| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"DanielSan" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 06:57:41 AM |
| Object: |
The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying to
"destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how off-the-mark
Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
In 2003, according to a US Census report located at
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf it appears
that, in fact, it is Republicans who are destroying the sanctity of
marriage.
Out of the 31 "red" states, 18 had a higher-than-average number of
divorces per-capita (58% of the "red" states). Out of the 20 "blue"
states, 3 had a higher-than-average number of divorces per-capita (15%
of the "blue" states).
The "red" states with higher-than-average divorce rates per-capita:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming
The "blue" states with higher-than-average divorces rates per-capita:
New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington
The lowest divorce rate in the country is 2.3 per 1000 people, in the
District of Columbia, which, if I'm looking at my map correctly, is
dark, dark, dark blue.
Remember: Divorce always destroys marriage.
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 08:44:46 AM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672
@trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying to
"destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how off-the-mark
Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 09:10:55 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672
@trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying to
"destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how off-the-mark
Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
<unsnip>
In 2003, according to a US Census report located at
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf it appears
that, in fact, it is Republicans who are destroying the sanctity of
marriage.
Out of the 31 "red" states, 18 had a higher-than-average number of
divorces per-capita (58% of the "red" states). Out of the 20 "blue"
states, 3 had a higher-than-average number of divorces per-capita (15%
of the "blue" states).
The "red" states with higher-than-average divorce rates per-capita:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming
The "blue" states with higher-than-average divorces rates per-capita:
New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington
The lowest divorce rate in the country is 2.3 per 1000 people, in the
District of Columbia, which, if I'm looking at my map correctly, is
dark, dark, dark blue.
Remember: Divorce always destroys marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 12:36:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672
@trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying to
"destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how off-the-mark
Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
You will be accorded due respect when you define the value of "per capita" in
your post. Until then, you will be considered overwhelmed with ignorance,
snowden.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 02:50:53 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672
@trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying to
"destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how off-the-mark
Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
You will be accorded due respect when you define the value of "per capita" in
your post. Until then, you will be considered overwhelmed with ignorance,
snowden.
Per capita is a well-accepted term meaning per person (literally, "per
head" in Latin). It means, basically, that the statistics take
population into account rather than just reporting total numbers of
divorces.
Why do you consider this to be a problem, duke?
Jon.
aa #703
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 10:12:52 PM |
|
|
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1118433053.424022.24310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672 @trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying
to "destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how
off-the-mark Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
<piggybacking since I didn't get DanielSan's reply>
No, I want a cite from the Main Stream Media about how US liberals are
trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Not the MSM quoting some
right-wingnut Christian either.
You cited marriage and divorce statistics.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 10:28:36 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1118433053.424022.24310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672 @trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying
to "destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how
off-the-mark Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
<piggybacking since I didn't get DanielSan's reply>
No, I want a cite from the Main Stream Media about how US liberals are
trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Not the MSM quoting some
right-wingnut Christian either.
You know, limiting the playing field to not allow quotes from
"right-wingnut Christians" is disingenious. When they have
"right-wingnut Christians" such as Falwell or Robertson on the network,
they might as well be representatives of the network.
But, let's try.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.88/
"We support efforts like the Adolescent Family Life program to teach
teens the traditional values of restraint and the sanctity of marriage."
--Republican National Convention
You cited marriage and divorce statistics.
Yes, I did, in response to folks like Falwell or Robertson, who are, I'm
sorry to say, representatives of the right-wing, especially when they
appear on Fox News or CNN. Limiting the playing field so I cannot
include them is dishonest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
11 Jun 2005 08:32:37 AM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:ETsqe.178$1q5.64@trnddc02:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1118433053.424022.24310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672 @trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are
trying to "destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how
off-the-mark Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
<piggybacking since I didn't get DanielSan's reply>
No, I want a cite from the Main Stream Media about how US liberals
are trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Not the MSM quoting
some right-wingnut Christian either.
You know, limiting the playing field to not allow quotes from
"right-wingnut Christians" is disingenious.
No it's not. Quoting a right-winger, especially when we all know how the
networks *usually* quote conservatives, doesn't make the network
conservative.
When they have
"right-wingnut Christians" such as Falwell or Robertson on the
network, they might as well be representatives of the network.
When CNN quotes Chirac does that make them a French network?
When Franken or Moore appear on the TV, does that prove that the
networks are left-wing?
But, let's try.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/
platform.88/
"We support efforts like the Adolescent Family Life program to teach
teens the traditional values of restraint and the sanctity of
marriage." --Republican National Convention
That's from a speaker at the convention. Try again. This time show an
MSM reporter saying it as their own opinion, not somebody they're
reporting about. You can't do it, can you?
You cited marriage and divorce statistics.
Yes, I did, in response to folks like Falwell or Robertson, who are,
I'm sorry to say, representatives of the right-wing, especially when
they appear on Fox News or CNN.
I never said that they weren't. But that doesn't make them
representatives of the network. And no, PAX isn't a mainstream network.
Limiting the playing field so I cannot include them is dishonest.
Pretending that they're network representatives is dishonest. Bob
Schieffer is a network representative. Dan Rather *was* a network
representative until he got caught peddling forged documents.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
11 Jun 2005 12:55:04 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:ETsqe.178$1q5.64@trnddc02:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1118433053.424022.24310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672 @trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are
trying to "destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how
off-the-mark Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
<piggybacking since I didn't get DanielSan's reply>
No, I want a cite from the Main Stream Media about how US liberals
are trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Not the MSM quoting
some right-wingnut Christian either.
You know, limiting the playing field to not allow quotes from
"right-wingnut Christians" is disingenious.
No it's not. Quoting a right-winger, especially when we all know how the
networks *usually* quote conservatives, doesn't make the network
conservative.
