashamed of themselves.

My statement still stands.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 01:03 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Loopy said:
>
> > > > > I don't have empathy for persecuted gays. Nor am I in the closet.
>
> > > > > Want to try again?
>
> > > > Not really. You apply a different standard
> > > > to others as you apply to yourself.
>
> > > How can you empathize with an experience you claim never to have had?
>
> Again you duck a simple question.
>
>
> > > > > Furthermore, you've admitted to feeling empathy for persecuted
gays.
> > > > > If you are as straight as you claim (and I have strong doubts),
you
> > > > > couldn't really have such empathy. Possibly for persecuted Jews,
> > > > > depending on how much you suffered at the hands of anti-Jewish
bigots.
> > >
> > > Shall we take your silence as an admission you're cornered?
> >
> > If you want to be like Krooger.
>
> You're the one who's being "like Krooger". When you're cornered, you
> ignore the pointed questions.
>

Bull****, you are quite Kroogerlike in ascribing any non responsivness
as consent to your qurestions or statements. As far as I can tell,
your comment about persecuted Jews is not a question. And, as far as
that goes, you ascribed comments I mad about dissatisfied gays
as being persecuted gays, an inference I have never made.
Really, you are talking to yourself, and trying to engage me
in the conversation. I never was talking about those things. If you
want to talk about things I never talked about, and cahnge the subject of
the discussion, find yourself another conversant.

>
> > > Still waiting on your explanation of the difference between
> > > self-evident and 'self-evident'.
>
> > The answer is self evident
>
> My conclusion is that you're an idiot. Correct or incorrect?
>

Your opinion is, whatever your opinion is.

>
> > > > I support W, for most of his policies and actions, but not
> > > > for all. I do not adore him.
>
> > > And yet, you're still not ashamed. Incredible.
>
> This wasn't a question, so your silence only tells us you're stuck
> again.
>

here we go again!!!!!

>

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 01:05 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> SimplePuppet said:
>
> > > Sockbigot said:
> > >
> > > > > This is a virtual dictionary definition of homophobia.
> > >
> > > > I think that about 80 to 90% of Americans would agree with my
sentiment,
> > > > not wanting to to have grow up with a pair of same sex parents.
> > >
> > > That reminds of something that happened in the '30s.....
>
> > Gimme a break!!
> > I am sure there are millions of Americans who woke up this
> > morning and said "Damn, I wish I grew up having two daddies
> > instead of a mommie and a daddie!"
>
> Uh..... The point is not whether your claim is true, or testable, or
> totally specious. The point is that you are endorsing catering to
> bigots because, presumably, you can't let go of your own emotional and
> irrational hangups.
>

I am not in the catering business. If I were, I would cater both to bigots
and to gays.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger

February 24th 04, 03:14 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> S888Wheel said:
>
>>> You're asking a lot of a child and underestimating the potential of
>>> cruelty in the other kids.
>>
>> Kids have killed other kids out of pure cruelty. I am not
>> underestimating the potential. I simply think it is wrong to give
>> into it when the instigators are clearly the villans. I think kids
>> are better off with loving parents than without them. I think the
>> notion that parents must conform to the status quo in order to
>> protect their kids from bullies is not acceptable.
>
> Scottie and the other "conservatives" seem to base a lot of their
> decisions and opinions on fear.

Given all the fear-mongering by liberals on this group, it is clear that
they base even more of their decisions and opinions on fear.

Joe Duffy

February 24th 04, 04:44 PM

In article >,
Sandman > wrote:
>http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php
>
>

As a conservative, this band of neocon
nilnos has reeked more havoc than anyone
since Westmoreland.
I am deeply ashamed of the actions of
this President and this country.

Joe

Sandman

February 24th 04, 06:30 PM

"Joe Duffy" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Sandman > wrote:
> >http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php
> >
> >
>
> As a conservative, this band of neocon
> nilnos has reeked more havoc than anyone
> since Westmoreland.
> I am deeply ashamed of the actions of
> this President and this country.

Congrats!

One more American on board willing to take his country back from this
right-wing rabble which is destroying it.

Acne Krooker

February 24th 04, 06:52 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote
>>
>>>>> Hmm. This sort of bevavior was unique to the Soviet Union and
>>>>> communism?
>>
>>>> There is no bevavior like this in the Soviet Union.
>>
>>> There is no such thing as "bevavior" in the Soviet Union (or anywhere
>>> *else* for that matter).
>>
>>Weil, you might want to tell that to sockpuppet wheel. Obviously, it is his
>>"bevavior" that I am noting here.
>>
>>Noted: Weil is so dense he doesn't "get it" when I nail sockpuppet wheel for
>>his sloppy writing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Arny is "definately" quite a "characture."
>>>
Thanks sockpuppet Wheel for admitting you're spellchecker is like
Atkinson ****ing in the wind who also "doesn't get it" on a stormy
monday filled with a mixed bag of Schoepenhaur bevavior arguments
# 13 and 17 LOL ;-(

ROTFLMAO! LoT"s ;

Professor Midnite

February 24th 04, 07:10 PM

>From: "ScottW"

Pay attention, class. Here we have a homophobic bigot using children as 'human
shields' to cover his bigotry and self-loathing. It won't do.

Professor Midnite

ScottW

February 24th 04, 07:27 PM

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
>
> George seems to take good enough care of himself here.

As a cruel bully child, he does fine.

ScottW

ScottW

February 24th 04, 07:29 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>
> > S888Wheel said:
> >
> >>> You're asking a lot of a child and underestimating the potential of
> >>> cruelty in the other kids.
> >>
> >> Kids have killed other kids out of pure cruelty. I am not
> >> underestimating the potential. I simply think it is wrong to give
> >> into it when the instigators are clearly the villans. I think kids
> >> are better off with loving parents than without them. I think the
> >> notion that parents must conform to the status quo in order to
> >> protect their kids from bullies is not acceptable.
> >
> > Scottie and the other "conservatives" seem to base a lot of their
> > decisions and opinions on fear.
>
> Given all the fear-mongering by liberals on this group, it is clear that
> they base even more of their decisions and opinions on fear.

