|
One must wonder...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:06:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:16:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:40:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:01jgt395o6h3ubpvlb265afu79gimh66su@4ax. com... On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:10:46 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:25hgt350rqm3rp3qf5ddo56f8fpvhfq6pl@4a x.com... On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:31:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:6k7gt31p608ht8ao4ae9ps8llnr5gi638s@ 4ax.com... On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:19:33 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:EI2dnWbACPl_WEranZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@ comcast.com... HK wrote: Valgard Toebreakerson wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:40:23 -0500, John H. wrote: why most of the major media refuse to mention that Spitzer is a Democrat, although the party affiliation is mentioned ad nauseum when a Republican is involved in a sex scandal. It couldn't be media bias, could it? http://tinyurl.com/2c3kms The undereducated must never know the truth, else the Democrats may lose their base. Got a better one for you. Go to Detroit news - paper, TV - whatever, and find what political affiliation the mayor of Detroit is. Oh - the reason? He's involved with the murder a hooker. And covering/obstructing the investigation. Republicans involved in these scandals are identified by political party because the GOP likes to identify itself as the party of "family values," and since it obviously is not, it is interesting to point out the various sexual adventures of "family value" conservatives/Republicans. My favorite exposes involve conservative/Republicans and gays. One can only conclude, by your statments above, that the Democrat party has no values, none, nada, zip. Is that correct. Throw the bar on the floor, then everything we do will be above the bar aren't a great party, that's the Democrats. Democrats are less likely to suggest that people live like families which only exist in books written for toddlers. From what I've seen, you could put your period after the word 'families' in your sentence above. -- John That's because you're lying. Or, because you don't see much. Don't fret about it. It's a plague. You, Harry, and JimH sure seem to want to put a lying moniker on me. I don't do it, and I don't much like those who do. When I look at the out of wedlock birth statistics in DC and then look at the percent of Democrats in DC, I get the idea that families don't mean much. IOW, Democrats are less likely to suggest people live like families. -- John I get the idea you either flunked statistics, or never bothered to take a course. Fortunately, your lack of knowledge in that area affects nobody but yourself. IOW, nothing. -- John In other studies, income level is correlated to out of wedlock births. Your "study" seems to point to something nobody else has ever noticed: political labels. Maybe you should get in touch with some of the bigger polling companies and inform them of your discovery. Do you know the difference between cause and correlation? I'm not referring to 'studies'. I'm referring to facts. -- John The "facts" are the real people and the things they do, or things which happen to them. The people and the childbirths are real. The meaning you assign to them is not real. It's an interpretation. If you can find a reputable statistician who connects out of wedlock pregnancies with political affiliation in a meaningful way, then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're just being disruptive. Do you think all those out of wedlock mothers. or their mothers, in DC are voting Republican? -- John It doesn't matter to me. You're making the connection. Real people who study these things say income is the issue, not political affiliation. I don't see the information you were told to find. Turn off the TV and find it. Oh, I see. Well, if the truth doesn't matter to you, go to bed. Good night. -- John Are you saying out of wedlock pregnancy is caused by political affiliation? |
One must wonder...
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:16:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:40:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:10:46 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:31:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:6k7gt31p608ht8ao4ae9ps8llnr5gi638s@4ax .com... On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:19:33 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:EI2dnWbACPl_WEranZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@com cast.com... HK wrote: Valgard Toebreakerson wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:40:23 -0500, John H. wrote: why most of the major media refuse to mention that Spitzer is a Democrat, although the party affiliation is mentioned ad nauseum when a Republican is involved in a sex scandal. It couldn't be media bias, could it? http://tinyurl.com/2c3kms The undereducated must never know the truth, else the Democrats may lose their base. Got a better one for you. Go to Detroit news - paper, TV - whatever, and find what political affiliation the mayor of Detroit is. Oh - the reason? He's involved with the murder a hooker. And covering/obstructing the investigation. Republicans involved in these scandals are identified by political party because the GOP likes to identify itself as the party of "family values," and since it obviously is not, it is interesting to point out the various sexual adventures of "family value" conservatives/Republicans. My favorite exposes involve conservative/Republicans and gays. One can only conclude, by your statments above, that the Democrat party has no values, none, nada, zip. Is that correct. Throw the bar on the floor, then everything we do will be above the bar aren't a great party, that's the Democrats. Democrats are less likely to suggest that people live like families which only exist in books written for toddlers. From what I've seen, you could put your period after the word 'families' in your sentence above. -- John That's because you're lying. Or, because you don't see much. Don't fret about it. It's a plague. You, Harry, and JimH sure seem to want to put a lying moniker on me. I don't do it, and I don't much like those who do. When I look at the out of wedlock birth statistics in DC and then look at the percent of Democrats in DC, I get the idea that families don't mean much. IOW, Democrats are less likely to suggest people live like families. -- John I get the idea you either flunked statistics, or never bothered to take a course. Fortunately, your lack of knowledge in that area affects nobody but yourself. IOW, nothing. -- John In other studies, income level is correlated to out of wedlock births. Your "study" seems to point to something nobody else has ever noticed: political labels. Maybe you should get in touch with some of the bigger polling companies and inform them of your discovery. Do you know the difference between cause and correlation? I'm not referring to 'studies'. I'm referring to facts. -- John The "facts" are the real people and the things they do, or things which happen to them. The people and the childbirths are real. The meaning you assign to them is not real. It's an interpretation. If you can find a reputable statistician who connects out of wedlock pregnancies with political affiliation in a meaningful way, then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're just being disruptive. Do you think all those out of wedlock mothers. or their mothers, in DC are voting Republican? -- John |
One must wonder...