When they have
"right-wingnut Christians" such as Falwell or Robertson on the
network, they might as well be representatives of the network.
When CNN quotes Chirac does that make them a French network?
When Franken or Moore appear on the TV, does that prove that the
networks are left-wing?
I didn't say that they "quote" Robertson or Falwell. I said "have them
on the network." Can you read? How many times has Moore or Franken
been on the network as opposed to Falwell or Robertson? Chirac is
irrelevant due to his being a non-American.
But, let's try.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/
platform.88/
"We support efforts like the Adolescent Family Life program to teach
teens the traditional values of restraint and the sanctity of
marriage." --Republican National Convention
That's from a speaker at the convention. Try again. This time show an
MSM reporter saying it as their own opinion, not somebody they're
reporting about. You can't do it, can you?
Opinions are irrelevant to the original point. I was speaking about the
inordinate amount of times that the MSM "quote" the conservative agenda
by having conservatives on, versus how many times the MSM "quote" the
liberal agenda (which, by the way, is "freedom and justice... FOR ALL,"
emphasis not mine).
For example:
Tone of media coverage for Gore & Bush, 2000:
Positive news stories: Gore: 13%, Bush: 24%
Neutral news stories: Gore: 31%, Bush, 27%
Negative news stories: Gore: 56%, Bush, 49%
What bastion of left-wing spew website am I getting this from?
Pew Charitable Trusts: Project for Excellence in Journalism
http://tinyurl.com/9l9fe
You cited marriage and divorce statistics.
Yes, I did, in response to folks like Falwell or Robertson, who are,
I'm sorry to say, representatives of the right-wing, especially when
they appear on Fox News or CNN.
I never said that they weren't. But that doesn't make them
representatives of the network. And no, PAX isn't a mainstream network.
Where'd you pull PAX from? I never mentioned PAX in any of my posts. Did I?
Limiting the playing field so I cannot include them is dishonest.
Pretending that they're network representatives is dishonest.
Too bad. They're on. They're representatives of the network.
Pretending that they aren't is dishonest.
Bob
Schieffer is a network representative. Dan Rather *was* a network
representative until he got caught peddling forged documents.
Oh, give it a *REST,* Fred. The memos were *NOT* forged! They were
*REPRINTED.*
forge (forj) v.tr. to fashion or reproduce for fraudulent purposes
reprint (re-print) v. to print again.
The information was valid. Therefore, it was *NOT* fraudulent, hence
not *forgeries.* Now who's beating a dead horse?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
11 Jun 2005 02:13:25 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:YzFqe.3890$2K4.3129@trnddc08:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:ETsqe.178$1q5.64@trnddc02:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1118433053.424022.24310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672 @trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are
trying to "destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how
off-the-mark Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
<piggybacking since I didn't get DanielSan's reply>
No, I want a cite from the Main Stream Media about how US liberals
are trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Not the MSM quoting
some right-wingnut Christian either.
You know, limiting the playing field to not allow quotes from
"right-wingnut Christians" is disingenious.
No it's not. Quoting a right-winger, especially when we all know how
the networks *usually* quote conservatives, doesn't make the network
conservative.
When they have
"right-wingnut Christians" such as Falwell or Robertson on the
network, they might as well be representatives of the network.
When CNN quotes Chirac does that make them a French network?
When Franken or Moore appear on the TV, does that prove that the
networks are left-wing?
I didn't say that they "quote" Robertson or Falwell. I said "have
them on the network." Can you read? How many times has Moore or
Franken been on the network as opposed to Falwell or Robertson?
Probably more. Franken was on Saturday Night Live for a while, wasn't
he?
Chirac is irrelevant due to his being a non-American.
Heh.
But, let's try.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/
platform.88/
"We support efforts like the Adolescent Family Life program to teach
teens the traditional values of restraint and the sanctity of
marriage." --Republican National Convention
That's from a speaker at the convention. Try again. This time show an
MSM reporter saying it as their own opinion, not somebody they're
reporting about. You can't do it, can you?
Opinions are irrelevant to the original point. I was speaking about
the inordinate amount of times that the MSM "quote" the conservative
agenda by having conservatives on, versus how many times the MSM
"quote" the liberal agenda (which, by the way, is "freedom and
justice... FOR ALL," emphasis not mine).
Irrelevant to your original statement. Admit it, you can't produce any
actual MSM reporter saying that "US Liberals are trying to destroy the
sanctity of marriage."
For example:
Tone of media coverage for Gore & Bush, 2000:
Positive news stories: Gore: 13%, Bush: 24%
Neutral news stories: Gore: 31%, Bush, 27%
Negative news stories: Gore: 56%, Bush, 49%
What bastion of left-wing spew website am I getting this from?
Pew Charitable Trusts: Project for Excellence in Journalism
http://tinyurl.com/9l9fe
Irrelevant.
You cited marriage and divorce statistics.
Yes, I did, in response to folks like Falwell or Robertson, who are,
I'm sorry to say, representatives of the right-wing, especially when
they appear on Fox News or CNN.
I never said that they weren't. But that doesn't make them
representatives of the network. And no, PAX isn't a mainstream
network.
Where'd you pull PAX from? I never mentioned PAX in any of my posts.
Did I?
I'm just preempting any idea you might have of claiming that they were a
mainstream network.
Limiting the playing field so I cannot include them is dishonest.
Pretending that they're network representatives is dishonest.
Too bad. They're on. They're representatives of the network.
Pretending that they aren't is dishonest.
Too bad yourself. Franken and Moore have been on. They're
representatives of the network. Pretending that they aren't is
dishonest. Your "logic" is extremely thin, DanielSan.
Bob
Schieffer is a network representative. Dan Rather *was* a network
representative until he got caught peddling forged documents.
