| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Harold Saxon" |
| Date: |
22 Sep 2007 04:25:22 AM |
| Object: |
Information Versus Opinion |
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point of view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who will insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or opinion
has more validity than that information gathered as it is from people
who really have no reason to lie.
For example, the statistical reports from the Guttmacher Institute and
other organisations, clearly show that the majority of women who have
abortions each year in the USA are under 25 years of age, white,
unmarried, middleclass and christian.
A few rejected this information because of the fact that the majority
of women identified themselves as Christian (of one denomination or
another), but no one rejected it on the basis of any other part of the
profile presented.
It seems that those that rejected the profile on this basis are of the
view that either all abortions are carried out on atheists, or that
because the non-Christians outnumber the Christians by "hundreds or
thousands of them to every one of us" then they must be responsible
for the majority of the abortions.
However those who rejected the profile did not present any information
that really gave strong support to their position, I think it only
fair that those people now be given an opportunity to present
information that supports their rejection of that profile drawn from
the statistical reports presented.
Just to remind everyone of the statistics in question, here they are
again, along with some links to the sources they were taken from.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People
Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est)
Religions: Protestants 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%,
Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est).
http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf
53% are under 25 years of age, 67% never married, 41% white, 43%
Protestant.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
38% are women from families with an income between $30,000 and
$59,999.
I hope that those objectors to this information will take this as an
invitation to present their case along with evidence that supports
their position, and not as an attack on their beliefs and opinions.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
22 Sep 2007 12:37:21 PM |
|
|
Harold Saxon <saxon.harold@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point of view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who will insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or opinion
has more validity than that information gathered as it is from people
who really have no reason to lie.
Because the real agenda is power and control over women.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Saxon" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
22 Sep 2007 12:49:36 PM |
|
|
On 22 Sep, 18:37, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point of view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who will insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or opinion
has more validity than that information gathered as it is from people
who really have no reason to lie.
Because the real agenda is power and control over women.
--
Ray Fischer
Two questions then, why did you snip the rest of my OP and do you have
proof to back up your statement?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
22 Sep 2007 01:32:52 PM |
|
|
Harold Saxon <saxon.harold@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 18:37, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point of view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who will insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or opinion
has more validity than that information gathered as it is from people
who really have no reason to lie.
Because the real agenda is power and control over women.
Two questions then, why did you snip the rest of my OP
It wasn't relevant.
and do you have
proof to back up your statement?
Yes. Notice that abortion opponents spend almost all of their efforts
trying to force women to do as they say and almost no effort helping
anybody.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Saxon" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
22 Sep 2007 03:05:28 PM |
|
|
On 22 Sep, 19:32, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 18:37, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point of view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who will insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or opinion
has more validity than that information gathered as it is from people
who really have no reason to lie.
Because the real agenda is power and control over women.
Two questions then, why did you snip the rest of my OP
It wasn't relevant.
So the statistics are irrelevant, other people in threads where that
information was originally posted said that too, but they were anti-
abortion "christians" who had trouble accepting the facts presented to
them.
So why do you consider the rest of my OP to be irrelevant, after all
merely saying so doesn't make it so.
and do you have
proof to back up your statement?
Yes. Notice that abortion opponents spend almost all of their efforts
trying to force women to do as they say and almost no effort helping
anybody.
Do you have links to a source that support this statement too?
A statement in and of itself and unsupported, is merely opinion and
not proof.
--
Ray Fischer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
22 Sep 2007 06:48:35 PM |
|
|
Harold Saxon <saxon.harold@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 19:32, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 18:37, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point of view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who will insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or opinion
has more validity than that information gathered as it is from people
who really have no reason to lie.
Because the real agenda is power and control over women.
Two questions then, why did you snip the rest of my OP
It wasn't relevant.
So the statistics are irrelevant, other people in threads where that
information was originally posted said that too, but they were anti-
abortion "christians" who had trouble accepting the facts presented to
them.
So why do you consider the rest of my OP to be irrelevant, after all
merely saying so doesn't make it so.
They were irrelevant to my response.
If you liek to see your words up on the screen that badly then you'll
need to find some other forum.
and do you have
proof to back up your statement?
Yes. Notice that abortion opponents spend almost all of their efforts
trying to force women to do as they say and almost no effort helping
anybody.
Do you have links to a source that support this statement too?
I have no patience for people who play stupid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
22 Sep 2007 06:46:28 PM |
|
|
In article <1190491528.996998.149590@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Harold Saxon <saxon.harold@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 19:32, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 18:37, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point of view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who will insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or opinion
has more validity than that information gathered as it is from people
who really have no reason to lie.
Because the real agenda is power and control over women.
Two questions then, why did you snip the rest of my OP
It wasn't relevant.
