|
Sports » rec.sport.football.college » Lies, damned lies...
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741870 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 19:24 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:55:58 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>
>>>You needed help.
>>>
>>
>>You just said that abortion was better than the alternative.
>>
>>And you're constantly crowing about your wealth and "success". (Unlike
>>Jonah, apparently, you can make the rutabaga grow. )
>
>
> I have never said one word about being wealthy; I have said
> comfortable.
>
>
>>You're the cause of what's happened in your life.
>
>
> God gave me a little talent and I put my shoulder to the wheel.
So, you made the rutabaga grow.
>
>
>>This isn't incidental, Hugh. This is stuff you do every other post. Your
>>statement that abortion was better than the alternative broke the bank.
>
>
> Abortion is better than coat hangers in the alley - a statement I have
> made several times here. If you have forgotten you brain is broke,
> too.
The timing is irrelevant.
>
> In fact just today I read a statement by the cowardly draft dodger
> Bill Clinton with which I agree. "Abortion should be legal, safe and
> rare."
I'm not talking, I don't think, to Clinton. I'm talking to you.
>
> As far as my posts not being unique you liberals constantly come up
> with the same tired old crap and the number of ways to describe the
> idiocy are limited
>
>>If you're actually the old man you say you are in your posts (I've never
>>been convinced, completely. I smell a rat sometimes.) then you've got a
>>foot in the grave and you'd better re-examine some of your beliefs
>>sooner rather than later.
>
>
> From the moment we are born we have a foot in the grave so I've had a
> foot there for 78 years, 18 days, 18 hours and 14 minutes as I type
> this. The only belief I need to re-examine is why I let liberals and
> trash cause me to be less a Christian than I should be. Christ thought
> they were lost sheep - I think they are lost jackasses. See what I
> mean!
>
You're still endorsing death when you accept abortion.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741873 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 19:26 |
|
On 12 Dec 2005 10:06:43 -0800, in talk.origins , "Tom Enright"
<freddy_hayek [at] yahoo.com> in
<1134410803.529662.92190 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>Matt Silberstein, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
>
>> On 12 Dec 2005 05:00:04 -0800, in talk.origins , "Tom Enright"
>> <freddy_hayek [at] yahoo.com> in
>> <1134392404.285423.267590 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> >Matt Silberstein, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
>> >
>> >> ROTFLMAO. Yep, arrogance, the true mark of the True Christian.
>
>> >Any comments about people's "True" religion in relationship to
>> >Darfur?
>> >
>> >No, I didn't think so. Hypocrite.
>
>> Yeah, if I don't respond while you are still composing the post I must
>> be a hypocrite. My comment about "True" religion in relationship to
>> Darfur is that I don't care about the religion of any of the
>> participants, I just don't happen to like genocide. You are free to
>> disagree.
>
>I see. One person's alleged arrogance allows you to describe all
>Christians in a particular negative manner. OTOH, tens of
>thousands of dead in Darfur and you want to play nuance and
>mention how you don't care about a specific religion.
Whoosh.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741884 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 19:56 |
|
On 12 Dec 2005 09:48:06 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 11 Dec 2005 09:06:34 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan escreveu:
>> >> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> >> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:24:52 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>> >> >sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>> >> ><4399e719.24160531 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:46:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> >> >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>> >> >>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>> >> >>><4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> >> >>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:43:41 GMT, in talk.origins , "Jefferson N
>> >> >>>>>Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> in
>> >> >>>>><xb6mf.235893$ir4.203932 [at] edtnps90> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>[snip]
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>France has taxes, right?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Please tell me what country, existent or in the past, that you think
>> >> >>>>>is a good model?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
>> >> >>>>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
>> >> >>>>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
>> >> >>>days in existence?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
>> >> >
>> >> >So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
>> >> >not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
>> >> >a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
>> >> >not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
>> >> >could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
>> >> >world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
>> >> >inspection.
>> >> >
>> >> >[snip]
>> >>
>> >> First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
>> >> opinions. Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
>> >> out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
>> >> world provably better? If your only answer is human rights, China
>> >> appears to be doing very well.
>> >
>> >What's China got to do with it? The resolution of those problems made
>> >the world better because black people and women could vote. That's a
>> >big deal already
>>
>> Well, your denseness, China has an utter disregard for human rights
>> and is doing very well. So human rights alone didn't make us great.
>
>You're a very angry person.
Yep.
>I don't think China is doing that well. If it were people would be
>trying to go there. And you don't see that. Maybe because economic
>growth isn't everything. I don't think you'd be able to express your
>views so freely if you were there
My response was to the point that human rights seemed to be the basis
for our progress over the years. My point was that it obviously was
not and I gave an example.
I'm not an activist in expressing views. My posts are about football
and responses to liberal idiocy.
>> >> I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
>> >> much worse off, albeit their right.
>> >
>> >Maybe for you, but certainly not for them.