Oh, give it a *REST,* Fred. The memos were *NOT* forged! They were
*REPRINTED.*
Oh, give it a rest yourself, Daniel! They were *FORGED*. They were in a
fricking MS-WORD font and default format, for pete's sakes! There is no
way in hell that they were produced in the 1970's at an Air Reserve
base.
forge (forj) v.tr. to fashion or reproduce for fraudulent purposes
reprint (re-print) v. to print again.
The information was valid. Therefore, it was *NOT* fraudulent, hence
not *forgeries.* Now who's beating a dead horse?
You think CBS can investigate itself without any conflict of interest?
The information was *NOT* valid. There is absolutely *no* independent
confirmation of any of it. It was presented with fraudulent intent for
political purposes.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
11 Jun 2005 02:50:39 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:YzFqe.3890$2K4.3129@trnddc08:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:ETsqe.178$1q5.64@trnddc02:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1118433053.424022.24310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672 @trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are
trying to "destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how
off-the-mark Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
<piggybacking since I didn't get DanielSan's reply>
No, I want a cite from the Main Stream Media about how US liberals
are trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Not the MSM quoting
some right-wingnut Christian either.
You know, limiting the playing field to not allow quotes from
"right-wingnut Christians" is disingenious.
No it's not. Quoting a right-winger, especially when we all know how
the networks *usually* quote conservatives, doesn't make the network
conservative.
When they have
"right-wingnut Christians" such as Falwell or Robertson on the
network, they might as well be representatives of the network.
When CNN quotes Chirac does that make them a French network?
When Franken or Moore appear on the TV, does that prove that the
networks are left-wing?
I didn't say that they "quote" Robertson or Falwell. I said "have
them on the network." Can you read? How many times has Moore or
Franken been on the network as opposed to Falwell or Robertson?
Probably more. Franken was on Saturday Night Live for a while, wasn't
he?
Oh, jeez, Fred. You're getting stupider than I took you for.
Chirac is irrelevant due to his being a non-American.
Heh.
But, let's try.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/
platform.88/
"We support efforts like the Adolescent Family Life program to teach
teens the traditional values of restraint and the sanctity of
marriage." --Republican National Convention
That's from a speaker at the convention. Try again. This time show an
MSM reporter saying it as their own opinion, not somebody they're
reporting about. You can't do it, can you?
Opinions are irrelevant to the original point. I was speaking about
the inordinate amount of times that the MSM "quote" the conservative
agenda by having conservatives on, versus how many times the MSM
"quote" the liberal agenda (which, by the way, is "freedom and
justice... FOR ALL," emphasis not mine).
Irrelevant to your original statement. Admit it, you can't produce any
actual MSM reporter saying that "US Liberals are trying to destroy the
sanctity of marriage."
No. I never said MSM reporters are saying that. I said MSM, which
*INCLUDES* representatives like Robertson and Falwell.
For example:
Tone of media coverage for Gore & Bush, 2000:
Positive news stories: Gore: 13%, Bush: 24%
Neutral news stories: Gore: 31%, Bush, 27%
Negative news stories: Gore: 56%, Bush, 49%
What bastion of left-wing spew website am I getting this from?
Pew Charitable Trusts: Project for Excellence in Journalism
http://tinyurl.com/9l9fe
Irrelevant.
Nice hand-waving.
You cited marriage and divorce statistics.
Yes, I did, in response to folks like Falwell or Robertson, who are,
I'm sorry to say, representatives of the right-wing, especially when
they appear on Fox News or CNN.
I never said that they weren't. But that doesn't make them
representatives of the network. And no, PAX isn't a mainstream
network.
Where'd you pull PAX from? I never mentioned PAX in any of my posts.
Did I?
I'm just preempting any idea you might have of claiming that they were a
mainstream network.
I never said they were, hence my lack of mention of them at all. In
fact, PAX is the furthest thing from my mind.
Limiting the playing field so I cannot include them is dishonest.
Pretending that they're network representatives is dishonest.
Too bad. They're on. They're representatives of the network.
Pretending that they aren't is dishonest.
Too bad yourself. Franken and Moore have been on. They're
representatives of the network. Pretending that they aren't is
dishonest. Your "logic" is extremely thin, DanielSan.
How many times have they been on?
Bob
Schieffer is a network representative. Dan Rather *was* a network
representative until he got caught peddling forged documents.
Oh, give it a *REST,* Fred. The memos were *NOT* forged! They were
*REPRINTED.*
Oh, give it a rest yourself, Daniel! They were *FORGED*. They were in a
fricking MS-WORD font and default format, for pete's sakes! There is no
way in hell that they were produced in the 1970's at an Air Reserve
base.
So, you don't know that they could've been copied from the originals
into MS Word format? You ever hear of "typesetting"? It's where the
originals got so damaged that they're no longer of use, so they took it
and digitized the information?
I used to work doing things like this; taking nearly-destroyed pieces of
data and putting them into a format wherein they will not degrade. And
I did it in Microsoft Word.
Did Rather report the originals? Nope. Did he report the truth? Yup.
And since he reported on digitized copies of the originals, his
illustrious career was slimed by right-wing hatred for the perceived
liberal-media bias.
forge (forj) v.tr. to fashion or reproduce for fraudulent purposes
reprint (re-print) v. to print again.
The information was valid. Therefore, it was *NOT* fraudulent, hence
not *forgeries.* Now who's beating a dead horse?
You think CBS can investigate itself without any conflict of interest?
The CBS did not investigate itself. They brought in ***** Thomburgh and
Louis D Baccardi, both serving as an "INDEPENDENT PANEL" to investigate it.
The information was *NOT* valid. There is absolutely *no* independent
confirmation of any of it.
Sure it was.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif
"Officer has a six year service obligation...and has completed 5 years,
4 months, and 5 days toward this obligation." Therefore, 8 months and
25 days he missed. IN fact, look at the top: "Report of Separation and
Record of Service in the Air National Guard of Texas and as a reserve of
the Air Force. Type of discharge: Honorable"
He didn't even *COMPLETE* it! Which "independent" source I get this
from? The Departments of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard Bureau.