So the statistics are irrelevant, other people in threads where that
information was originally posted said that too, but they were anti-
abortion "christians" who had trouble accepting the facts presented to
them.
Your statistics, even if true, fail to demonstrate a connection.
Almost everyone in prison is religious. Does that suggest the
religious are more likely criminal?
So why do you consider the rest of my OP to be irrelevant, after all
merely saying so doesn't make it so.
and do you have
proof to back up your statement?
Yes. Notice that abortion opponents spend almost all of their efforts
trying to force women to do as they say and almost no effort helping
anybody.
Do you have links to a source that support this statement too?
How about that, at least in America, the Christian Right is
anti-abortion but refuses to help children?
A statement in and of itself and unsupported, is merely opinion and
not proof.
Here is Bush, who claims to be a Christian, and who is responsible for
more death than Bin Laden could ever hope for, stating he will veto a
Democratic bill to increase health care for children.
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/radio.addressses.ap/index.html>
Start with that source.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Saxon" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
23 Sep 2007 12:48:15 AM |
|
|
On 23 Sep, 00:46, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1190491528.996998.149...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 19:32, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 18:37, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point of view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who will insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or opinion
has more validity than that information gathered as it is from people
who really have no reason to lie.
Because the real agenda is power and control over women.
Two questions then, why did you snip the rest of my OP
It wasn't relevant.
So the statistics are irrelevant, other people in threads where that
information was originally posted said that too, but they were anti-
abortion "christians" who had trouble accepting the facts presented to
them.
Your statistics, even if true, fail to demonstrate a connection.
Almost everyone in prison is religious. Does that suggest the
religious are more likely criminal?
I wasn't trying to prove that being religious makes one more inclined
to have an abortion, I was actually trying to give those anti-
abortionists who claim that the statistics are wrong, and who had
given opinions as to why to present information that would support
their position.
And the statistics I presented are not "mine", they are available in
the public domain, and were produced by the various organisations upon
whose websites I found those statistics, so if you wish to determine
the truth of those statistics shouldn't you be contacting those
organisations to confirm the accuracy of their information gathering
and analysis methods?
So why do you consider the rest of my OP to be irrelevant, after all
merely saying so doesn't make it so.
and do you have
proof to back up your statement?
Yes. Notice that abortion opponents spend almost all of their efforts
trying to force women to do as they say and almost no effort helping
anybody.
Do you have links to a source that support this statement too?
How about that, at least in America, the Christian Right is
anti-abortion but refuses to help children?
Still only a statement, not a proof.
A statement in and of itself and unsupported, is merely opinion and
not proof.
Here is Bush, who claims to be a Christian, and who is responsible for
more death than Bin Laden could ever hope for, stating he will veto a
Democratic bill to increase health care for children.
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/radio.addressses.ap/index.html>
Start with that source.
Thank you, at last someone has provided a source to back up their
statement.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
23 Sep 2007 01:24:24 AM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 1:48 am, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 23 Sep, 00:46, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1190491528.996998.149...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 19:32, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 18:37, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point of view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who will insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or opinion
has more validity than that information gathered as it is from people
who really have no reason to lie.
Because the real agenda is power and control over women.
Two questions then, why did you snip the rest of my OP
It wasn't relevant.
So the statistics are irrelevant, other people in threads where that
information was originally posted said that too, but they were anti-
abortion "christians" who had trouble accepting the facts presented to
them.
Your statistics, even if true, fail to demonstrate a connection.
Almost everyone in prison is religious. Does that suggest the
religious are more likely criminal?
I wasn't trying to prove that being religious makes one more inclined
to have an abortion, I was actually trying to give those anti-
abortionists who claim that the statistics are wrong, and who had
given opinions as to why to present information that would support
their position.
And the statistics I presented are not "mine", they are available in
the public domain, and were produced by the various organisations upon
whose websites I found those statistics, so if you wish to determine
the truth of those statistics shouldn't you be contacting those
organisations to confirm the accuracy of their information gathering
and analysis methods?
So why do you consider the rest of my OP to be irrelevant, after all
merely saying so doesn't make it so.
and do you have
proof to back up your statement?
Yes. Notice that abortion opponents spend almost all of their efforts
trying to force women to do as they say and almost no effort helping
anybody.
Do you have links to a source that support this statement too?
How about that, at least in America, the Christian Right is
anti-abortion but refuses to help children?
Still only a statement, not a proof.
A statement in and of itself and unsupported, is merely opinion and
not proof.
Here is Bush, who claims to be a Christian, and who is responsible for
more death than Bin Laden could ever hope for, stating he will veto a
Democratic bill to increase health care for children.
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/radio.addressses.ap/index.html>
Start with that source.
Thank you, at last someone has provided a source to back up their
statement.