>>
>> You really grasp the obvious, don't you?
>
>You don't seem to be grasping it though. If your interests are contrary
>to the vast majority's interests you shouldn't be surprised if nobody
>agrees with you. All you have left is your old hermit routine
1. My vote in the last two Presidential elections counted so your
"vast majority" is only in your dreams.
2. I really don't care whether anyone agrees with me. In fact I expect
naive young people to disagree. The SCOTUS will soon be agreeing with
me. thus trumping your pipe dreams.
>
>> >>
>> >> And we had child labor laws and drug laws in the 40s - I don't recall
>> >> about food inspection. I know beef was inspected. And the restaurants
>> >> back then were very clean of their own volition - they were Mom an Pop
>> >> restaurants and repeat business depended on it. Knowing when you will
>> >> be inspected sorta defeats the purpose.
>> >>
>> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
>> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
>> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
>> >
>> >So ... Do you or do you not want to live longer? If you don't want to
>> >live longer in order to not be infected by those deseases you can
>> >allways kill yourself. Or get infected with tuberculosis and die with a
>> >desease from the good old days. Whatever pleases you best.
>
>Strange... no coment here? I guess your eyes are blind to what
>contradicts your scatological views
The answer to the question seemed obvious. Your comments were absurd.
>
>> >>
>> >> We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
>> >> more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
>> >> problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
>> >> single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
>> >> made it better than the old simple one.
>> >
>> >where - exactly - do you draw the line betwen what belongs to the good
>> >old days and what belongs to the dark new times? Are you saying that
>> >all that you wrote above is recent?
>>
>> Please read again and not the word "more" is used frequently.
>
>well, i think the threat of nuclear disaster for one has been greater
>in the past than it is now. As for civil rights and harassment problems
>that has to do with having recognized some civil rights which were not
>recognized before. That's good. People need to fight for their rights
People need to understand their rights. There is considerable evidence
they don't.
>> >> You have the minimum wage which has driven up costs to the point where
>> >> we have to outsource and renege on pensions to remain in business.
>> >> Bankruptcies are at an all-time high as are crowded prisons. You have
>> >> won some and lost some.
>> >
>> >The ones responsible for this trait are big corps who would rather
>> >transfer their production to countries where people don't hav any
>> >rights and so can be exploited relentlessly. Or are you saying that the
>> >ones to blame are the people who refuse to be slaves?
>>
>> I wasn't a slave, I wasn't exploited and I started at about $1.15 per
>> hour and we lived pretty well. I went to work with a corporation 2
>> years later for about $1.70 per hour. And I retired at age 59.
>> Liberals and the union boosted the wage and drove the jobs out of the
>> country. You people just can't handle life.
>
>Liberals and the unions? It's the economy stupid. If the gross of
>production is being transfered to places where the average income is
>nowadays bellow what you earned decades ago and there is no subsequent
>fall in the prices is it still the unions and liberals' fault. Or is it
>just that the greedy bastards who run those companies don't care about
>you or any other organic automaton running their errands.
>What is your solution? Should the minimum wage be extinguished,
>healthcare destroyed, child labour laws revoked? What if we start
>working for nothing at all? That would be perfect right? No need to
>outsource. Maybe you would like to see more sweatshops around. I'm sure
>the number of drugies and bastards would diminish.
>
>What I don't get is: are you masochistic, a sadist or just frustrated?
First, it's nothing sexual. Next, I have no desire to inflict pain on
myself. I say what I think - if the readers can't take it they have
several choices. Third, I don't know what frustrated means.
>>
>> >> The list could continue "on into the night" ("ad infinitum" in Latin).
>> >> 8-)
>> >>
>> >> When were the good times is certainly arguable.
>> >
>> >One more sign of your confusion
>>
>> But I'm the one who is comfortable while you have the problems. You
>> should be so lucky to be as confused as I am.
>
>Strange ... You seem to be the one complaining about everything
That'll be the day. I'm loving it because I'm still winning.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741887 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 20:05 |
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:24:26 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:55:58 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>You needed help.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You just said that abortion was better than the alternative.
>>>
>>>And you're constantly crowing about your wealth and "success". (Unlike
>>>Jonah, apparently, you can make the rutabaga grow. )
>>
>>
>> I have never said one word about being wealthy; I have said
>> comfortable.
>>
>>
>>>You're the cause of what's happened in your life.
>>
>>
>> God gave me a little talent and I put my shoulder to the wheel.
>
>
>So, you made the rutabaga grow.
All I did was fertilize and water - it did what God created it to do.
>>>This isn't incidental, Hugh. This is stuff you do every other post. Your
>>>statement that abortion was better than the alternative broke the bank.
>>
>>
>> Abortion is better than coat hangers in the alley - a statement I have
>> made several times here. If you have forgotten you brain is broke,
>> too.