It was presented with fraudulent intent for
political purposes.
Question: There were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John
Kerry. Where are the Texas Air National Guardsmen for Truth against
Bush? Heck, where are the Texas Air National Guardsmen for Bush?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
11 Jun 2005 03:38:11 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:jgHqe.4250$gL4.1302@trnddc07:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:YzFqe.3890$2K4.3129@trnddc08:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:ETsqe.178$1q5.64@trnddc02:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1118433053.424022.24310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672 @trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are
trying to "destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how
off-the-mark Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
<piggybacking since I didn't get DanielSan's reply>
No, I want a cite from the Main Stream Media about how US liberals
are trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Not the MSM
quoting some right-wingnut Christian either.
You know, limiting the playing field to not allow quotes from
"right-wingnut Christians" is disingenious.
No it's not. Quoting a right-winger, especially when we all know how
the networks *usually* quote conservatives, doesn't make the network
conservative.
When they have
"right-wingnut Christians" such as Falwell or Robertson on the
network, they might as well be representatives of the network.
When CNN quotes Chirac does that make them a French network?
When Franken or Moore appear on the TV, does that prove that the
networks are left-wing?
I didn't say that they "quote" Robertson or Falwell. I said "have
them on the network." Can you read? How many times has Moore or
Franken been on the network as opposed to Falwell or Robertson?
Probably more. Franken was on Saturday Night Live for a while, wasn't
he?
Oh, jeez, Fred. You're getting stupider than I took you for.
So? I hear moonbats citing Jon Stewart's Daily Show on a regular basis.
Chirac is irrelevant due to his being a non-American.
Heh.
But, let's try.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/
platform.88/
"We support efforts like the Adolescent Family Life program to
teach teens the traditional values of restraint and the sanctity of
marriage." --Republican National Convention
That's from a speaker at the convention. Try again. This time show
an MSM reporter saying it as their own opinion, not somebody they're
reporting about. You can't do it, can you?
Opinions are irrelevant to the original point. I was speaking about
the inordinate amount of times that the MSM "quote" the conservative
agenda by having conservatives on, versus how many times the MSM
"quote" the liberal agenda (which, by the way, is "freedom and
justice... FOR ALL," emphasis not mine).
Irrelevant to your original statement. Admit it, you can't produce
any actual MSM reporter saying that "US Liberals are trying to
destroy the sanctity of marriage."
No. I never said MSM reporters are saying that. I said MSM, which
*INCLUDES* representatives like Robertson and Falwell.
They are not representatives of the MSM. I can just as easily say that
the MSM is saying that "US Liberals are *not* trying to destroy the
sanctity of marriage" because of liberal spokesmen on the very same news
programs. You're seriously logic-impaired here, Daniel.
For example:
Tone of media coverage for Gore & Bush, 2000:
Positive news stories: Gore: 13%, Bush: 24%
Neutral news stories: Gore: 31%, Bush, 27%
Negative news stories: Gore: 56%, Bush, 49%
What bastion of left-wing spew website am I getting this from?
Pew Charitable Trusts: Project for Excellence in Journalism
http://tinyurl.com/9l9fe
Irrelevant.
Nice hand-waving.
Nice attempted diversion.
You cited marriage and divorce statistics.
Yes, I did, in response to folks like Falwell or Robertson, who
are, I'm sorry to say, representatives of the right-wing,
especially when they appear on Fox News or CNN.
I never said that they weren't. But that doesn't make them
representatives of the network. And no, PAX isn't a mainstream
network.
Where'd you pull PAX from? I never mentioned PAX in any of my posts.
Did I?
I'm just preempting any idea you might have of claiming that they
were a mainstream network.
I never said they were, hence my lack of mention of them at all. In
fact, PAX is the furthest thing from my mind.
Limiting the playing field so I cannot include them is dishonest.
Pretending that they're network representatives is dishonest.
Too bad. They're on. They're representatives of the network.
Pretending that they aren't is dishonest.
Too bad yourself. Franken and Moore have been on. They're
representatives of the network. Pretending that they aren't is
dishonest. Your "logic" is extremely thin, DanielSan.
How many times have they been on?
Plenty.
Bob
Schieffer is a network representative. Dan Rather *was* a network
representative until he got caught peddling forged documents.
Oh, give it a *REST,* Fred. The memos were *NOT* forged! They were
*REPRINTED.*
Oh, give it a rest yourself, Daniel! They were *FORGED*. They were in
a fricking MS-WORD font and default format, for pete's sakes! There
is no way in hell that they were produced in the 1970's at an Air
Reserve base.
So, you don't know that they could've been copied from the originals
into MS Word format?
Oh, please. Tell me the one about the cow that jumped over the moon,
it's more believable.
You ever hear of "typesetting"? It's where the
originals got so damaged that they're no longer of use, so they took
it and digitized the information?
That's such a stretch that it's not even worth repeating.
I used to work doing things like this; taking nearly-destroyed pieces
of data and putting them into a format wherein they will not degrade.
And I did it in Microsoft Word.
I'm sure you were given a few personal CYA notes from officers files to
retype. That is such *****, Daniel. How gullible are you?
Did Rather report the originals? Nope. Did he report the truth?
Yup.
Nope.
And since he reported on digitized copies of the originals, his
illustrious career was slimed by right-wing hatred for the perceived
liberal-media bias.
forge (forj) v.tr. to fashion or reproduce for fraudulent purposes
reprint (re-print) v. to print again.
The information was valid. Therefore, it was *NOT* fraudulent, hence
not *forgeries.* Now who's beating a dead horse?
You think CBS can investigate itself without any conflict of
interest?