Actually, he is being dishonest in his statement.
a) He is being dishonest in his statement saying Bush is responsible
for more death than Bin Laden. That's merely opinion.
b) I read the article, and while it's good..his statement is being
made in an effort to lead you into thinking Bush simply just wants to
veto a bill that is for kids.
The reasons for him wanting to veto it, and leaving all personal
opinions about the man out of this, are for...
1 - saying the measure is too costly
2 - unacceptably raises taxes
3 - extends government-covered insurance to children in families who
can afford private coverage
4 - and seems like a move toward completely federalized health care.
I believe that the biggest concern here is the "federalized health
care", which is something I believe most of us want to avoid.
Also, take into consideration this comment mentioned in the
article....
"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be
vetoed,"
Was that their intention? Was the intention actually for the best
interest of children or were their intentions for political purposes
and dragging out a war between republicans and democrats?
So while his statement has "some" source, it's not exactly honest and
it's misleading.
The article is interesting, and probably good for some intellectual
discussion.
However, it's important to keep the bipartisan out of it and stick to
the issues.
Health Bill offered
Bush vetos
Reasons are...
1 - saying the measure is too costly
2 - unacceptably raises taxes
3 - extends government-covered insurance to children in families who
can afford private coverage
4 - and seems like a move toward completely federalized health care.
Are these valid reasons and should Democrats work to rewrite to avoid
those issues?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
23 Sep 2007 08:53:34 AM |
|
|
In article <1190528664.361055.104570@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:48 am, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 23 Sep, 00:46, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1190491528.996998.149...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 19:32, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 18:37, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point of
view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who will
insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or
opinion
has more validity than that information gathered as it is from
people
who really have no reason to lie.
Because the real agenda is power and control over women.
Two questions then, why did you snip the rest of my OP
It wasn't relevant.
So the statistics are irrelevant, other people in threads where that
information was originally posted said that too, but they were anti-
abortion "christians" who had trouble accepting the facts presented to
them.
Your statistics, even if true, fail to demonstrate a connection.
Almost everyone in prison is religious. Does that suggest the
religious are more likely criminal?
I wasn't trying to prove that being religious makes one more inclined
to have an abortion, I was actually trying to give those anti-
abortionists who claim that the statistics are wrong, and who had
given opinions as to why to present information that would support
their position.
And the statistics I presented are not "mine", they are available in
the public domain, and were produced by the various organisations upon
whose websites I found those statistics, so if you wish to determine
the truth of those statistics shouldn't you be contacting those
organisations to confirm the accuracy of their information gathering
and analysis methods?
So why do you consider the rest of my OP to be irrelevant, after all
merely saying so doesn't make it so.
and do you have
proof to back up your statement?
Yes. Notice that abortion opponents spend almost all of their efforts
trying to force women to do as they say and almost no effort helping
anybody.
Do you have links to a source that support this statement too?
How about that, at least in America, the Christian Right is
anti-abortion but refuses to help children?
Still only a statement, not a proof.
A statement in and of itself and unsupported, is merely opinion and
not proof.
Here is Bush, who claims to be a Christian, and who is responsible for
more death than Bin Laden could ever hope for, stating he will veto a
Democratic bill to increase health care for children.
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/radio.addressses.ap/index.html>
Start with that source.
Thank you, at last someone has provided a source to back up their
statement.
Actually, he is being dishonest in his statement.
Show us some physical proof of that.
a) He is being dishonest in his statement saying Bush is responsible
for more death than Bin Laden. That's merely opinion.
That is FACT.
b) I read the article, and while it's good..his statement is being
made in an effort to lead you into thinking Bush simply just wants to
veto a bill that is for kids.
Yeah - keep apologizing for Bush.
The reasons for him wanting to veto it, and leaving all personal
opinions about the man out of this, are for...
1 - saying the measure is too costly
2 - unacceptably raises taxes
3 - extends government-covered insurance to children in families who
can afford private coverage
4 - and seems like a move toward completely federalized health care.
You are dumb as a rock.
I believe that the biggest concern here is the "federalized health
care", which is something I believe most of us want to avoid.
You have your health care paid for by the federal government.
Also, take into consideration this comment mentioned in the
article....
"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be
vetoed,"
No *****. You seem to think everyone should just give up. as yopu have
done.
Was that their intention? Was the intention actually for the best
interest of children or were their intentions for political purposes
and dragging out a war between republicans and democrats?
You tell us, mind reader.
So while his statement has "some" source, it's not exactly honest and
it's misleading.
The article is interesting, and probably good for some intellectual
discussion.
That leaves you out.
However, it's important to keep the bipartisan out of it and stick to
the issues.
Health Bill offered
Bush vetos
Reasons are...