I think the overriding liberal emotion is hate.

ScottW

S888Wheel

February 24th 04, 07:37 PM

>
>> George seems to take good enough care of himself here.
>
> As a cruel bully child, he does fine.

Oh, I thought you meant he was being bullied. Do you think he has left any
emotional scars on anyone?

ScottW

February 24th 04, 07:38 PM

"Sandman" > wrote in message >...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:LXB_b.6840$aZ3.2820@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > - Scott is living in the past - parents,
> > > teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and their
> > > adopted children these days.
> >
> > You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
> > children inflict on one another.
> > Take your false idealism and blow it up the
> > sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
> > A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.
>
> I have a lot more experience with people from all backgrounds, and with
> children in particular, than you'd ever imagine in your wildest dreams. And
> from seeing what a lousy father you are, you're hardly one to be
> pontificating about children.

More bull**** from the insecure. You're the guy who can't leave the
house for a half without checking in, some trust.

>
> Sure, there are isolated incidents of hate crimes in our schools -
> Columbine, etc. The children apparently learn to hate from their parents,
> either directly or through neglect. Good parents do not produce hateful
> children.

Irrelevant. Let's say it's 1960 and a black family has moved into
the neighborhood and your kid is playing with thiers, no problem.
Then you find out they've had threats of shooting, burning, and other
horrible crimes. Do you send your kid over to his to spend the night
in those circumstances?
You have to question, Is adoption to gay parents in the best interest
of children at this point in development of our society? And don't
tell me there are American kids who need adoption Mr. GoingtoRussia to
adopt.

ScottW

S888Wheel

February 24th 04, 07:40 PM

>
> I think the overriding liberal emotion is hate.

I would say you don't understand liberals if you really believe this. Liberals
and conservatives cannot begin to understand each other as long as they insist
on misrepresenting each other. It just becomes the same old rhetoric without
progress. It may be emotionally satisfying to burn strawmen in politics but it
is in no way enlightening.

ScottW

February 24th 04, 08:08 PM

Joseph Oberlander > wrote in message et>...
> > It is a fair point however at this point in time, male gay parents
> > cannot procreate and must adopt. This creates a significant difference
> > between inter-racial parents and male gay parents. I believe there was
> > a transition period during the repeal of laws against inter-racial
> > marriages where inter-racial adoption was restricted. I am not
> > suggesting that society won't be ready for gay parents, I am
> > suggesting that our society might not be ready today.
> > We are talking about putting children at the forefront of this civil
> > rights movement, which I think calls for additional caution.
> >
> > ScottW
>
> Actually, for about $10K, or so , you can get an anonymous egg donor
> and pay for the fertilization then implant it into a surrogate mother.
> Costs incured for the 99 months by the woman also are on topof that.
>
> But it will be 50% yours and nobody else will have legal claim to
> the child anymore than if a woman went to a sperm bank.

This is the kind of crap that leads to 70+ year old parents of teenagers.
Just because you can doesn't make it right.

ScottW

dave weil

February 24th 04, 08:35 PM

On 24 Feb 2004 12:08:08 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

>Joseph Oberlander > wrote in message et>...
>> > It is a fair point however at this point in time, male gay parents
>> > cannot procreate and must adopt. This creates a significant difference
>> > between inter-racial parents and male gay parents. I believe there was
>> > a transition period during the repeal of laws against inter-racial
>> > marriages where inter-racial adoption was restricted. I am not
>> > suggesting that society won't be ready for gay parents, I am
>> > suggesting that our society might not be ready today.
>> > We are talking about putting children at the forefront of this civil
>> > rights movement, which I think calls for additional caution.
>> >
>> > ScottW
>>
>> Actually, for about $10K, or so , you can get an anonymous egg donor
>> and pay for the fertilization then implant it into a surrogate mother.
>> Costs incured for the 99 months by the woman also are on topof that.
>>
>> But it will be 50% yours and nobody else will have legal claim to
>> the child anymore than if a woman went to a sperm bank.
>
> This is the kind of crap that leads to 70+ year old parents of teenagers.
>Just because you can doesn't make it right.

Boy, you sure have a lot of strictures on having a family. I guess if
they don't do it like *you* do it, it's wrong...

S888Wheel

February 24th 04, 08:41 PM

>
>
> Irrelevant. Let's say it's 1960 and a black family has moved into
>the neighborhood

Not possible for the most part but anyway....

> and your kid is playing with thiers, no problem.
>Then you find out they've had threats of shooting, burning, and other
>horrible crimes. Do you send your kid over to his to spend the night
>in those circumstances?

I call the police and I stand right out on their front lawn and let everyone
know I think such threats are bull**** acts of bigotry. C'mon. Should Martin
Luther King Jr. not have spoken up? He was killed for it. Did all the people
who fought for civil rights do the wrong thing? It isn't allways easy to do the
right thing.

> You have to question, Is adoption to gay parents in the best interest
>of children at this point in development of our society?

That would be like questioning wheher or not those who fought and died for
civil liberties did the right thing IMO.

> And don't
>tell me there are American kids who need adoption Mr. GoingtoRussia to
>adopt.
>

There are a lot of kids in need of adoption. That is a fact.

S888Wheel

February 24th 04, 08:43 PM

>
> This is the kind of crap that leads to 70+ year old parents of teenagers.
>Just because you can doesn't make it right.
>

It's "wrong" for teenagers to have 70+ year old parents? Sounds like a facist
belief to me.

Glenn Zelniker

February 24th 04, 10:02 PM

Joe Duffy wrote:

> As a conservative, this band of neocon
> nilnos has reeked more havoc than anyone
> since Westmoreland.
> I am deeply ashamed of the actions of
> this President and this country.