The CBS did not investigate itself. They brought in ***** Thomburgh
and Louis D Baccardi, both serving as an "INDEPENDENT PANEL" to
investigate it.
Yeah, right, that's like if Bush brought in Frist and DeLay to
investigate the White House.
The information was *NOT* valid. There is absolutely *no* independent
confirmation of any of it.
Sure it was.
That doesn't confirm that there was anything wrong about his release
from the service.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif
"Officer has a six year service obligation...and has completed 5
years, 4 months, and 5 days toward this obligation." Therefore, 8
months and 25 days he missed.
Yes, he requested to be let go early so as to attend Harvard. He had
already fulfilled all his required hours for that year.
IN fact, look at the top: "Report of
Separation and Record of Service in the Air National Guard of Texas
and as a reserve of the Air Force. Type of discharge: Honorable"
No *****, sherlock. See? *Honorable*. No AWOL.
He didn't even *COMPLETE* it! Which "independent" source I get this
from? The Departments of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard
Bureau.
It was presented with fraudulent intent for
political purposes.
Question: There were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John
Kerry. Where are the Texas Air National Guardsmen for Truth against
Bush? Heck, where are the Texas Air National Guardsmen for Bush?
They're being ignored by the MSM since their statements don't suit the
agenda.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Reese" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
11 Jun 2005 07:16:01 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:jgHqe.4250$gL4.1302@trnddc07:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:YzFqe.3890$2K4.3129@trnddc08:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:ETsqe.178$1q5.64@trnddc02:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1118433053.424022.24310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672 @trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are
trying to "destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how
off-the-mark Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
<piggybacking since I didn't get DanielSan's reply>
No, I want a cite from the Main Stream Media about how US liberals
are trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Not the MSM
quoting some right-wingnut Christian either.
You know, limiting the playing field to not allow quotes from
"right-wingnut Christians" is disingenious.
No it's not. Quoting a right-winger, especially when we all know how
the networks *usually* quote conservatives, doesn't make the network
conservative.
When they have
"right-wingnut Christians" such as Falwell or Robertson on the
network, they might as well be representatives of the network.
When CNN quotes Chirac does that make them a French network?
When Franken or Moore appear on the TV, does that prove that the
networks are left-wing?
I didn't say that they "quote" Robertson or Falwell. I said "have
them on the network." Can you read? How many times has Moore or
Franken been on the network as opposed to Falwell or Robertson?
Probably more. Franken was on Saturday Night Live for a while, wasn't
he?
Oh, jeez, Fred. You're getting stupider than I took you for.
So? I hear moonbats citing Jon Stewart's Daily Show on a regular basis.
Chirac is irrelevant due to his being a non-American.
Heh.
But, let's try.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/
platform.88/
"We support efforts like the Adolescent Family Life program to
teach teens the traditional values of restraint and the sanctity of
marriage." --Republican National Convention
That's from a speaker at the convention. Try again. This time show
an MSM reporter saying it as their own opinion, not somebody they're
reporting about. You can't do it, can you?
Opinions are irrelevant to the original point. I was speaking about
the inordinate amount of times that the MSM "quote" the conservative
agenda by having conservatives on, versus how many times the MSM
"quote" the liberal agenda (which, by the way, is "freedom and
justice... FOR ALL," emphasis not mine).
Irrelevant to your original statement. Admit it, you can't produce
any actual MSM reporter saying that "US Liberals are trying to
destroy the sanctity of marriage."
No. I never said MSM reporters are saying that. I said MSM, which
*INCLUDES* representatives like Robertson and Falwell.
They are not representatives of the MSM. I can just as easily say that
the MSM is saying that "US Liberals are *not* trying to destroy the
sanctity of marriage" because of liberal spokesmen on the very same news
programs. You're seriously logic-impaired here, Daniel.
For example:
Tone of media coverage for Gore & Bush, 2000:
Positive news stories: Gore: 13%, Bush: 24%
Neutral news stories: Gore: 31%, Bush, 27%
Negative news stories: Gore: 56%, Bush, 49%
What bastion of left-wing spew website am I getting this from?
Pew Charitable Trusts: Project for Excellence in Journalism
http://tinyurl.com/9l9fe
Irrelevant.
Nice hand-waving.
Nice attempted diversion.
You cited marriage and divorce statistics.
Yes, I did, in response to folks like Falwell or Robertson, who
are, I'm sorry to say, representatives of the right-wing,
especially when they appear on Fox News or CNN.
I never said that they weren't. But that doesn't make them
representatives of the network. And no, PAX isn't a mainstream
network.
Where'd you pull PAX from? I never mentioned PAX in any of my posts.
Did I?
I'm just preempting any idea you might have of claiming that they
were a mainstream network.
I never said they were, hence my lack of mention of them at all. In
fact, PAX is the furthest thing from my mind.
Limiting the playing field so I cannot include them is dishonest.
Pretending that they're network representatives is dishonest.
Too bad. They're on. They're representatives of the network.
Pretending that they aren't is dishonest.
Too bad yourself. Franken and Moore have been on. They're
representatives of the network. Pretending that they aren't is
dishonest. Your "logic" is extremely thin, DanielSan.
How many times have they been on?
Plenty.
Bob
Schieffer is a network representative. Dan Rather *was* a network
representative until he got caught peddling forged documents.
Oh, give it a *REST,* Fred. The memos were *NOT* forged! They were
*REPRINTED.*
Oh, give it a rest yourself, Daniel! They were *FORGED*. They were in
a fricking MS-WORD font and default format, for pete's sakes! There
is no way in hell that they were produced in the 1970's at an Air
Reserve base.
So, you don't know that they could've been copied from the originals
into MS Word format?
Oh, please. Tell me the one about the cow that jumped over the moon,
it's more believable.
You ever hear of "typesetting"? It's where the
originals got so damaged that they're no longer of use, so they took
it and digitized the information?