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:06:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:16:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:40:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:10:46 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:25hgt350rqm3rp3qf5ddo56f8fpvhfq6pl@4ax .com... On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:31:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:6k7gt31p608ht8ao4ae9ps8llnr5gi638s@4 ax.com... On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:19:33 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:EI2dnWbACPl_WEranZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@c omcast.com... HK wrote: Valgard Toebreakerson wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:40:23 -0500, John H. wrote: why most of the major media refuse to mention that Spitzer is a Democrat, although the party affiliation is mentioned ad nauseum when a Republican is involved in a sex scandal. It couldn't be media bias, could it? http://tinyurl.com/2c3kms The undereducated must never know the truth, else the Democrats may lose their base. Got a better one for you. Go to Detroit news - paper, TV - whatever, and find what political affiliation the mayor of Detroit is. Oh - the reason? He's involved with the murder a hooker. And covering/obstructing the investigation. Republicans involved in these scandals are identified by political party because the GOP likes to identify itself as the party of "family values," and since it obviously is not, it is interesting to point out the various sexual adventures of "family value" conservatives/Republicans. My favorite exposes involve conservative/Republicans and gays. One can only conclude, by your statments above, that the Democrat party has no values, none, nada, zip. Is that correct. Throw the bar on the floor, then everything we do will be above the bar aren't a great party, that's the Democrats. Democrats are less likely to suggest that people live like families which only exist in books written for toddlers. From what I've seen, you could put your period after the word 'families' in your sentence above. -- John That's because you're lying. Or, because you don't see much. Don't fret about it. It's a plague. You, Harry, and JimH sure seem to want to put a lying moniker on me. I don't do it, and I don't much like those who do. When I look at the out of wedlock birth statistics in DC and then look at the percent of Democrats in DC, I get the idea that families don't mean much. IOW, Democrats are less likely to suggest people live like families. -- John I get the idea you either flunked statistics, or never bothered to take a course. Fortunately, your lack of knowledge in that area affects nobody but yourself. IOW, nothing. -- John In other studies, income level is correlated to out of wedlock births. Your "study" seems to point to something nobody else has ever noticed: political labels. Maybe you should get in touch with some of the bigger polling companies and inform them of your discovery. Do you know the difference between cause and correlation? I'm not referring to 'studies'. I'm referring to facts. -- John The "facts" are the real people and the things they do, or things which happen to them. The people and the childbirths are real. The meaning you assign to them is not real. It's an interpretation. If you can find a reputable statistician who connects out of wedlock pregnancies with political affiliation in a meaningful way, then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're just being disruptive. Do you think all those out of wedlock mothers. or their mothers, in DC are voting Republican? -- John It doesn't matter to me. You're making the connection. Real people who study these things say income is the issue, not political affiliation. I don't see the information you were told to find. Turn off the TV and find it. Oh, I see. Well, if the truth doesn't matter to you, go to bed. Good night. -- John |
One must wonder...