Joe,

I appreciate the courage it took to write this. I didn't vote for
Clinton either time, but I was certainly closer to his political
leanings than I was to those of Bush I or Dole. I remember the
hectoring I got from Democrats when I expressed my genuine
frustration of the direction Clinton was taking the country
(i.e., I didn't care for his business-centric brand of centrism).
I had a hard time convincing people that voicing my
dissatisfaction with Clinton wasn't tantamount to advocating the
policies of Bush I or Dole. So I certainly don't view your
sentiment as supporting a liberal agenda -- it's merely a strong
denunciation of the policies of the present administration.

This dovetails nicely with my previously stated sentiments that
the neocon agenda is reckless and impossible to pursue in a
democratic republic, for one can not count on a continuation of
present policy when the political winds change direction four or
eight years down the road. This administration should be held
accountable for their criminal actions WRT to fabricating the
evidence that led us on an inexorable and predetermined march to
war. And no post-hoc reasoning will convince me that the ends
justify the means. The end is far from written and the means were
treasonous.

GZ

Joseph Oberlander

February 24th 04, 10:20 PM

> Irrelevant. Let's say it's 1960 and a black family has moved into
> the neighborhood and your kid is playing with thiers, no problem.
> Then you find out they've had threats of shooting, burning, and other
> horrible crimes. Do you send your kid over to his to spend the night
> in those circumstances?

First off, I'd be over there helping them install a security system.
I'd be the first one there as well to help fight off the Klan
members if they try anything. I have a deep loathing for such
things. It's fine if you THINK it of FEEL it, but keep your
antiquated ideas to yourself.

> You have to question, Is adoption to gay parents in the best interest
> of children at this point in development of our society? And don't
> tell me there are American kids who need adoption Mr. GoingtoRussia to
> adopt.

Compared to foster homes? Absolutely. Thousands of children are
in such programs and we need all the willing volunteers that we
can get.

Joseph Oberlander

February 24th 04, 10:22 PM

ScottW wrote:

>>But it will be 50% yours and nobody else will have legal claim to
>>the child anymore than if a woman went to a sperm bank.
>
>
> This is the kind of crap that leads to 70+ year old parents of teenagers.
> Just because you can doesn't make it right.

Huh? If a person wants a child, and is young enough to be able to
live until it is an adult and on its own, who are we to deny them
that? That their partner is gay or not is immaterial.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 24th 04, 11:48 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:LXB_b.6840$aZ3.2820@fed1read04...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> - Scott is living in the past - parents,
> > teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and their
> > adopted children these days.
>
> You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
> children inflict on one another.
> Take your false idealism and blow it up the
> sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
> A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.
>
what happened there? I remember it was the site of the
panties checking incidents last year. A female "vice" principal
checked to see that the prom girls were wearing proper panties.
And it is Rancho Bernardo.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 25th 04, 12:04 AM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Le Artiste" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :
> > >
> > > >What you have left is a kid who has to explain why he has two mommies
> > > >and no daddies.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah - and what's your problem with such an explanation, should it
> > > be required, anyway?
> > >
> >
> > Its up to the kid if he wants to explain. But it
> > sure puts little Johnnie behind the 8 ball.
>
> Not if little Johnnie has the kind of loving and principled parents who
have
> taught little Johnne in advance how to deal with it - e.g., to be a
> self-confident leader, not a passive follower of bad bahaviors. Children
> who are good leaders attract other children to them by their good
qualities,
> and whatever bullies exist on the playground (full of the hate their lousy
> parents instilled in them), they bullies wouldn't dare pick on a child who
> has a large following of devoted, principled, friends.
>
Sorry, you just don't understand the playground environment.
It is a lot like RAO.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 25th 04, 12:06 AM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > SimplePuppet said:
> >
> > > > Sockbigot said:
> > > >
> > > > > > This is a virtual dictionary definition of homophobia.
> > > >
> > > > > I think that about 80 to 90% of Americans would agree with my
> sentiment,
> > > > > not wanting to to have grow up with a pair of same sex parents.
> > > >
> > > > That reminds of something that happened in the '30s.....
> >
> > > Gimme a break!!
> > > I am sure there are millions of Americans who woke up this
> > > morning and said "Damn, I wish I grew up having two daddies
> > > instead of a mommie and a daddie!"
> >
> > Uh..... The point is not whether your claim is true, or testable, or
> > totally specious. The point is that you are endorsing catering to
> > bigots because, presumably, you can't let go of your own emotional and
> > irrational hangups.
>
> That sure is a very scary closet Sacky has locked himself in.
>
No problem!.
I've got my inflata-doll, note, she is a female.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 25th 04, 12:10 AM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> You can't have "empathy" for persecuted gays unless you *are* a persecuted
> gay. If you're a straight man, the most you can have is *sympathy* for
> persecuted gays.
>

I am beginning to worry, as I also have empathy for
underemployed women and abused dogs.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 25th 04, 12:11 AM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> > It is a fair point however at this point in time, male gay parents
> > cannot procreate and must adopt. This creates a significant difference
> > between inter-racial parents and male gay parents. I believe there was
> > a transition period during the repeal of laws against inter-racial
> > marriages where inter-racial adoption was restricted. I am not
> > suggesting that society won't be ready for gay parents, I am
> > suggesting that our society might not be ready today.
> > We are talking about putting children at the forefront of this civil
> > rights movement, which I think calls for additional caution.
> >
> > ScottW
>
> Actually, for about $10K, or so , you can get an anonymous egg donor
> and pay for the fertilization then implant it into a surrogate mother.
> Costs incured for the 99 months by the woman also are on topof that.
>
> But it will be 50% yours and nobody else will have legal claim to
> the child anymore than if a woman went to a sperm bank.
>

sounds like quite a valuable commodity.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 25th 04, 12:22 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Idiot 2 said:
>
> > > > > > I think that about 80 to 90% of Americans would agree with my
sentiment,
> > > > > > not wanting to to have grow up with a pair of same sex parents.
>
> > > Uh..... The point is not whether your claim is true, or testable, or
> > > totally specious. The point is that you are endorsing catering to
> > > bigots because, presumably, you can't let go of your own emotional and
> > > irrational hangups.
>
> > I am not in the catering business. If I were, I would cater both to
bigots
> > and to gays.
>
> Just how stupid are you?
>
Less stupid than your statement.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger

February 25th 04, 12:28 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:12:32 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>> - Scott is living in the past - parents,
>>> teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and
>>> their adopted children these days.
>>
>> You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
>> children inflict on one another.
>
> Wow, I didn't know that your kids had been so traumatized.
>
> I understand your bitterness now.