>
>The timing is irrelevant.
>>
>> In fact just today I read a statement by the cowardly draft dodger
>> Bill Clinton with which I agree. "Abortion should be legal, safe and
>> rare."
>
>I'm not talking, I don't think, to Clinton. I'm talking to you.
For once he spoke for me.
>> As far as my posts not being unique you liberals constantly come up
>> with the same tired old crap and the number of ways to describe the
>> idiocy are limited
>>
>>>If you're actually the old man you say you are in your posts (I've never
>>>been convinced, completely. I smell a rat sometimes.) then you've got a
>>>foot in the grave and you'd better re-examine some of your beliefs
>>>sooner rather than later.
>>
>>
>> From the moment we are born we have a foot in the grave so I've had a
>> foot there for 78 years, 18 days, 18 hours and 14 minutes as I type
>> this. The only belief I need to re-examine is why I let liberals and
>> trash cause me to be less a Christian than I should be. Christ thought
>> they were lost sheep - I think they are lost jackasses. See what I
>> mean!
>>
>
>You're still endorsing death when you accept abortion.
Life occurs when the fetus can exist outside the womb, not before.
Abortions after that time are murder and I don't approve. The decision
must be made timely and not for unworthy purposes.
You apparently don't agree. Your's then is the emotional position
while mine is the logical one. When you can't please everyone make
both sides mad then you have a workable answer.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741889 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 20:07 |
|
On 12 Dec 2005 10:06:43 -0800, "Tom Enright" <freddy_hayek [at] yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>Matt Silberstein, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
>
>> On 12 Dec 2005 05:00:04 -0800, in talk.origins , "Tom Enright"
>> <freddy_hayek [at] yahoo.com> in
>> <1134392404.285423.267590 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> >Matt Silberstein, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
>> >
>> >> ROTFLMAO. Yep, arrogance, the true mark of the True Christian.
>
>> >Any comments about people's "True" religion in relationship to
>> >Darfur?
>> >
>> >No, I didn't think so. Hypocrite.
>
>> Yeah, if I don't respond while you are still composing the post I must
>> be a hypocrite. My comment about "True" religion in relationship to
>> Darfur is that I don't care about the religion of any of the
>> participants, I just don't happen to like genocide. You are free to
>> disagree.
>
>I see. One person's alleged arrogance allows you to describe all
>Christians in a particular negative manner.
Anyone can paint with a broad brush - it takes more skill to be
precise. I guess he does the best he can.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741891 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 20:13 |
|
Tom Enright wrote:
> Matt Silberstein, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
>
> > On 12 Dec 2005 05:00:04 -0800, in talk.origins , "Tom Enright"
> > <freddy_hayek [at] yahoo.com> in
> > <1134392404.285423.267590 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > >Matt Silberstein, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
> > >
> > >> ROTFLMAO. Yep, arrogance, the true mark of the True Christian.
>
> > >Any comments about people's "True" religion in relationship to
> > >Darfur?
> > >
> > >No, I didn't think so. Hypocrite.
>
> > Yeah, if I don't respond while you are still composing the post I must
> > be a hypocrite. My comment about "True" religion in relationship to
> > Darfur is that I don't care about the religion of any of the
> > participants, I just don't happen to like genocide. You are free to
> > disagree.
>
> I see. One person's alleged arrogance allows you to describe all
> Christians in a particular negative manner.
Tom, I think you have misunderstood Matt. He said; "Yep, arrogance, the
true mark of the True Christian." He was clearly NOT referring to all
Christians. Just the one who claim that *they* are the "True
Christians". Many fundamentalists, for example, do not regard Catholics
or Anglicans as Christians. It is the arrogance of a *subset* of
Christians Matt was referring to - the ones who insist that only their
version of Christianity is "Christian". Sullivan's posts are rather
stupid versions of this kind of arrogance.
> OTOH, tens of
> thousands of dead in Darfur and you want to play nuance and
> mention how you don't care about a specific religion.
Go back and reread what Matt wrote. I think you have badly missed his
point.
>
> -Tom Enright
>
> > --
> > Matt Silberstein
> >
> > Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
> >
> > http://www.beawitness.org
> > http://www.darfurgenocide.org
> > http://www.savedarfur.org
> >
> > "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741894 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 20:20 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2005 09:48:06 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On 11 Dec 2005 09:06:34 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan escreveu:
> >> >> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> >> >> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:24:52 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >> >> >sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> >> >> ><4399e719.24160531 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:46:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> >> >> >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >> >> >>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> >> >> >>><4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> >> >> >>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:43:41 GMT, in talk.origins , "Jefferson N
> >> >> >>>>>Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> in
> >> >> >>>>><xb6mf.235893$ir4.203932 [at] edtnps90> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>[snip]
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>France has taxes, right?