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:14:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: A bunch snipped. It doesn't matter to me. You're making the connection. Real people who study these things say income is the issue, not political affiliation. I don't see the information you were told to find. Turn off the TV and find it. Oh, I see. Well, if the truth doesn't matter to you, go to bed. Good night. -- John Are you saying out of wedlock pregnancy is caused by political affiliation? Doug, I told you to go to bed. Out-of-wedlock pregnancies are caused by sex between a male and a female. The female is not married. The male may or may not be married. I should have explained that to you. -- John |
One must wonder...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:14:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: A bunch snipped. It doesn't matter to me. You're making the connection. Real people who study these things say income is the issue, not political affiliation. I don't see the information you were told to find. Turn off the TV and find it. Oh, I see. Well, if the truth doesn't matter to you, go to bed. Good night. -- John Are you saying out of wedlock pregnancy is caused by political affiliation? Doug, I told you to go to bed. Out-of-wedlock pregnancies are caused by sex between a male and a female. The female is not married. The male may or may not be married. I should have explained that to you. -- John In that case, your use of the political affiliation connection was nonsense. |
One must wonder...
|
One must wonder...
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: HK wrote: wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... I don't believe that sexual relationships between consenting adults is the business of anyone other than the adults involved in the relationship. Try that line on your wife and see how it flies. We agree. We're loyal to each other because we are, but we don't believe that matters of sexuality between consenting adults should be the business of the law, or even the general public. I don't give a damn who Governor Spitzer sleeps with, not even if he sleeps with hookers, so long as he is using his own money to pay for his fun. If he was using public funds, he should be prosecuted for that, but not for the sex. I think prostitution and drugs should be decriminalized, but i would never recommend we just ignore those crimes we don't agree with. I guess that is one of the things you and will just disagree. If prostitution is decriminalized, well, then, it isn't a crime, is it? Stupid laws should be fought. If we followed your example, we'd still have segregation. We have an established way to change those laws you call stupid. It is called the legislative process. You are free to encourage your Democrat brothers and sisters to offer a bill decriminalizing prostitution. Or, you can go and have a state or municipality enact a law decriminalizing prostitution. I am suprised the party of low morales and no ethics, the Democrat party, hasn't gotten this accomplished yet. |
One must wonder...
BAR wrote:
HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: HK wrote: wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... I don't believe that sexual relationships between consenting adults is the business of anyone other than the adults involved in the relationship. Try that line on your wife and see how it flies. We agree. We're loyal to each other because we are, but we don't believe that matters of sexuality between consenting adults should be the business of the law, or even the general public. I don't give a damn who Governor Spitzer sleeps with, not even if he sleeps with hookers, so long as he is using his own money to pay for his fun. If he was using public funds, he should be prosecuted for that, but not for the sex. I think prostitution and drugs should be decriminalized, but i would never recommend we just ignore those crimes we don't agree with. I guess that is one of the things you and will just disagree. If prostitution is decriminalized, well, then, it isn't a crime, is it? Stupid laws should be fought. If we followed your example, we'd still have segregation. We have an established way to change those laws you call stupid. It is called the legislative process. You are free to encourage your Democrat brothers and sisters to offer a bill decriminalizing prostitution. Or, you can go and have a state or municipality enact a law decriminalizing prostitution. I am suprised the party of low morales and no ethics, the Democrat party, hasn't gotten this accomplished yet. There is *nothing* a prostitute does that compares in depravity to what Bush and Cheney have perpetrated on this country and the world. |
One must wonder...
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: HK wrote: wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... I don't believe that sexual relationships between consenting adults is the business of anyone other than the adults involved in the relationship. Try that line on your wife and see how it flies. We agree. We're loyal to each other because we are, but we don't believe that matters of sexuality between consenting adults should be the business of the law, or even the general public. I don't give a damn who Governor Spitzer sleeps with, not even if he sleeps with hookers, so long as he is using his own money to pay for his fun. If he was using public funds, he should be prosecuted for that, but not for the sex. I think prostitution and drugs should be decriminalized, but i would never recommend we just ignore those crimes we don't agree with. I guess that is one of the things you and will just disagree. If prostitution is decriminalized, well, then, it isn't a crime, is it? Stupid laws should be fought. If we followed your example, we'd still have segregation. We have an established way to change those laws you call stupid. It is called the legislative process. You are free to encourage your Democrat brothers and sisters to offer a bill decriminalizing prostitution. Or, you can go and have a state or municipality enact a law decriminalizing prostitution. I am suprised the party of low morales and no ethics, the Democrat party, hasn't gotten this accomplished yet. It's already legal in two states, although heavily regulated. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com