1 - saying the measure is too costly
2 - unacceptably raises taxes
3 - extends government-covered insurance to children in families who
can afford private coverage
4 - and seems like a move toward completely federalized health care.
What did you expect him to say? I am vetoing it because I hate
children?
Are these valid reasons and should Democrats work to rewrite to avoid
those issues?
You have lied about me and you have stated you used whatever little
authority the State of Delaware gave you as a guard in a prison to
claim, after I bloodied his nose in a debate, that you have
"investigated" me and "discovered" that I am a convicted child molester
who must stay away from children as a condition of my parole and that I
have to wear an ankle shackle. You went on to claim that you used that
authority and spoke with my parole officer. This is all from an agent
of the State of Delaware and the Delaware Department of Corrections.
To be clear - an agent of the State of Delaware and the Delaware
Department of Corrections went out on a nation wide newsgroup and made
up lies in an attempt to discredit people he simply did not like
through the use of his claimed authority. You have made it clear that
you consider yourself a law enforcement officer for the State of
Delaware. If so, that means you have certain credibility that goes
with that position and you have abused it for your own personal gain.
Your defamatory comments have dishonored those whose shoulders you now
stand upon.
Further, the same is true with Patrick. You said, after Patrick "The
Chief Instigator" Humphrey pounded him in a debate, that you
investigated Patrick and discovered that Patrick was a convicted drug
dealer who had been fired from his job. This was a lie and pure
defamation. This, from an agent of the State of Delaware and the
Delaware Department of Corrections
You have no honor, integrity, or self respect. And as proof, you now
suggest a hollow truce in which I admit to lying, while you continue to
lie about others. You dishonor every real correctional officer every
time you post your lies out here. AND YOU DON'T CARE. But somehow, we
are supposed to respect you, not because you deserve respect, but
because you claim you were promoted. If you were promoted it only
demonstrates the incompetence of your superiors. And every time you
lie or spit out your hate, you spit on every honorable correctional
officer out there - including the very people that were ignorant enough
of your activities here to promote you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
23 Sep 2007 04:49:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 06:53:34 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1190528664.361055.104570@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
However, it's important to keep the bipartisan out of it and stick to
the issues.
Health Bill offered
Bush vetos
Reasons are...
1 - saying the measure is too costly
2 - unacceptably raises taxes
3 - extends government-covered insurance to children in families who
can afford private coverage
4 - and seems like a move toward completely federalized health care.
What did you expect him to say? I am vetoing it because I hate
children?
More like "I am vetoing it because my kind of people don't want to pay
for the medical care of the brats of that kind of people."
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
23 Sep 2007 05:26:17 PM |
|
|
In article <rindf3tngmkhrpeof12bgavg4vgrtj7q5m@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 06:53:34 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1190528664.361055.104570@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
However, it's important to keep the bipartisan out of it and stick to
the issues.
Health Bill offered
Bush vetos
Reasons are...
1 - saying the measure is too costly
2 - unacceptably raises taxes
3 - extends government-covered insurance to children in families who
can afford private coverage
4 - and seems like a move toward completely federalized health care.
What did you expect him to say? I am vetoing it because I hate
children?
More like "I am vetoing it because my kind of people don't want to pay
for the medical care of the brats of that kind of people."
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
23 Sep 2007 08:42:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
23 Sep 2007 10:10:36 PM |
|
|
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
24 Sep 2007 08:14:35 AM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 11:10 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dc...@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I don=B9t mind that they don=B9t care about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
That's a disincentive for being truthful if there ever was one.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
25 Sep 2007 12:35:38 AM |
|
|
In article <1190639675.345842.259200@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 23, 11:10 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dc...@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
That's a disincentive for being truthful if there ever was one.
Hatter
Good point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
24 Sep 2007 07:16:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like "we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right after the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an election
you're going to lose the election.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
25 Sep 2007 12:36:44 AM |
|
|
In article <bokgf3t8sm3stcglq7dahgaesfel227u8i@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like "we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right after the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an election
you're going to lose the election.
And amazingly, it seems to work (lying) with most of the public. A
rather sad commentary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
25 Sep 2007 07:46:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:36:44 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <bokgf3t8sm3stcglq7dahgaesfel227u8i@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like "we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right after the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an election
you're going to lose the election.
And amazingly, it seems to work (lying) with most of the public. A
rather sad commentary.
The sheeple would rather hear nice platitudes than harsh reality. Tell
them that their pay is going down and their cost of living is going
up, and they'll point to an almost 14,000 DOW. They don't want to
know that it's at record highs BECAUSE their pay (and the dollar as a
whole) is in the toilet.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
25 Sep 2007 10:07:30 AM |
|
|
In article <8l0if39kkml2e50322ag3s8u39b5j7r6ce@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:36:44 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <bokgf3t8sm3stcglq7dahgaesfel227u8i@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like "we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right after the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an election
you're going to lose the election.