Pretty amazing how you avoided having a childhood, Weil.

S888Wheel

February 25th 04, 02:49 AM

>
>Pretty amazing how you avoided having a childhood, Weil.

Not all of us were traumatized while growing up. I am sorry if it happened to
you.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 25th 04, 03:07 AM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >> George seems to take good enough care of himself here.
> >
> > As a cruel bully child, he does fine.
>
> Oh, I thought you meant he was being bullied. Do you think he has left any
> emotional scars on anyone?

My heart is broken, oooh, the pain.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 25th 04, 03:09 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
om...
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
>...
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:LXB_b.6840$aZ3.2820@fed1read04...
> > >
> > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > - Scott is living in the past - parents,
> > > > teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and
their
> > > > adopted children these days.
> > >
> > > You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
> > > children inflict on one another.
> > > Take your false idealism and blow it up the
> > > sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
> > > A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.
> >
> > I have a lot more experience with people from all backgrounds, and with
> > children in particular, than you'd ever imagine in your wildest dreams.
And
> > from seeing what a lousy father you are, you're hardly one to be
> > pontificating about children.
>
> More bull**** from the insecure. You're the guy who can't leave the
> house for a half without checking in, some trust.
>
> >
> > Sure, there are isolated incidents of hate crimes in our schools -
> > Columbine, etc. The children apparently learn to hate from their
parents,
> > either directly or through neglect. Good parents do not produce hateful
> > children.
>
> Irrelevant. Let's say it's 1960 and a black family has moved into
> the neighborhood and your kid is playing with thiers, no problem.
> Then you find out they've had threats of shooting, burning, and other
> horrible crimes. Do you send your kid over to his to spend the night
> in those circumstances?
> You have to question, Is adoption to gay parents in the best interest
> of children at this point in development of our society? And don't
> tell me there are American kids who need adoption Mr. GoingtoRussia to
> adopt.
>
I thought his wife was pregnant.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 25th 04, 03:12 AM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > This is the kind of crap that leads to 70+ year old parents of
teenagers.
> >Just because you can doesn't make it right.
> >
>
> It's "wrong" for teenagers to have 70+ year old parents? Sounds like a
facist
> belief to me

Yes it is, shame on those kids, they should know better.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sandman

February 25th 04, 03:58 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > news:LXB_b.6840$aZ3.2820@fed1read04...
> > > >
> > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > - Scott is living in the past - parents,
> > > > > teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and
> their
> > > > > adopted children these days.
> > > >
> > > > You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
> > > > children inflict on one another.
> > > > Take your false idealism and blow it up the
> > > > sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
> > > > A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.
> > >
> > > I have a lot more experience with people from all backgrounds, and
with
> > > children in particular, than you'd ever imagine in your wildest
dreams.
> And
> > > from seeing what a lousy father you are, you're hardly one to be
> > > pontificating about children.
> >
> > More bull**** from the insecure. You're the guy who can't leave the
> > house for a half without checking in, some trust.

"Insecure"??? You're calling a guy who can afford buy and sell you
"insecure"??? You're calling a guy who is looking forward to becoming a
father soon with confidence and joy and excitement "insecure"?

"Leave the house for a half"????

"without checking in, some trust"???

WTF?

Want to try again without your Krooglish module on?

> > > Sure, there are isolated incidents of hate crimes in our schools -
> > > Columbine, etc. The children apparently learn to hate from their
> parents,
> > > either directly or through neglect. Good parents do not produce
hateful
> > > children.
> >
> > Irrelevant. Let's say it's 1960 and a black family has moved into
> > the neighborhood and your kid is playing with thiers, no problem.
> > Then you find out they've had threats of shooting, burning, and other
> > horrible crimes. Do you send your kid over to his to spend the night
> > in those circumstances?
> > You have to question, Is adoption to gay parents in the best interest
> > of children at this point in development of our society? And don't
> > tell me there are American kids who need adoption Mr. GoingtoRussia to
> > adopt.
> >
> I thought his wife was pregnant.

You finally got *something* right.

On that level, you're head and shoulders above the Terrierborg.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 25th 04, 04:39 AM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > > news:LXB_b.6840$aZ3.2820@fed1read04...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > - Scott is living in the past - parents,
> > > > > > teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents
and
> > their
> > > > > > adopted children these days.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
> > > > > children inflict on one another.
> > > > > Take your false idealism and blow it up the
> > > > > sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
> > > > > A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.
> > > >
> > > > I have a lot more experience with people from all backgrounds, and
> with
> > > > children in particular, than you'd ever imagine in your wildest
> dreams.
> > And
> > > > from seeing what a lousy father you are, you're hardly one to be
> > > > pontificating about children.
> > >
> > > More bull**** from the insecure. You're the guy who can't leave the
> > > house for a half without checking in, some trust.
>
> "Insecure"??? You're calling a guy who can afford buy and sell you
> "insecure"??? You're calling a guy who is looking forward to becoming a
> father soon with confidence and joy and excitement "insecure"?
>
> "Leave the house for a half"????
>
> "without checking in, some trust"???
>
> WTF?
>
> Want to try again without your Krooglish module on?
>

Duh, it wasn't me that said all the stuff you just responded to.