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>Please tell me what country, existent or in the past, that you think
> >> >> >>>>>is a good model?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
> >> >> >>>>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
> >> >> >>>>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
> >> >> >>>days in existence?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
> >> >> >not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
> >> >> >a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
> >> >> >not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
> >> >> >could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
> >> >> >world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
> >> >> >inspection.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >[snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
> >> >> opinions. Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
> >> >> out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
> >> >> world provably better? If your only answer is human rights, China
> >> >> appears to be doing very well.
> >> >
> >> >What's China got to do with it? The resolution of those problems made
> >> >the world better because black people and women could vote. That's a
> >> >big deal already
> >>
> >> Well, your denseness, China has an utter disregard for human rights
> >> and is doing very well. So human rights alone didn't make us great.
> >
> >You're a very angry person.
>
> Yep.
>
> >I don't think China is doing that well. If it were people would be
> >trying to go there. And you don't see that. Maybe because economic
> >growth isn't everything. I don't think you'd be able to express your
> >views so freely if you were there
>
> My response was to the point that human rights seemed to be the basis
> for our progress over the years. My point was that it obviously was
> not and I gave an example.
>
My idea of progress is a bit broader than yours. It isn't limited to
material progress. If that's what you're talking about, then you're
right.
> I'm not an activist in expressing views. My posts are about football
> and responses to liberal idiocy.
you should stick to football
>
> >> >> I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
> >> >> much worse off, albeit their right.
> >> >
> >> >Maybe for you, but certainly not for them.
> >>
> >> You really grasp the obvious, don't you?
> >
> >You don't seem to be grasping it though. If your interests are contrary
> >to the vast majority's interests you shouldn't be surprised if nobody
> >agrees with you. All you have left is your old hermit routine
>
> 1. My vote in the last two Presidential elections counted so your
> "vast majority" is only in your dreams.
I thought even the republican party was a bit too mild for your taste.
My mistake.
>
> 2. I really don't care whether anyone agrees with me. In fact I expect
> naive young people to disagree. The SCOTUS will soon be agreeing with
> me. thus trumping your pipe dreams.
true
>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> And we had child labor laws and drug laws in the 40s - I don't recall
> >> >> about food inspection. I know beef was inspected. And the restaurants
> >> >> back then were very clean of their own volition - they were Mom an Pop
> >> >> restaurants and repeat business depended on it. Knowing when you will
> >> >> be inspected sorta defeats the purpose.
> >> >>
> >> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
> >> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
> >> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
> >> >
> >> >So ... Do you or do you not want to live longer? If you don't want to
> >> >live longer in order to not be infected by those deseases you can
> >> >allways kill yourself. Or get infected with tuberculosis and die with a
> >> >desease from the good old days. Whatever pleases you best.
> >
> >Strange... no coment here? I guess your eyes are blind to what
> >contradicts your scatological views
>
> The answer to the question seemed obvious. Your comments were absurd.
Not that obvious or absurd considering your comments. Or can't you spot
the contradiction?
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
> >> >> more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
> >> >> problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
> >> >> single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
> >> >> made it better than the old simple one.
> >> >
> >> >where - exactly - do you draw the line betwen what belongs to the good
> >> >old days and what belongs to the dark new times? Are you saying that
> >> >all that you wrote above is recent?
> >>
> >> Please read again and not the word "more" is used frequently.
> >
> >well, i think the threat of nuclear disaster for one has been greater
> >in the past than it is now. As for civil rights and harassment problems
> >that has to do with having recognized some civil rights which were not
> >recognized before. That's good. People need to fight for their rights
>
> People need to understand their rights. There is considerable evidence
> they don't.
You being a fine example of that
>
> >> >> You have the minimum wage which has driven up costs to the point where
> >> >> we have to outsource and renege on pensions to remain in business.
> >> >> Bankruptcies are at an all-time high as are crowded prisons. You have
> >> >> won some and lost some.
> >> >
> >> >The ones responsible for this trait are big corps who would rather
> >> >transfer their production to countries where people don't hav any
> >> >rights and so can be exploited relentlessly. Or are you saying that the
> >> >ones to blame are the people who refuse to be slaves?
> >>
> >> I wasn't a slave, I wasn't exploited and I started at about $1.15 per
> >> hour and we lived pretty well. I went to work with a corporation 2
> >> years later for about $1.70 per hour. And I retired at age 59.
> >> Liberals and the union boosted the wage and drove the jobs out of the
> >> country. You people just can't handle life.
> >
> >Liberals and the unions? It's the economy stupid. If the gross of
> >production is being transfered to places where the average income is
> >nowadays bellow what you earned decades ago and there is no subsequent
> >fall in the prices is it still the unions and liberals' fault. Or is it
> >just that the greedy bastards who run those companies don't care about
> >you or any other organic automaton running their errands.