That's such a stretch that it's not even worth repeating.
I used to work doing things like this; taking nearly-destroyed pieces
of data and putting them into a format wherein they will not degrade.
And I did it in Microsoft Word.
I'm sure you were given a few personal CYA notes from officers files to
retype. That is such *****, Daniel. How gullible are you?
Did Rather report the originals? Nope. Did he report the truth?
Yup.
Nope.
And since he reported on digitized copies of the originals, his
illustrious career was slimed by right-wing hatred for the perceived
liberal-media bias.
forge (forj) v.tr. to fashion or reproduce for fraudulent purposes
reprint (re-print) v. to print again.
The information was valid. Therefore, it was *NOT* fraudulent, hence
not *forgeries.* Now who's beating a dead horse?
You think CBS can investigate itself without any conflict of
interest?
The CBS did not investigate itself. They brought in ***** Thomburgh
and Louis D Baccardi, both serving as an "INDEPENDENT PANEL" to
investigate it.
Yeah, right, that's like if Bush brought in Frist and DeLay to
investigate the White House.
The information was *NOT* valid. There is absolutely *no* independent
confirmation of any of it.
Sure it was.
That doesn't confirm that there was anything wrong about his release
from the service.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif
"Officer has a six year service obligation...and has completed 5
years, 4 months, and 5 days toward this obligation." Therefore, 8
months and 25 days he missed.
Yes, he requested to be let go early so as to attend Harvard. He had
already fulfilled all his required hours for that year.
IN fact, look at the top: "Report of
Separation and Record of Service in the Air National Guard of Texas
and as a reserve of the Air Force. Type of discharge: Honorable"
No *****, sherlock. See? *Honorable*. No AWOL.
He didn't even *COMPLETE* it! Which "independent" source I get this
from? The Departments of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard
Bureau.
It was presented with fraudulent intent for
political purposes.
Question: There were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John
Kerry. Where are the Texas Air National Guardsmen for Truth against
Bush? Heck, where are the Texas Air National Guardsmen for Bush?
They're being ignored by the MSM since their statements don't suit the
agenda.
Actually, once it was known that their SOP was to misrepresent, omit
facts that didn't suit them, and spin . . . . you might say their stock
fell a bit.
The Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" statements suited no agenda except
their own. The connection with the truth -- the whole truth -- was
incidental, and relatively rare.
Doug Reese
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
11 Jun 2005 03:51:46 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:jgHqe.4250$gL4.1302@trnddc07:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:YzFqe.3890$2K4.3129@trnddc08:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:ETsqe.178$1q5.64@trnddc02:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1118433053.424022.24310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672 @trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are
trying to "destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how
off-the-mark Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
<piggybacking since I didn't get DanielSan's reply>
No, I want a cite from the Main Stream Media about how US liberals
are trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Not the MSM
quoting some right-wingnut Christian either.
You know, limiting the playing field to not allow quotes from
"right-wingnut Christians" is disingenious.
No it's not. Quoting a right-winger, especially when we all know how
the networks *usually* quote conservatives, doesn't make the network
conservative.
When they have
"right-wingnut Christians" such as Falwell or Robertson on the
network, they might as well be representatives of the network.
When CNN quotes Chirac does that make them a French network?
When Franken or Moore appear on the TV, does that prove that the
networks are left-wing?
I didn't say that they "quote" Robertson or Falwell. I said "have
them on the network." Can you read? How many times has Moore or
Franken been on the network as opposed to Falwell or Robertson?
Probably more. Franken was on Saturday Night Live for a while, wasn't
he?
Oh, jeez, Fred. You're getting stupider than I took you for.
So? I hear moonbats citing Jon Stewart's Daily Show on a regular basis.
....more stupidity from Fred.
SNL is a sketch comedy show. Al Franken's appearance on the show is
irrelevant.
Chirac is irrelevant due to his being a non-American.
Heh.
But, let's try.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/
platform.88/
"We support efforts like the Adolescent Family Life program to
teach teens the traditional values of restraint and the sanctity of
marriage." --Republican National Convention
That's from a speaker at the convention. Try again. This time show
an MSM reporter saying it as their own opinion, not somebody they're
reporting about. You can't do it, can you?
Opinions are irrelevant to the original point. I was speaking about
the inordinate amount of times that the MSM "quote" the conservative
agenda by having conservatives on, versus how many times the MSM
"quote" the liberal agenda (which, by the way, is "freedom and
justice... FOR ALL," emphasis not mine).
Irrelevant to your original statement. Admit it, you can't produce
any actual MSM reporter saying that "US Liberals are trying to
destroy the sanctity of marriage."
No. I never said MSM reporters are saying that. I said MSM, which
*INCLUDES* representatives like Robertson and Falwell.
They are not representatives of the MSM. I can just as easily say that
the MSM is saying that "US Liberals are *not* trying to destroy the
sanctity of marriage" because of liberal spokesmen on the very same news
programs. You're seriously logic-impaired here, Daniel.
....Fred once again proves that he's blinded by his red herrings and
attempts at diversion. Fred has diverted the conversation from facts
about divorce and sanctity of marriage and, instead, is focusing on one
line at the beginning of the post.
For example:
Tone of media coverage for Gore & Bush, 2000:
Positive news stories: Gore: 13%, Bush: 24%
Neutral news stories: Gore: 31%, Bush, 27%
Negative news stories: Gore: 56%, Bush, 49%
What bastion of left-wing spew website am I getting this from?
Pew Charitable Trusts: Project for Excellence in Journalism
http://tinyurl.com/9l9fe
Irrelevant.
Nice hand-waving.
Nice attempted diversion.
Why is the tone of coverage irrelevant?
You cited marriage and divorce statistics.
Yes, I did, in response to folks like Falwell or Robertson, who
are, I'm sorry to say, representatives of the right-wing,
especially when they appear on Fox News or CNN.