> > > > Sure, there are isolated incidents of hate crimes in our schools -
> > > > Columbine, etc. The children apparently learn to hate from their
> > parents,
> > > > either directly or through neglect. Good parents do not produce
> hateful
> > > > children.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. Let's say it's 1960 and a black family has moved into
> > > the neighborhood and your kid is playing with thiers, no problem.
> > > Then you find out they've had threats of shooting, burning, and other
> > > horrible crimes. Do you send your kid over to his to spend the night
> > > in those circumstances?
> > > You have to question, Is adoption to gay parents in the best interest
> > > of children at this point in development of our society? And don't
> > > tell me there are American kids who need adoption Mr. GoingtoRussia to
> > > adopt.
> > >
> > I thought his wife was pregnant.
>
> You finally got *something* right.
>
> On that level, you're head and shoulders above the Terrierborg.
>

My comment about your pregnant wife was
the only part of the previous posts that actually came from me.
The rest of the stuff you criticized were someone elses words.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sandman

February 25th 04, 05:26 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > > > news:LXB_b.6840$aZ3.2820@fed1read04...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Scott is living in the past - parents,
> > > > > > > teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents
> and
> > > their
> > > > > > > adopted children these days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
> > > > > > children inflict on one another.
> > > > > > Take your false idealism and blow it up the
> > > > > > sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
> > > > > > A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a lot more experience with people from all backgrounds, and
> > with
> > > > > children in particular, than you'd ever imagine in your wildest
> > dreams.
> > > And
> > > > > from seeing what a lousy father you are, you're hardly one to be
> > > > > pontificating about children.
> > > >
> > > > More bull**** from the insecure. You're the guy who can't leave
the
> > > > house for a half without checking in, some trust.
> >
> > "Insecure"??? You're calling a guy who can afford buy and sell you
> > "insecure"??? You're calling a guy who is looking forward to becoming a
> > father soon with confidence and joy and excitement "insecure"?
> >
> > "Leave the house for a half"????
> >
> > "without checking in, some trust"???
> >
> > WTF?
> >
> > Want to try again without your Krooglish module on?
> >
>
> Duh, it wasn't me that said all the stuff you just responded to.

Duh, you got that right too. I was addressing Scott. I addressed you
below.

> > > > > Sure, there are isolated incidents of hate crimes in our schools -
> > > > > Columbine, etc. The children apparently learn to hate from their
> > > parents,
> > > > > either directly or through neglect. Good parents do not produce
> > hateful
> > > > > children.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. Let's say it's 1960 and a black family has moved into
> > > > the neighborhood and your kid is playing with thiers, no problem.
> > > > Then you find out they've had threats of shooting, burning, and
other
> > > > horrible crimes. Do you send your kid over to his to spend the
night
> > > > in those circumstances?
> > > > You have to question, Is adoption to gay parents in the best
interest
> > > > of children at this point in development of our society? And don't
> > > > tell me there are American kids who need adoption Mr. GoingtoRussia
to
> > > > adopt.
> > > >
> > > I thought his wife was pregnant.
> >
> > You finally got *something* right.
> >
> > On that level, you're head and shoulders above the Terrierborg.
> >
>
> My comment about your pregnant wife was
> the only part of the previous posts that actually came from me.
> The rest of the stuff you criticized were someone elses words.

I knew that.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

ScottW

February 25th 04, 05:59 AM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > > news:LXB_b.6840$aZ3.2820@fed1read04...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > - Scott is living in the past - parents,
> > > > > > teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents
and
> > their
> > > > > > adopted children these days.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
> > > > > children inflict on one another.
> > > > > Take your false idealism and blow it up the
> > > > > sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
> > > > > A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.
> > > >
> > > > I have a lot more experience with people from all backgrounds, and
> with
> > > > children in particular, than you'd ever imagine in your wildest
> dreams.
> > And
> > > > from seeing what a lousy father you are, you're hardly one to be
> > > > pontificating about children.
> > >
> > > More bull**** from the insecure. You're the guy who can't leave the
> > > house for a half without checking in, some trust.
>
> "Insecure"??? You're calling a guy who can afford buy and sell you
> "insecure"???

Someone's inheritance must have cleared probate.
Sanders, the great white slave trader.
So how much? Come on, prove you can buy me
asshole. You sure Mama would approve of this use of your
trust?
I've heard some stupid **** but your pushing
the envelope.

Money can't buy mental health either, you're proof of that.

> You're calling a guy who is looking forward to becoming a
> father soon with confidence and joy and excitement "insecure"?

and selfish considering your age.
>
>
> > > > Sure, there are isolated incidents of hate crimes in our schools -
> > > > Columbine, etc. The children apparently learn to hate from their
> > parents,
> > > > either directly or through neglect. Good parents do not produce
> hateful
> > > > children.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. Let's say it's 1960 and a black family has moved into
> > > the neighborhood and your kid is playing with thiers, no problem.
> > > Then you find out they've had threats of shooting, burning, and other
> > > horrible crimes. Do you send your kid over to his to spend the night
> > > in those circumstances?
> > > You have to question, Is adoption to gay parents in the best interest
> > > of children at this point in development of our society? And don't
> > > tell me there are American kids who need adoption Mr. GoingtoRussia to
> > > adopt.
> > >
> > I thought his wife was pregnant.
>
> You finally got *something* right.

Apparently the Russians said he was too old so
back to the clinic he went. He can buy and sell life
you know.

ScottW

ScottW

February 25th 04, 06:01 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:LXB_b.6840$aZ3.2820@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > - Scott is living in the past - parents,
> > > teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and
their
> > > adopted children these days.
> >
> > You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
> > children inflict on one another.
> > Take your false idealism and blow it up the
> > sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
> > A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.
> >
> what happened there? I remember it was the site of the
> panties checking incidents last year. A female "vice" principal
> checked to see that the prom girls were wearing proper panties.
> And it is Rancho Bernardo.

The year before a group of football players got kicked off the team
for a hazing incident that went to far with a broom.