> >What is your solution? Should the minimum wage be extinguished,
> >healthcare destroyed, child labour laws revoked? What if we start
> >working for nothing at all? That would be perfect right? No need to
> >outsource. Maybe you would like to see more sweatshops around. I'm sure
> >the number of drugies and bastards would diminish.
> >
> >What I don't get is: are you masochistic, a sadist or just frustrated?
>
> First, it's nothing sexual. Next, I have no desire to inflict pain on
> myself. I say what I think - if the readers can't take it they have
> several choices.
a sadist then. or maybe you just want to get even since you can't fight
the powerful and need to follow them arround in whatever greedy scheme
they've got. Hope the crumbs left after their feasts are enough to go
on satisfying you.
But of course they will. You're a good boy aren't you?
> Third, I don't know what frustrated means.
Good for you. It might help you not having to deal with the fealing
> >> >> The list could continue "on into the night" ("ad infinitum" in Latin).
> >> >> 8-)
> >> >>
> >> >> When were the good times is certainly arguable.
> >> >
> >> >One more sign of your confusion
> >>
> >> But I'm the one who is comfortable while you have the problems. You
> >> should be so lucky to be as confused as I am.
> >
> >Strange ... You seem to be the one complaining about everything
>
> That'll be the day. I'm loving it because I'm still winning.
what about this:
"We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
made it better than the old simple one."
you really are confusion (or maybe the memory's going eh)
Chico
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741900 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 20:47 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
[snip]
>
> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
>
Wait a minute. Diseases arise of their own accord; ""our generation"
isn't responsible for AIDS or Legionnaire's or bird flu or cancer any
more than "your generation" was responsible for polio or the clap.
Neither does living longer by itself put you at greater risk for
contracting any of those.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741902 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 20:52 |
|
John Bode wrote:
> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
> > Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
> > longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
> >
>
> Wait a minute. Diseases arise of their own accord; ""our generation"
> isn't responsible for AIDS or Legionnaire's or bird flu or cancer any
> more than "your generation" was responsible for polio or the clap.
>
> Neither does living longer by itself put you at greater risk for
> contracting any of those.
Well, for some kinds of cancer it does.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742175 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 16:14 |
|
On 12 Dec 2005 11:20:16 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >I don't think China is doing that well. If it were people would be
>> >trying to go there. And you don't see that. Maybe because economic
>> >growth isn't everything. I don't think you'd be able to express your
>> >views so freely if you were there
>>
>> My response was to the point that human rights seemed to be the basis
>> for our progress over the years. My point was that it obviously was
>> not and I gave an example.
>>
>
>My idea of progress is a bit broader than yours. It isn't limited to
>material progress. If that's what you're talking about, then you're
>right.
The Constitution rights are life, liberty and the PURSUIT of
happiness. I don't see any of those being denied in this country today
even though some fringe elements are whining.
>> I'm not an activist in expressing views. My posts are about football
>> and responses to liberal idiocy.
>
>you should stick to football
I would if liberals did. I have no axe to grind - I grind someone
else's.
>> >> >> I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
>> >> >> much worse off, albeit their right.
>> >> >
>> >> >Maybe for you, but certainly not for them.
>> >>
>> >> You really grasp the obvious, don't you?
>> >
>> >You don't seem to be grasping it though. If your interests are contrary
>> >to the vast majority's interests you shouldn't be surprised if nobody
>> >agrees with you. All you have left is your old hermit routine
>>
>> 1. My vote in the last two Presidential elections counted so your
>> "vast majority" is only in your dreams.
>
>I thought even the republican party was a bit too mild for your taste.
>My mistake.
Yes and no.
>> 2. I really don't care whether anyone agrees with me. In fact I expect
>> naive young people to disagree. The SCOTUS will soon be agreeing with
>> me. thus trumping your pipe dreams.
>
>true
>>
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And we had child labor laws and drug laws in the 40s - I don't recall
>> >> >> about food inspection. I know beef was inspected. And the restaurants
>> >> >> back then were very clean of their own volition - they were Mom an Pop
>> >> >> restaurants and repeat business depended on it. Knowing when you will
>> >> >> be inspected sorta defeats the purpose.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
>> >> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
>> >> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
>> >> >
>> >> >So ... Do you or do you not want to live longer? If you don't want to
>> >> >live longer in order to not be infected by those deseases you can
>> >> >allways kill yourself. Or get infected with tuberculosis and die with a
>> >> >desease from the good old days. Whatever pleases you best.
>> >
>> >Strange... no coment here? I guess your eyes are blind to what
>> >contradicts your scatological views
>>
>> The answer to the question seemed obvious. Your comments were absurd.
>
>Not that obvious or absurd considering your comments. Or can't you spot
>the contradiction?
The contradictions were on purpose to show that most gains were
accompanied by losses. Sorry you missed it.
>> >> >> We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
>> >> >> more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
>> >> >> problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
>> >> >> single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
>> >> >> made it better than the old simple one.