I never said that they weren't. But that doesn't make them
representatives of the network. And no, PAX isn't a mainstream
network.
Where'd you pull PAX from? I never mentioned PAX in any of my posts.
Did I?
I'm just preempting any idea you might have of claiming that they
were a mainstream network.
I never said they were, hence my lack of mention of them at all. In
fact, PAX is the furthest thing from my mind.
Limiting the playing field so I cannot include them is dishonest.
Pretending that they're network representatives is dishonest.
Too bad. They're on. They're representatives of the network.
Pretending that they aren't is dishonest.
Too bad yourself. Franken and Moore have been on. They're
representatives of the network. Pretending that they aren't is
dishonest. Your "logic" is extremely thin, DanielSan.
How many times have they been on?
Plenty.
Cite?
Bob
Schieffer is a network representative. Dan Rather *was* a network
representative until he got caught peddling forged documents.
Oh, give it a *REST,* Fred. The memos were *NOT* forged! They were
*REPRINTED.*
Oh, give it a rest yourself, Daniel! They were *FORGED*. They were in
a fricking MS-WORD font and default format, for pete's sakes! There
is no way in hell that they were produced in the 1970's at an Air
Reserve base.
So, you don't know that they could've been copied from the originals
into MS Word format?
Oh, please. Tell me the one about the cow that jumped over the moon,
it's more believable.
Nice evasion.
You ever hear of "typesetting"? It's where the
originals got so damaged that they're no longer of use, so they took
it and digitized the information?
That's such a stretch that it's not even worth repeating.
Nice evasion.
I used to work doing things like this; taking nearly-destroyed pieces
of data and putting them into a format wherein they will not degrade.
And I did it in Microsoft Word.
I'm sure you were given a few personal CYA notes from officers files to
retype. That is such *****, Daniel. How gullible are you?
I never worked for the Army. I worked for a financial printing company
which worked as an intermediary between companies and the SEC.
Did Rather report the originals? Nope. Did he report the truth?
Yup.
Nope.
Sorr, but he did.
And since he reported on digitized copies of the originals, his
illustrious career was slimed by right-wing hatred for the perceived
liberal-media bias.
forge (forj) v.tr. to fashion or reproduce for fraudulent purposes
reprint (re-print) v. to print again.
The information was valid. Therefore, it was *NOT* fraudulent, hence
not *forgeries.* Now who's beating a dead horse?
You think CBS can investigate itself without any conflict of
interest?
The CBS did not investigate itself. They brought in ***** Thomburgh
and Louis D Baccardi, both serving as an "INDEPENDENT PANEL" to
investigate it.
Yeah, right, that's like if Bush brought in Frist and DeLay to
investigate the White House.
Um, ***** Thornburgh (I misspelled his name, my apologies) was the
Attorney General for the United States and served under TWO presidents,
and is a registered Republican.
If you think that a republican-AG is "partisan" then explain John Ashcroft.
The information was *NOT* valid. There is absolutely *no* independent
confirmation of any of it.
Sure it was.
That doesn't confirm that there was anything wrong about his release
from the service.
Honorable, yes. AWOL, technically, no.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif
"Officer has a six year service obligation...and has completed 5
years, 4 months, and 5 days toward this obligation." Therefore, 8
months and 25 days he missed.
Yes, he requested to be let go early so as to attend Harvard. He had
already fulfilled all his required hours for that year.
IN fact, look at the top: "Report of
Separation and Record of Service in the Air National Guard of Texas
and as a reserve of the Air Force. Type of discharge: Honorable"
No *****, sherlock. See? *Honorable*. No AWOL.
Not technically.
He didn't even *COMPLETE* it! Which "independent" source I get this
from? The Departments of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard
Bureau.
It was presented with fraudulent intent for
political purposes.
Question: There were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John
Kerry. Where are the Texas Air National Guardsmen for Truth against
Bush? Heck, where are the Texas Air National Guardsmen for Bush?
They're being ignored by the MSM since their statements don't suit the
agenda.
So, where are they? Got a URL I can connect to?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 03:20:48 PM |
|
|
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118433053.424022.24310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672
@trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying to
"destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how off-the-mark
Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
You will be accorded due respect when you define the value of "per
capita" in
your post. Until then, you will be considered overwhelmed with
ignorance,
snowden.
Per capita is a well-accepted term meaning per person (literally, "per
head" in Latin). It means, basically, that the statistics take
population into account rather than just reporting total numbers of
divorces.
Why do you consider this to be a problem, duke?
Because he is a complete idiot, and prefers to remain blissfully so. Even if
that includes asking stupid questions rather than accept and admit that he's
wrong about any of his petty, hate-filled 'ideas.'
He clings to his delusions with the tenacity of a doberman on a raw pork
chop.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 04:33:34 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118433053.424022.24310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672
@trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying to
"destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how off-the-mark
Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
You will be accorded due respect when you define the value of "per
capita" in
your post. Until then, you will be considered overwhelmed with
ignorance,
snowden.
Per capita is a well-accepted term meaning per person (literally, "per
head" in Latin). It means, basically, that the statistics take
population into account rather than just reporting total numbers of
divorces.
Why do you consider this to be a problem, duke?
Because he is a complete idiot, and prefers to remain blissfully so. Even if
that includes asking stupid questions rather than accept and admit that he's
wrong about any of his petty, hate-filled 'ideas.'
He clings to his delusions with the tenacity of a doberman on a raw pork
chop.
Oh, I know all of that. I'm just wondering what in his twisted little
mind leads him to conclude that "per capita" is something sinister or
that has to be defined, or whatever he thinks. Actually, I wish I'd
asked him off the top what he thinks "per capita" means, because that
might have been good for a laugh.