ScottW

dave weil

February 25th 04, 06:42 AM

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:28:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>> - Scott is living in the past - parents,
>>>> teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents and
>>>> their adopted children these days.
>>>
>>> You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
>>> children inflict on one another.
>>
>> Wow, I didn't know that your kids had been so traumatized.
>>
>> I understand your bitterness now.
>
>Pretty amazing how you avoided having a childhood, Weil.

Maybe it's amazing to you that I didn't have a horror-influenced
childhood. I'm sorry that *you* seem so used to the "horrors inflicted
on children". I have to ask why.

dave weil

February 25th 04, 06:46 AM

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:01:52 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> The year before a group of football players got kicked off the team
>for a hazing incident that went to far with a broom.

So, they had gay parents, did they?

Sandman

February 25th 04, 08:53 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:HRW_b.11657$aZ3.7275@fed1read04...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > > > news:LXB_b.6840$aZ3.2820@fed1read04...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Scott is living in the past - parents,
> > > > > > > teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay parents
> and
> > > their
> > > > > > > adopted children these days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
> > > > > > children inflict on one another.
> > > > > > Take your false idealism and blow it up the
> > > > > > sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
> > > > > > A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a lot more experience with people from all backgrounds, and
> > with
> > > > > children in particular, than you'd ever imagine in your wildest
> > dreams.
> > > And
> > > > > from seeing what a lousy father you are, you're hardly one to be
> > > > > pontificating about children.
> > > >
> > > > More bull**** from the insecure. You're the guy who can't leave
the
> > > > house for a half without checking in, some trust.
> >
> > "Insecure"??? You're calling a guy who can afford buy and sell you
> > "insecure"???
>
> Someone's inheritance must have cleared probate.

Yes, it did, but it was far less than the estate I'd built for myself prior
to its clearance.

> Sanders, the great white slave trader.

WTF?

> So how much? Come on, prove you can buy me
> asshole.

My total estate is worth many millions, but nothing I could say here would
be acceptable to you as "proof" so your question is facetious, ****wipe.

> You sure Mama would approve of this use of your
> trust?

She's dead, and it was an intheritance, not a trust, moronski.

> I've heard some stupid **** but your pushing
> the envelope.

No, you've gone off the deep end.

> Money can't buy mental health either, you're proof of that.

No, it can't, but that's a pretty lame insult coming from a complete idiot
who can't think his way out of wet paper bag.

> > You're calling a guy who is looking forward to becoming a
> > father soon with confidence and joy and excitement "insecure"?
>
> and selfish considering your age.

Curious. Over a year ago, you were congratulating me when I e-mailed you
that my wife was pregnant, and sent your condolences when she miscarried
several weeks later.

What a difference a year makes. Poor Terrierborg can't handle rejection, so
he's got a whole new self-contradictory take on my wife's new pregnancy this
year. And it's as lame as it gets.

What's selfish about a man and a woman considering doing an excellent job of
child-raising the most important contribution one can make to society? Just
because we married relatively late in life, doesn't mean we can't fulfill
our dreams, and raise wonderful, intelligent, worldly, compassionate
children with a strong sense of values and self-confidence.

> Apparently the Russians said he was too old so
> back to the clinic he went. He can buy and sell life
> you know.

No, although we considered adoption after the miscarriage last year, we
never applied to Russia for adoption. And there is no age limit for
adoptive men in Russia. The only age limit is for adoptive women - they can
adopt up through age 45.

Yes, we elected instead to go through another IVF procedure. It's necessary
as a result of a hardening of my wife's eggs' outer shell, due to aging
This can happen to women in their twenties. There's a process which
overcomes this problem called "icsi" which injects my sperm into my wife'
eggs, fertilizing them.

None of which has anything to do with "buying or selling life", you filthy
rotten sick, twisted, **** of a scumbag.

You know what, asswipe? After the vile personal crapola and lies you've
been spewing my way on RAO for the past year, you just better hope for your
own health and safety that you never run into me anywhere in person again.
I will be more than happy to push all your buttons, provoke you into taking
the first swing, then send you to the hospital for a very, very lengthy
recovery. That's not a "threat", it's a deadly serious warning.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 25th 04, 12:53 PM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
>

>
> You know what, asswipe? After the vile personal crapola and lies you've
> been spewing my way on RAO for the past year, you just better hope for
your
> own health and safety that you never run into me anywhere in person again.
> I will be more than happy to push all your buttons, provoke you into
taking
> the first swing, then send you to the hospital for a very, very lengthy
> recovery. That's not a "threat", it's a deadly serious warning.
>

You seem to be quite a bit more wound up than Scott.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

dave weil

February 25th 04, 02:35 PM

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:24:47 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> > The year before a group of football players got kicked off the team
>> >for a hazing incident that went to far with a broom.
>>
>> So, they had gay parents, did they?
>
>Maybe he meant the victims brought it on themselves because they were
>the ones with gay parents.

That's the way I meant it, although it's obviously not clear from my
retort.

Although I sort of rather like the image of gay parents' chilren on
steroids running amok, creating "horror" as some sort of revenge. (not
that I like the idea of it but the absurdity of it).

Arny Krueger

February 25th 04, 02:42 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Socky said:
>
>> You seem to be quite a bit more wound up than Scott.
>
> There is a great cloud of corruption, evil, and danger hanging over
> this country, and it's cause for alarm.

Yes, indeed.

>Only the idiot "conservatives" don't see it.

In contrast to the idiot liberals who are apopalectic about it.

Then there are the non-idiot conservatives who see it. Then there are the
non-idiot liberals who see it but aren't scared to the point of
irrationality by it. It's everybody's problem, and its a problem that both
liberals and conservatives have variously fought and added to.

> That's why we're concerned and you're happy as a pig in ****.

That's why you're both of you, Middius and Yustabe, are full of crap.

dave weil

February 25th 04, 03:27 PM

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:42:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

>> Socky said:
>>
>>> You seem to be quite a bit more wound up than Scott.
>>
>> There is a great cloud of corruption, evil, and danger hanging over
>> this country, and it's cause for alarm.
>
>Yes, indeed.
>
>>Only the idiot "conservatives" don't see it.
>
>In contrast to the idiot liberals who are apopalectic about it.