>> >> >
>> >> >where - exactly - do you draw the line betwen what belongs to the good
>> >> >old days and what belongs to the dark new times? Are you saying that
>> >> >all that you wrote above is recent?
>> >>
>> >> Please read again and note the word "more" is used frequently.
>> >
>> >well, i think the threat of nuclear disaster for one has been greater
>> >in the past than it is now. As for civil rights and harassment problems
>> >that has to do with having recognized some civil rights which were not
>> >recognized before. That's good. People need to fight for their rights
>>
>> People need to understand their rights. There is considerable evidence
>> they don't.
>
>You being a fine example of that
One has the right to be a liberal or a queer or an atheist. I have the
right to diss him. What don't I understand?
>> >> >> You have the minimum wage which has driven up costs to the point where
>> >> >> we have to outsource and renege on pensions to remain in business.
>> >> >> Bankruptcies are at an all-time high as are crowded prisons. You have
>> >> >> won some and lost some.
>> >> >
>> >> >The ones responsible for this trait are big corps who would rather
>> >> >transfer their production to countries where people don't hav any
>> >> >rights and so can be exploited relentlessly. Or are you saying that the
>> >> >ones to blame are the people who refuse to be slaves?
>> >>
>> >> I wasn't a slave, I wasn't exploited and I started at about $1.15 per
>> >> hour and we lived pretty well. I went to work with a corporation 2
>> >> years later for about $1.70 per hour. And I retired at age 59.
>> >> Liberals and the union boosted the wage and drove the jobs out of the
>> >> country. You people just can't handle life.
>> >
>> >Liberals and the unions? It's the economy stupid. If the gross of
>> >production is being transfered to places where the average income is
>> >nowadays bellow what you earned decades ago and there is no subsequent
>> >fall in the prices is it still the unions and liberals' fault. Or is it
>> >just that the greedy bastards who run those companies don't care about
>> >you or any other organic automaton running their errands.
>> >What is your solution? Should the minimum wage be extinguished,
>> >healthcare destroyed, child labour laws revoked? What if we start
>> >working for nothing at all? That would be perfect right? No need to
>> >outsource. Maybe you would like to see more sweatshops around. I'm sure
>> >the number of drugies and bastards would diminish.
>> >
>> >What I don't get is: are you masochistic, a sadist or just frustrated?
>>
>> First, it's nothing sexual. Next, I have no desire to inflict pain on
>> myself. I say what I think - if the readers can't take it they have
>> several choices.
>
>a sadist then. or maybe you just want to get even since you can't fight
>the powerful and need to follow them arround in whatever greedy scheme
>they've got. Hope the crumbs left after their feasts are enough to go
>on satisfying you.
>But of course they will. You're a good boy aren't you?
I did nothing that anyone else couldn't do with talent and
conscientiousness. Most suffer because they are lazy trash.
>
>> Third, I don't know what frustrated means.
>
>Good for you. It might help you not having to deal with the fealing
>
>> >> >> The list could continue "on into the night" ("ad infinitum" in Latin).
>> >> >> 8-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When were the good times is certainly arguable.
>> >> >
>> >> >One more sign of your confusion
>> >>
>> >> But I'm the one who is comfortable while you have the problems. You
>> >> should be so lucky to be as confused as I am.
>> >
>> >Strange ... You seem to be the one complaining about everything
>>
>> That'll be the day. I'm loving it because I'm still winning.
>
>what about this:
>
>"We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
>more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
>problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
>single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
>made it better than the old simple one."
>
>you really are confusion (or maybe the memory's going eh)
>
>Chico
I don't have problems, I enjoy confrontation, drugs are only in the
newspaper, I've never been harrassed, and my family is married with no
bastards and all old enough are working except retirees.
So I only benefit. I was talking about all the whiners and bleeding
hearts here.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742178 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 16:20 |
|
On 12 Dec 2005 11:47:00 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
>> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
>> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
>>
>
>Wait a minute. Diseases arise of their own accord; ""our generation"
>isn't responsible for AIDS or Legionnaire's or bird flu or cancer any
>more than "your generation" was responsible for polio or the clap.
>
>Neither does living longer by itself put you at greater risk for
>contracting any of those.
Let's isolate one. You love queers, you've spread AIDS almost
uncontrollably all over the world.
If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
cure now.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742192 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 16:35 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
> cure now.
QED. Sullivan is a sock puppet.
No one can be that pig ignorant and still breathe.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742200 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 16:57 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2005 11:47:00 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
> >>
> >
> >Wait a minute. Diseases arise of their own accord; ""our generation"
> >isn't responsible for AIDS or Legionnaire's or bird flu or cancer any
> >more than "your generation" was responsible for polio or the clap.
> >
> >Neither does living longer by itself put you at greater risk for
> >contracting any of those.
>
> Let's isolate one. You love queers, you've spread AIDS almost
> uncontrollably all over the world.