And amazingly, it seems to work (lying) with most of the public. A
rather sad commentary.
The sheeple would rather hear nice platitudes than harsh reality. Tell
them that their pay is going down and their cost of living is going
up, and they'll point to an almost 14,000 DOW. They don't want to
know that it's at record highs BECAUSE their pay (and the dollar as a
whole) is in the toilet.
Agreed. And politicians clearly recognize that telling the truth gets
them tossed from office while lying gets them elected. Look at Bush
and his cronies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
25 Sep 2007 10:10:07 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070807306965%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <8l0if39kkml2e50322ag3s8u39b5j7r6ce@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:36:44 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <bokgf3t8sm3stcglq7dahgaesfel227u8i@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care
about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like "we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right after the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an election
you're going to lose the election.
And amazingly, it seems to work (lying) with most of the public. A
rather sad commentary.
The sheeple would rather hear nice platitudes than harsh reality. Tell
them that their pay is going down and their cost of living is going
up, and they'll point to an almost 14,000 DOW. They don't want to
know that it's at record highs BECAUSE their pay (and the dollar as a
whole) is in the toilet.
Agreed. And politicians clearly recognize that telling the truth gets
them tossed from office while lying gets them elected.
Barnes admits his precious liberal democrats lied in order to get elected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
25 Sep 2007 10:55:06 AM |
|
|
In article <9PadnVyTLuVKuWTbnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070807306965%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <8l0if39kkml2e50322ag3s8u39b5j7r6ce@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:36:44 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <bokgf3t8sm3stcglq7dahgaesfel227u8i@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care
about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like "we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right after the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an election
you're going to lose the election.
And amazingly, it seems to work (lying) with most of the public. A
rather sad commentary.
The sheeple would rather hear nice platitudes than harsh reality. Tell
them that their pay is going down and their cost of living is going
up, and they'll point to an almost 14,000 DOW. They don't want to
know that it's at record highs BECAUSE their pay (and the dollar as a
whole) is in the toilet.
Agreed. And politicians clearly recognize that telling the truth gets
them tossed from office while lying gets them elected.
Barnes admits his precious liberal democrats lied in order to get elected.
Osprey (Pictured at http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php )
demonstrates he is an idiot who sees what he wants to see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
25 Sep 2007 11:27:53 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070855062031%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <9PadnVyTLuVKuWTbnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070807306965%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <8l0if39kkml2e50322ag3s8u39b5j7r6ce@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:36:44 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <bokgf3t8sm3stcglq7dahgaesfel227u8i@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care
about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like "we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right after
the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an election
you're going to lose the election.
And amazingly, it seems to work (lying) with most of the public. A
rather sad commentary.
The sheeple would rather hear nice platitudes than harsh reality. Tell
them that their pay is going down and their cost of living is going
up, and they'll point to an almost 14,000 DOW. They don't want to
know that it's at record highs BECAUSE their pay (and the dollar as a
whole) is in the toilet.
Agreed. And politicians clearly recognize that telling the truth gets
them tossed from office while lying gets them elected.
Barnes admits his precious liberal democrats lied in order to get
elected.
Osprey (Pictured at http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php )
demonstrates he is an idiot who sees what he wants to see.
David Barnes shows how truly obsessed he is..:o)
I'm flattered Barnes, that you like my picture and you keep it in your
bookmarks, but you're not my type.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
26 Sep 2007 08:41:09 PM |
|
|
In article <KrKdnTPmyOaMqmTbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070855062031%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <9PadnVyTLuVKuWTbnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070807306965%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <8l0if39kkml2e50322ag3s8u39b5j7r6ce@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:36:44 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <bokgf3t8sm3stcglq7dahgaesfel227u8i@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt care
about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like "we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right after
the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an election
you're going to lose the election.
And amazingly, it seems to work (lying) with most of the public. A
rather sad commentary.
The sheeple would rather hear nice platitudes than harsh reality. Tell
them that their pay is going down and their cost of living is going
up, and they'll point to an almost 14,000 DOW. They don't want to
know that it's at record highs BECAUSE their pay (and the dollar as a
whole) is in the toilet.
Agreed. And politicians clearly recognize that telling the truth gets
them tossed from office while lying gets them elected.
Barnes admits his precious liberal democrats lied in order to get
elected.
Osprey (Pictured at http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php )
demonstrates he is an idiot who sees what he wants to see.
David Barnes shows how truly obsessed he is..:o)
It isnıt bookmarked, Spud.
I'm flattered Barnes, that you like my picture and you keep it in your
bookmarks, but you're not my type.