You really shouldn't be trying to use three dollar words with that
fifty-cent mind, Arnold.

Sandman

February 25th 04, 10:25 PM

None of the posts in response to the below deserve a response. The point
is, Scottieborg Wittemongrel is one of those angry, frustrated, cowardly
a-holes who exposes his vile, despicable nature and gross stupidity,
dishonesty and bigotry daily behind the safety of his computer keyboard, yet
the idea of saying the things he's been saying about me to my face scares
him ****less.

What a miserable childhood he must have had. His father must have been a
retro-San Diego redneck of the worst sort to produce such a grotesque heap
of warped and worthless protoplasm.

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:HRW_b.11657$aZ3.7275@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > >...
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > > > > news:LXB_b.6840$aZ3.2820@fed1read04...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Scott is living in the past - parents,
> > > > > > > > teachers, and children alike are very accepting of gay
parents
> > and
> > > > their
> > > > > > > > adopted children these days.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have no children and have no idea of the horrors
> > > > > > > children inflict on one another.
> > > > > > > Take your false idealism and blow it up the
> > > > > > > sodomized asses of the kids at Ranch Bernardo High School.
> > > > > > > A very upscale priviledged kids school I might add.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a lot more experience with people from all backgrounds,
and
> > > with
> > > > > > children in particular, than you'd ever imagine in your wildest
> > > dreams.
> > > > And
> > > > > > from seeing what a lousy father you are, you're hardly one to be
> > > > > > pontificating about children.
> > > > >
> > > > > More bull**** from the insecure. You're the guy who can't leave
> the
> > > > > house for a half without checking in, some trust.
> > >
> > > "Insecure"??? You're calling a guy who can afford buy and sell you
> > > "insecure"???
> >
> > Someone's inheritance must have cleared probate.
>
> Yes, it did, but it was far less than the estate I'd built for myself
prior
> to its clearance.
>
> > Sanders, the great white slave trader.
>
> WTF?
>
> > So how much? Come on, prove you can buy me
> > asshole.
>
> My total estate is worth many millions, but nothing I could say here would
> be acceptable to you as "proof" so your question is facetious, ****wipe.
>
> > You sure Mama would approve of this use of your
> > trust?
>
> She's dead, and it was an intheritance, not a trust, moronski.
>
> > I've heard some stupid **** but your pushing
> > the envelope.
>
> No, you've gone off the deep end.
>
> > Money can't buy mental health either, you're proof of that.
>
> No, it can't, but that's a pretty lame insult coming from a complete idiot
> who can't think his way out of wet paper bag.
>
> > > You're calling a guy who is looking forward to becoming a
> > > father soon with confidence and joy and excitement "insecure"?
> >
> > and selfish considering your age.
>
> Curious. Over a year ago, you were congratulating me when I e-mailed you
> that my wife was pregnant, and sent your condolences when she miscarried
> several weeks later.
>
> What a difference a year makes. Poor Terrierborg can't handle rejection,
so
> he's got a whole new self-contradictory take on my wife's new pregnancy
this
> year. And it's as lame as it gets.
>
> What's selfish about a man and a woman considering doing an excellent job
of
> child-raising the most important contribution one can make to society?
Just
> because we married relatively late in life, doesn't mean we can't fulfill
> our dreams, and raise wonderful, intelligent, worldly, compassionate
> children with a strong sense of values and self-confidence.
>
> > Apparently the Russians said he was too old so
> > back to the clinic he went. He can buy and sell life
> > you know.
>
> No, although we considered adoption after the miscarriage last year, we
> never applied to Russia for adoption. And there is no age limit for
> adoptive men in Russia. The only age limit is for adoptive women - they
can
> adopt up through age 45.
>
> Yes, we elected instead to go through another IVF procedure. It's
necessary
> as a result of a hardening of my wife's eggs' outer shell, due to aging
> This can happen to women in their twenties. There's a process which
> overcomes this problem called "icsi" which injects my sperm into my wife'
> eggs, fertilizing them.
>
> None of which has anything to do with "buying or selling life", you filthy
> rotten sick, twisted, **** of a scumbag.
>
> You know what, asswipe? After the vile personal crapola and lies you've
> been spewing my way on RAO for the past year, you just better hope for
your
> own health and safety that you never run into me anywhere in person again.
> I will be more than happy to push all your buttons, provoke you into
taking
> the first swing, then send you to the hospital for a very, very lengthy
> recovery. That's not a "threat", it's a deadly serious warning.
>
>

Joseph Oberlander

February 26th 04, 12:10 AM

Michael McKelvy wrote:

>>>Worked before, why not try it again? Of course, Bush arranged for a CIA
>>>and a couple of Pentagon peolpe to take the fall and let Cheney handle
>>>the particulars.
>
> Are you making this up by yourself or does the DNC have a handbook?

First off, I'm not a liberal - but I'm not a rabid bible-thumping
ultra-conservative who thinks Armageddon is upon us, either.

If that is what is required to be a "Republican" these days, then
the whole party needs to disband itself.

As for the Bush/CIA connection - I wish it wasn't true. His
father was director of the CIA and did the exact same thing for
Regan - they arranged it so that the Vice President and cabinet
took care of the dirty business so that The President would remain
untouchable. A sort of "do what you need to do - don't tell
me a single word of it, though" sort of arrangement.

Standard for most leaders these days, actually. Clinton also
did a lot of this sort of thing, as did Bush, Regan, and many
others. Carter didn't, but he was a political neophyte.

Of course, Kerry is no different - it's all about deniability
and playing the game. All politicians do this.

>>>Sr. so as to not be touchable - but we're no longer quite that gullable.
>>>Eventually, Cheney and his cabinet will be brought down.
>>
> At the end of the second term?

If it takes that long, yes. At the rate Bush is ****ing off people
over the immigration and gay marriage issues, anyone who isn't
a complete waste of brain cells will beat him.