>
*I* love queers? *I've* spread AIDS almost uncontrollably all over the
world? Wow, I never realized that. Guess that explains the blackouts,
though -- I guess I've been one busy little bee. Thanks for
straightening that out for me, Bubba.
Okay, first off, I really do not give a rat's ass about homosexuals one
way or the other; they don't bug me, I don't bug them. I don't think
they deserve special treatment, but by that same token I expect them to
be afforded the same rights and consideration as any other American
citizen, including certain curmudgeonly war vets. However, from now on
I will be sure to champion homosexual causes just because I know it
will piss you off.
Secondly, HIV *doesn't care* what the sexual orientation of its host
is; it's equally virulent among the heterosexual population. Look at
the statistics for Africa sometime; over 13 million women, almost 2
million children. I doubt they all fucked gay men.
> If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
> cure now.
>
Why stop with the queers, Hugh? Hell, AIDS is cutting a pretty good
swath through black Americans and Africans. I suppose that's just
gravy, though.
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742256 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 19:20 |
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:35:10 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
>> cure now.
>
>QED. Sullivan is a sock puppet.
>
>No one can be that pig ignorant and still breathe.
If you are saying it is falsifiable it must be scientific fact. I
hadn't made up my mind before.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742264 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 19:26 |
|
On 13 Dec 2005 07:57:14 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 12 Dec 2005 11:47:00 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >[snip]
>> >>
>> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
>> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
>> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Wait a minute. Diseases arise of their own accord; ""our generation"
>> >isn't responsible for AIDS or Legionnaire's or bird flu or cancer any
>> >more than "your generation" was responsible for polio or the clap.
>> >
>> >Neither does living longer by itself put you at greater risk for
>> >contracting any of those.
>>
>> Let's isolate one. You love queers, you've spread AIDS almost
>> uncontrollably all over the world.
>>
>
>*I* love queers? *I've* spread AIDS almost uncontrollably all over the
>world? Wow, I never realized that. Guess that explains the blackouts,
>though -- I guess I've been one busy little bee. Thanks for
>straightening that out for me, Bubba.
I used "you" generally.
>
>Okay, first off, I really do not give a rat's ass about homosexuals one
>way or the other; they don't bug me, I don't bug them. I don't think
>they deserve special treatment, but by that same token I expect them to
>be afforded the same rights and consideration as any other American
>citizen, including certain curmudgeonly war vets. However, from now on
>I will be sure to champion homosexual causes just because I know it
>will piss you off.
You're just showing that there are more horses's asses than horses. If
you want to bother me you'd better get help.
>
>Secondly, HIV *doesn't care* what the sexual orientation of its host
>is; it's equally virulent among the heterosexual population. Look at
>the statistics for Africa sometime; over 13 million women, almost 2
>million children. I doubt they all fucked gay men.
It's the penalty for promiscuity and being queer. Unfortunately decent
people acquite it, too.
>> If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
>> cure now.
>>
>
>Why stop with the queers, Hugh? Hell, AIDS is cutting a pretty good
>swath through black Americans and Africans. I suppose that's just
>gravy, though.
No, it's unfortunate.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742272 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 19:46 |
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:03:24 GMT,
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
> wrote:
>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>
>>Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
>>implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
>>feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
>>mean that it isn't true.
>>.
>>
> So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought I
> had the franchise on describing you?
>
> I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have seen
> starts with some water creature immigrating to land and progressing
> from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
And just where do you get your information on evolution? Be specific here.
Give us a couple of references.
>
> So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
> morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate your
> pointing this out.
When did Adam and Eve live? What were Adam and Eve?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742281 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 20:38 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:35:10 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
>>>cure now.
>>
>>QED. Sullivan is a sock puppet.
>>
>>No one can be that pig ignorant and still breathe.
>
>
> If you are saying it is falsifiable it must be scientific fact. I
> hadn't made up my mind before.
>
Hugheveryouare, that doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742282 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 20:38 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2005 07:57:14 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On 12 Dec 2005 11:47:00 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> >[snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
> >> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
> >> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Wait a minute. Diseases arise of their own accord; ""our generation"
> >> >isn't responsible for AIDS or Legionnaire's or bird flu or cancer any
> >> >more than "your generation" was responsible for polio or the clap.
> >> >
> >> >Neither does living longer by itself put you at greater risk for
> >> >contracting any of those.
> >>
> >> Let's isolate one. You love queers, you've spread AIDS almost
> >> uncontrollably all over the world.
> >>
> >
> >*I* love queers? *I've* spread AIDS almost uncontrollably all over the
> >world? Wow, I never realized that. Guess that explains the blackouts,
> >though -- I guess I've been one busy little bee. Thanks for
> >straightening that out for me, Bubba.
>
> I used "you" generally.
No shit. Care to define who that "you" was supposed to address (like I
can't guess)?