Your type is as follows:
OSPREY ADMITS BEING AROUSED BY YOUNG GIRLS
Osprey inadvertently admits to being sexually aroused by young girls.
³We can allow girls to go to school in short mini skirts and revealing
tight tops and that isnıt distractive, but itıs a distraction if a girl
has the confederate flag on her purse?³
- A comment made by Robert ³Osprey² Heishman in which he accidentally
admits to being turned on by school girls in mini skirts and tight tops
while arguing that the Confederate Flag is not a racist symbol.
(January 10, 2006)
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_thread/thread/e4417a
f6119147c5/1177613f915079b0?lnk=st&q=We+can+allow+girls+to+go+to+school+
in+short+mini+skirts+and+revealing+group%3Aalt.abortion+author%3AOsprey&
rnum=3&hl=en#1177613f915079b0>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
26 Sep 2007 10:12:26 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:260920071841096177%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <KrKdnTPmyOaMqmTbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070855062031%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <9PadnVyTLuVKuWTbnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070807306965%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <8l0if39kkml2e50322ag3s8u39b5j7r6ce@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:36:44 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <bokgf3t8sm3stcglq7dahgaesfel227u8i@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al
Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt
care
about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like
"we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right after
the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an election
you're going to lose the election.
And amazingly, it seems to work (lying) with most of the public.
A
rather sad commentary.
The sheeple would rather hear nice platitudes than harsh reality.
Tell
them that their pay is going down and their cost of living is going
up, and they'll point to an almost 14,000 DOW. They don't want to
know that it's at record highs BECAUSE their pay (and the dollar as
a
whole) is in the toilet.
Agreed. And politicians clearly recognize that telling the truth
gets
them tossed from office while lying gets them elected.
Barnes admits his precious liberal democrats lied in order to get
elected.
Osprey (Pictured at http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php )
demonstrates he is an idiot who sees what he wants to see.
David Barnes shows how truly obsessed he is..:o)
It isnıt bookmarked, Spud.
You lie, you have posted it more than fifty times...I'm impressed and
flattered.
I'm flattered Barnes, that you like my picture and you keep it in your
bookmarks, but you're not my type.
Your type is as follows:
?? OSPREY ADMITS BEING AROUSED BY YOUNG GIRLS ??
Osprey inadvertently admits to being sexually aroused by young girls.
³We can allow girls to go to school in short mini skirts and revealing
tight tops and that isnıt distractive, but itıs a distraction if a girl
has the confederate flag on her purse?³
- A comment made by Robert ³Osprey² Heishman in which he accidentally
admits to being turned on by school girls in mini skirts and tight tops
while arguing that the Confederate Flag is not a racist symbol.
(January 10, 2006)
Nowhere in there do you see any admission, thanks for demonstrating your
ignorance once again..:o)
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_thread/thread/e4417a
f6119147c5/1177613f915079b0?lnk=st&q=We+can+allow+girls+to+go+to+school+
in+short+mini+skirts+and+revealing+group%3Aalt.abortion+author%3AOsprey&
rnum=3&hl=en#1177613f915079b0>
Why would you be googling short mini skirts???
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
26 Sep 2007 10:51:39 PM |
|
|
In article <-YSdnSktu7o-gmbbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:260920071841096177%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <KrKdnTPmyOaMqmTbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070855062031%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <9PadnVyTLuVKuWTbnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070807306965%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <8l0if39kkml2e50322ag3s8u39b5j7r6ce@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:36:44 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <bokgf3t8sm3stcglq7dahgaesfel227u8i@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al
Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt
care
about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like
"we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right after
the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an election
you're going to lose the election.
And amazingly, it seems to work (lying) with most of the public.
A
rather sad commentary.
The sheeple would rather hear nice platitudes than harsh reality.
Tell
them that their pay is going down and their cost of living is going
up, and they'll point to an almost 14,000 DOW. They don't want to
know that it's at record highs BECAUSE their pay (and the dollar as
a
whole) is in the toilet.
Agreed. And politicians clearly recognize that telling the truth
gets
them tossed from office while lying gets them elected.
Barnes admits his precious liberal democrats lied in order to get
elected.
Osprey (Pictured at http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php )
demonstrates he is an idiot who sees what he wants to see.
David Barnes shows how truly obsessed he is..:o)
It isnıt bookmarked, Spud.
You lie, you have posted it more than fifty times...I'm impressed and
flattered.
You are kidding yourself, Spud.
I'm flattered Barnes, that you like my picture and you keep it in your
bookmarks, but you're not my type.
Your type is as follows:
?? OSPREY ADMITS BEING AROUSED BY YOUNG GIRLS ??
Osprey inadvertently admits to being sexually aroused by young girls.