>>>This is the point they all forget. If you use the U.N. resolution
>>>excuse, you also have to admit that we told the U.N. to go screw off
>>>and took matters into our own hand.
>
> The UN didn't DO anything, if they had maybe things would be different.
> They never really do anything.

Moot as well. Either we follow the rules or we are criminals ourselves.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 26th 04, 12:49 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Socky said:
>
> > You seem to be quite a bit more wound up than Scott.
>
> There is a great cloud of corruption, evil, and danger hanging over
> this country, and it's cause for alarm. Only the idiot "conservatives"
> don't see it. That's why we're concerned and you're happy as a pig in
> ****.
>

My take on Sanders rant was that it was just a bunch of personal animosity,
not having much to do with issues.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

ScottW

February 26th 04, 04:22 AM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> None of the posts in response to the below deserve a response. The point
> is, Scottieborg Wittemongrel is one of those angry, frustrated, cowardly
> a-holes who exposes his vile, despicable nature and gross stupidity,
> dishonesty and bigotry daily behind the safety of his computer keyboard,
yet
> the idea of saying the things he's been saying about me to my face scares
> him ****less.

Are you so lacking in self control that I should be afraid you might hurt
yourself
attempting a physical confrontation?

Seriously, are you really incapable of refraining from violence merely
when
confronted with a different point of view? Do you really think you are
sufficiently emotionally stable to take on the daunting task of parenting?
Your patience and tolerance will be tested and you demonstrate very little.
I think you should seek counseling.

ScottW

Sockpuppet Yustabe

February 26th 04, 06:07 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:jwe%b.16364$aZ3.15805@fed1read04...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > None of the posts in response to the below deserve a response. The
point
> > is, Scottieborg Wittemongrel is one of those angry, frustrated, cowardly
> > a-holes who exposes his vile, despicable nature and gross stupidity,
> > dishonesty and bigotry daily behind the safety of his computer keyboard,
> yet
> > the idea of saying the things he's been saying about me to my face
scares
> > him ****less.
>
> Are you so lacking in self control that I should be afraid you might
hurt
> yourself
> attempting a physical confrontation?
>
> Seriously, are you really incapable of refraining from violence merely
> when
> confronted with a different point of view? Do you really think you are
> sufficiently emotionally stable to take on the daunting task of parenting?
> Your patience and tolerance will be tested and you demonstrate very
little.
> I think you should seek counseling.
>
> ScottW
>

Could you imagine what he might do if his kid turns out to be a
conservative?
Hell, he will go nuts of the kid only becomes a DLC'er.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sandman

February 27th 04, 08:54 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:jwe%b.16364$aZ3.15805@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > None of the posts in response to the below deserve a response. The
> point
> > > is, Scottieborg Wittemongrel is one of those angry, frustrated,
cowardly
> > > a-holes who exposes his vile, despicable nature and gross stupidity,
> > > dishonesty and bigotry daily behind the safety of his computer
keyboard,
> > yet
> > > the idea of saying the things he's been saying about me to my face
> scares
> > > him ****less.
> >
> > Are you so lacking in self control that I should be afraid you might
> hurt
> > yourself
> > attempting a physical confrontation?
> >
> > Seriously, are you really incapable of refraining from violence merely
> > when
> > confronted with a different point of view? Do you really think you are
> > sufficiently emotionally stable to take on the daunting task of
parenting?
> > Your patience and tolerance will be tested and you demonstrate very
> little.
> > I think you should seek counseling.
> >
> > ScottW
> >
>
> Could you imagine what he might do if his kid turns out to be a
> conservative?
> Hell, he will go nuts of the kid only becomes a DLC'er.

You both have turned out to be the most sick, twisted ****s this ng has ever
witnessed.

Sorry, Arnii, it's time to pass the torch. Your reign as supreme asshole of
RAO has passed to these two cowardly, hateful, self-loathing, slugs.

As for the pathetic Terrierborg: "I'm your huckleberry!"

ScottW

February 27th 04, 08:46 PM

"Sandman" > wrote in message >...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:jwe%b.16364$aZ3.15805@fed1read04...
> > >
> > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > None of the posts in response to the below deserve a response. The
> point
> > > > is, Scottieborg Wittemongrel is one of those angry, frustrated,
> cowardly
> > > > a-holes who exposes his vile, despicable nature and gross stupidity,
> > > > dishonesty and bigotry daily behind the safety of his computer
> keyboard,
> yet
> > > > the idea of saying the things he's been saying about me to my face
> scares
> > > > him ****less.
> > >
> > > Are you so lacking in self control that I should be afraid you might
> hurt
> > > yourself
> > > attempting a physical confrontation?
> > >
> > > Seriously, are you really incapable of refraining from violence merely
> > > when
> > > confronted with a different point of view? Do you really think you are
> > > sufficiently emotionally stable to take on the daunting task of
> parenting?
> > > Your patience and tolerance will be tested and you demonstrate very
> little.
> > > I think you should seek counseling.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> > >
> >
> > Could you imagine what he might do if his kid turns out to be a
> > conservative?
> > Hell, he will go nuts of the kid only becomes a DLC'er.
>
> You both have turned out to be the most sick, twisted ****s this ng has ever
> witnessed.

Try reading your own posts Sanders. I don't see anyone else trying
to play this physical intimidation bit you're trying. Especially
someone of your advanced age and diminutive stature.

>
> Sorry, Arnii, it's time to pass the torch. Your reign as supreme asshole of
> RAO has passed to these two cowardly, hateful, self-loathing, slugs.
>
> As for the pathetic Terrierborg: "I'm your huckleberry!"

Are you coughing up blood already?

Let's get this straight. I'm not Turk Wendell and you're not Barry
Bonds.
Do you really think this infantile tough guy posturing you put on
demonstrates a mature and emotionally stable person ready for
parenting?
Your 58 years old, 5'4" and shrinking and still challenging me to a
fight.
Grow up.

ScottW