Jon.
aa #703
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 09:21:36 PM |
|
|
Jon. wrote:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:10:55 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in news:Vefqe.27757$KQ2.13672
@trnddc08:
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying to
"destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how off-the-mark
Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
I provided cites. You've snipped them.
You will be accorded due respect when you define the value of "per capita" in
your post. Until then, you will be considered overwhelmed with ignorance,
snowden.
Per capita is a well-accepted term meaning per person (literally, "per
head" in Latin). It means, basically, that the statistics take
population into account rather than just reporting total numbers of
divorces.
Why do you consider this to be a problem, duke?
Anything that contradicts his preconceived notions are automatically
suspect to him!
James
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 11:23:48 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:44:46 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying to
"destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how off-the-mark
Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
Fred, he gave his source in the first bloody paragraph of his post!
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 12:36:59 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:mlfja1dkeir4p6d5g5oh67t4g7vi4n8931@4ax.com:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:44:46 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
To listen to the Main Stream Media tell it, US Liberals are trying
to "destroy the sanctity of marriage." This shows how off-the-mark
Republicans and the majority of the MSM are.
Cites?
Fred, he gave his source in the first bloody paragraph of his post!
That *is* the first bloody paragraph of his post. I want to know which
MSM is saying that "US Liberals are trying to destroy the sanctity of
marriage" when they're not quoting Christian Right-wing goofballs.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 02:59:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:36:59 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
That *is* the first bloody paragraph of his post. I want to know which
MSM is saying that "US Liberals are trying to destroy the sanctity of
marriage" when they're not quoting Christian Right-wing goofballs.
So, the United States Census Bureau is now opart of the Evil Liberal
Media?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 03:24:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:36:59 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
That *is* the first bloody paragraph of his post. I want to know which
MSM is saying that "US Liberals are trying to destroy the sanctity of
marriage" when they're not quoting Christian Right-wing goofballs.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
There, is three times enough for you? That, sir, is a *government*
website.
You know, the thing that you worship with Calvinist fevor?
The Census put out these numbers.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 04:24:28 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:kcsja117e7dgomi2ibttjkp9eeqmo2mf2o@4ax.com:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:36:59 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
That *is* the first bloody paragraph of his post. I want to know which
MSM is saying that "US Liberals are trying to destroy the sanctity of
marriage" when they're not quoting Christian Right-wing goofballs.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
There, is three times enough for you? That, sir, is a *government*
website.
You know, the thing that you worship with Calvinist fevor?
The Census put out these numbers.
Those are divorce statistics. That's not what I asked for.
You know, maybe if you paid a little more attention to my question you
wouldn't look quite so silly.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 06:27:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:24:28 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:kcsja117e7dgomi2ibttjkp9eeqmo2mf2o@4ax.com:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:36:59 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
That *is* the first bloody paragraph of his post. I want to know which
MSM is saying that "US Liberals are trying to destroy the sanctity of
marriage" when they're not quoting Christian Right-wing goofballs.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
There, is three times enough for you? That, sir, is a *government*
website.
You know, the thing that you worship with Calvinist fevor?
The Census put out these numbers.
Those are divorce statistics. That's not what I asked for.
Fred, you're an illiterate lying sack of RepubliCUNT *****.
Section 126 -- Marriages and Divorces -- Number and Rate by State:
1990 to 2001.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
You know, maybe if you paid a little more attention to the material
you wouldn't look quite so silly.
Do you really need it spelled out that this is MARRIAGE and divorce
statistics by state? The same states that went either red or blue in
the 2004 elections? Do you also need to be slapped upside the head by
the fact that these same statistics were gathered and published by
your fascist, neo-con, RepubliCUNT controlled government, you piece of
inhuman offal?
Now pull your head out of your funk-contaminated ***** and count the
number of times you've lied in this thread alone.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 08:18:54 PM |
|
|
Bonnie B. <456eerts@emas.org> wrote in
news:538ka1th2i3eck1unfdkr1lhdtll7aiho3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:24:28 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:kcsja117e7dgomi2ibttjkp9eeqmo2mf2o@4ax.com:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:36:59 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69
@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
That *is* the first bloody paragraph of his post. I want to know
which
MSM is saying that "US Liberals are trying to destroy the sanctity
of
marriage" when they're not quoting Christian Right-wing goofballs.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf
There, is three times enough for you? That, sir, is a *government*
website.
You know, the thing that you worship with Calvinist fevor?
The Census put out these numbers.
Those are divorce statistics. That's not what I asked for.
Fred, you're an illiterate lying sack of RepubliCUNT *****.
This is fucking hilarious. Porn sites aren't this much fun.
Bonnie, you stupid fucking illiterate Democrat, that's NOT WHAT I ASKED
FOR. One more time - I WANT TO KNOW WHICH MSM SAYS THAT "US Liberals are
trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage" when they're not quoting
Christian Right-wing goofballs.
Now are you silly gulliberal moonbats going to pay attention or not?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
10 Jun 2005 11:10:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 01:18:54 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
<snip>
***** right off, Fred.
I'm not interested in your RepubliCUNT fantasies.
You lied, you got busted, you lied some more, you got your ***** kicked.
Live with it, you fucktarded, illiterate, Reagan-worshipping smegma
blotch.
Love,
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sanctity of Marriage in the United States? |
11 Jun 2005 08:45:20 AM |
|
|
Bonnie B. <456eerts@emas.org> wrote in
news:otoka1d7k52g87jj33bhid1alrg9nj44as@4ax.com:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 01:18:54 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
<snip>
***** right off, Fred.
I'm not interested in your RepubliCUNT fantasies.
You lied, you got busted, you lied some more, you got your ***** kicked.
Live with it, you fucktarded, illiterate, Reagan-worshipping smegma
blotch.
I see that you had to snip everything in order to "prove" that I lied.
Love,
Bonnie *****, the moron
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