³We can allow girls to go to school in short mini skirts and revealing
tight tops and that isnıt distractive, but itıs a distraction if a girl
has the confederate flag on her purse?³
- A comment made by Robert ³Osprey² Heishman in which he accidentally
admits to being turned on by school girls in mini skirts and tight tops
while arguing that the Confederate Flag is not a racist symbol.
(January 10, 2006)
Nowhere in there do you see any admission, thanks for demonstrating your
ignorance once again..:o)
Here we see why Osprey never sees the proof.
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_thread/thread/e4417a
f6119147c5/1177613f915079b0?lnk=st&q=We+can+allow+girls+to+go+to+school+
in+short+mini+skirts+and+revealing+group%3Aalt.abortion+author%3AOsprey&
rnum=3&hl=en#1177613f915079b0>
Why would you be googling short mini skirts???
Run, boy. Run!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
26 Sep 2007 10:58:51 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:260920072051396753%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <-YSdnSktu7o-gmbbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:260920071841096177%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <KrKdnTPmyOaMqmTbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070855062031%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <9PadnVyTLuVKuWTbnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:250920070807306965%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <8l0if39kkml2e50322ag3s8u39b5j7r6ce@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:36:44 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <bokgf3t8sm3stcglq7dahgaesfel227u8i@4ax.com>, Al
Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dcvs3@4ax.com>, Al
Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I donıt mind that they donıt
care
about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending
otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like
"we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right
after
the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an
election
you're going to lose the election.
And amazingly, it seems to work (lying) with most of the
public.
A
rather sad commentary.
The sheeple would rather hear nice platitudes than harsh
reality.
Tell
them that their pay is going down and their cost of living is
going
up, and they'll point to an almost 14,000 DOW. They don't want
to
know that it's at record highs BECAUSE their pay (and the dollar
as
a
whole) is in the toilet.
Agreed. And politicians clearly recognize that telling the truth
gets
them tossed from office while lying gets them elected.
Barnes admits his precious liberal democrats lied in order to get
elected.
Osprey (Pictured at http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php )
demonstrates he is an idiot who sees what he wants to see.
David Barnes shows how truly obsessed he is..:o)
It isnıt bookmarked, Spud.
You lie, you have posted it more than fifty times...I'm impressed and
flattered.
You are kidding yourself, Spud.
Not at all, you are absolutely obsessed.
I'm flattered Barnes, that you like my picture and you keep it in your
bookmarks, but you're not my type.
Your type is as follows:
?? OSPREY ADMITS BEING AROUSED BY YOUNG GIRLS ??
Osprey inadvertently admits to being sexually aroused by young girls.
³We can allow girls to go to school in short mini skirts and revealing
tight tops and that isnıt distractive, but itıs a distraction if a girl
has the confederate flag on her purse?³
- A comment made by Robert ³Osprey² Heishman in which he accidentally
admits to being turned on by school girls in mini skirts and tight tops
while arguing that the Confederate Flag is not a racist symbol.
(January 10, 2006)
Nowhere in there do you see any admission, thanks for demonstrating your
ignorance once again..:o)
Here we see why Osprey never sees the proof.
Nobody sees the proof of what you are claiming.
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_thread/thread/e4417a
f6119147c5/1177613f915079b0?lnk=st&q=We+can+allow+girls+to+go+to+school+
in+short+mini+skirts+and+revealing+group%3Aalt.abortion+author%3AOsprey&
rnum=3&hl=en#1177613f915079b0>
Why would you be googling short mini skirts???
Run, boy. Run!
Here we see Barnes avoiding the issue.
He is seeking out short mini skirts for some reason in google.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
25 Sep 2007 11:51:39 AM |
|
|
On Sep 25, 11:07 am, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <8l0if39kkml2e50322ag3s8u39b5j7r...@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:36:44 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <bokgf3t8sm3stcglq7dahgaesfel227...@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:36 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <vf5ef3hmk8a34r5b0cmavcp16pct3dc...@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well that is certainly it. I don=B9t mind that they don=B9t car=
e about
children, I just wish they would quit pretending otherwise.
Why would they start telling the truth now?
There is an election coming up?
Which would increase the lies. If you tell the truth (like "we're
against S-CHIP because it doesn't help the wealthy") right after the
election, the sheeple forget. If you do that before an election
you're going to lose the election.
And amazingly, it seems to work (lying) with most of the public. A
rather sad commentary.
The sheeple would rather hear nice platitudes than harsh reality. Tell
them that their pay is going down and their cost of living is going
up, and they'll point to an almost 14,000 DOW. They don't want to
know that it's at record highs BECAUSE their pay (and the dollar as a
whole) is in the toilet.
Agreed. And politicians clearly recognize that telling the truth gets
them tossed from office while lying gets them elected. Look at Bush
and his cronies
Or Bill "I did not inhale and I did not have sex with that woman"
Clinton.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
24 Sep 2007 09:03:20 AM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 2:24 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:48 am, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 23 Sep, 00:46, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1190491528.996998.149...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 19:32, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 18:37, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point of view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who will insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or opinion
has more validity than that information gathered as it is from people
who really have no reason to lie.
Because the real agenda is power and control over women.
Two questions then, why did you snip the rest of my OP
It wasn't relevant.
So the statistics are irrelevant, other people in threads where that
information was originally posted said that too, but they were anti-
abortion "christians" who had trouble accepting the facts presented to
them.
Your statistics, even if true, fail to demonstrate a connection.
Almost everyone in prison is religious. Does that suggest the
religious are more likely criminal?
I wasn't trying to prove that being religious makes one more inclined
to have an abortion, I was actually trying to give those anti-
abortionists who claim that the statistics are wrong, and who had
given opinions as to why to present information that would support
their position.
And the statistics I presented are not "mine", they are available in
the public domain, and were produced by the various organisations upon
whose websites I found those statistics, so if you wish to determine
the truth of those statistics shouldn't you be contacting those
organisations to confirm the accuracy of their information gathering
and analysis methods?
So why do you consider the rest of my OP to be irrelevant, after all
merely saying so doesn't make it so.
and do you have
proof to back up your statement?
Yes. Notice that abortion opponents spend almost all of their efforts
trying to force women to do as they say and almost no effort helping
anybody.
Do you have links to a source that support this statement too?
How about that, at least in America, the Christian Right is
anti-abortion but refuses to help children?
Still only a statement, not a proof.
A statement in and of itself and unsupported, is merely opinion and
not proof.
Here is Bush, who claims to be a Christian, and who is responsible for
more death than Bin Laden could ever hope for, stating he will veto a
Democratic bill to increase health care for children.
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/radio.addressses.ap/index.html>
Start with that source.
Thank you, at last someone has provided a source to back up their
statement.
Actually, he is being dishonest in his statement.
a) He is being dishonest in his statement saying Bush is responsible
for more death than Bin Laden. That's merely opinion.
b) I read the article, and while it's good..his statement is being
made in an effort to lead you into thinking Bush simply just wants to
veto a bill that is for kids.
The reasons for him wanting to veto it, and leaving all personal
opinions about the man out of this, are for...
1 - saying the measure is too costly
2 - unacceptably raises taxes
IMO, Bush isn't in a position to claim something is "too costly" or
will "unacceptably raise taxes" when you consider the pricetag on this
war, that will eventually require some serious fiscal policy changes,
that I suspect will require the raising of taxes.
3 - extends government-covered insurance to children in families who
can afford private coverage
This is an issue. We shouldn't be footing the bill those that can do
for themselves.
4 - and seems like a move toward completely federalized health care.
I believe that the biggest concern here is the "federalized health
care", which is something I believe most of us want to avoid.
What's wrong with "federalized health care"? The president's health
care is "federalized" so what's wrong with everyone else having it?
Of course, we hear all the whining about how Canada's health care
system is so bad so we can't do it here. Yet I have friends who live
there who love it. I think those that are doing the whining actually
need to talk with the citizens of Canada and ask them for their
opinion.
Also, take into consideration this comment mentioned in the
article....
"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be
vetoed,"
Was that their intention? Was the intention actually for the best
interest of children or were their intentions for political purposes
and dragging out a war between republicans and democrats?
Definitely, you have to look at the intentions. If they knew it
wouldn't pass but really had the best interests of the children at
heart, then I have no problems with their actions. However, if it was
merely a political game aimed to make the president look bad, then
shame on them.
So while his statement has "some" source, it's not exactly honest and
it's misleading.
The article is interesting, and probably good for some intellectual
discussion.
However, it's important to keep the bipartisan out of it and stick to
the issues.
Health Bill offered
Bush vetos
Reasons are...
1 - saying the measure is too costly
2 - unacceptably raises taxes
3 - extends government-covered insurance to children in families who
can afford private coverage
4 - and seems like a move toward completely federalized health care.
Are these valid reasons and should Democrats work to rewrite to avoid
those issues?
Before anyone can answer, here are some more questions:
1. Define "too costly".
2. Define "unacceptably raises taxes"
3. What's wrong with federalized health care?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Information Versus Opinion |
24 Sep 2007 09:23:17 AM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1190642600.406581.250090@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 2:24 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:48 am, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 23 Sep, 00:46, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1190491528.996998.149...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 19:32, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Sep, 18:37, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Why is it when information is presented that supports a point
of view
on an issue as emotive as abortion is, there are those who
will insist
that this information is incorrect and that their belief or
opinion
has more va | | | | | | | | | |