> >
> >Okay, first off, I really do not give a rat's ass about homosexuals one
> >way or the other; they don't bug me, I don't bug them. I don't think
> >they deserve special treatment, but by that same token I expect them to
> >be afforded the same rights and consideration as any other American
> >citizen, including certain curmudgeonly war vets. However, from now on
> >I will be sure to champion homosexual causes just because I know it
> >will piss you off.
>
> You're just showing that there are more horses's asses than horses. If
> you want to bother me you'd better get help.
No problem, I suspect there are quite a few participants in this thread
who'd be willing.
Oh, that's not what you meant. Silly me.
> >
> >Secondly, HIV *doesn't care* what the sexual orientation of its host
> >is; it's equally virulent among the heterosexual population. Look at
> >the statistics for Africa sometime; over 13 million women, almost 2
> >million children. I doubt they all fucked gay men.
>
> It's the penalty for promiscuity and being queer.
Yeah, all those promiscuous, queer children.
> Unfortunately decent people acquite it, too.
Which kind of argues against the whole "penalty for being promiscuous
and queer" thing.
AIDS is not a penalty for anything; it's a disease, and it really
doesn't care what you did to contract it. Whether you had unprotected
sex with multiple partners, or whether you shared needles, or whether
you got a transfusion of tainted blood, or whether your mother passed
it to you when you were born, it *doesn't matter*. As far as HIV is
concerned, it's all the same thing. The fact that it first showed up
in gays in the US is a quirk of history; had Patient 0 been fully
hetero, the situation would likely be far more grave today.
AIDS is not a moral judgement on anyone, anymore than influenza or
bubonic plague or ebola are moral judgements.
>
> >> If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
> >> cure now.
> >>
> >
> >Why stop with the queers, Hugh? Hell, AIDS is cutting a pretty good
> >swath through black Americans and Africans. I suppose that's just
> >gravy, though.
>
> No, it's unfortunate.
And it's unfortunate that you can make such a boneheadedly obnoxious
statement that the only reason we don't have a cure is because "people"
want homosexuals to die. That's a particularly ugly kind of bigotry
there, Bubba, and you seriously need to check your own moral compass
before bitching about "liberals" and "queers".
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742283 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 20:52 |
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:38:39 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:35:10 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
>>>>cure now.
>>>
>>>QED. Sullivan is a sock puppet.
>>>
>>>No one can be that pig ignorant and still breathe.
>>
>>
>> If you are saying it is falsifiable it must be scientific fact. I
>> hadn't made up my mind before.
>>
>
>Hugheveryouare, that doesn't make any sense.
Then it fits you to perfection.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742291 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 21:08 |
|
On 13 Dec 2005 11:38:55 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2005 07:57:14 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> On 12 Dec 2005 11:47:00 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> >[snip]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
>> >> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
>> >> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Wait a minute. Diseases arise of their own accord; ""our generation"
>> >> >isn't responsible for AIDS or Legionnaire's or bird flu or cancer any
>> >> >more than "your generation" was responsible for polio or the clap.
>> >> >
>> >> >Neither does living longer by itself put you at greater risk for
>> >> >contracting any of those.
>> >>
>> >> Let's isolate one. You love queers, you've spread AIDS almost
>> >> uncontrollably all over the world.
>> >>
>> >
>> >*I* love queers? *I've* spread AIDS almost uncontrollably all over the
>> >world? Wow, I never realized that. Guess that explains the blackouts,
>> >though -- I guess I've been one busy little bee. Thanks for
>> >straightening that out for me, Bubba.
>>
>> I used "you" generally.
>
>No shit. Care to define who that "you" was supposed to address (like I
>can't guess)?
>
>> >
>> >Okay, first off, I really do not give a rat's ass about homosexuals one
>> >way or the other; they don't bug me, I don't bug them. I don't think
>> >they deserve special treatment, but by that same token I expect them to
>> >be afforded the same rights and consideration as any other American
>> >citizen, including certain curmudgeonly war vets. However, from now on
>> >I will be sure to champion homosexual causes just because I know it
>> >will piss you off.
>>
>> You're just showing that there are more horses's asses than horses. If
>> you want to bother me you'd better get help.
>
>No problem, I suspect there are quite a few participants in this thread
>who'd be willing.
>
>Oh, that's not what you meant. Silly me.
>
>> >
>> >Secondly, HIV *doesn't care* what the sexual orientation of its host
>> >is; it's equally virulent among the heterosexual population. Look at
>> >the statistics for Africa sometime; over 13 million women, almost 2
>> >million children. I doubt they all fucked gay men.
>>
>> It's the penalty for promiscuity and being queer.
>
>Yeah, all those promiscuous, queer children.
>
>> Unfortunately decent people acquite it, too.
>
>Which kind of argues against the whole "penalty for being promiscuous
>and queer" thing.
>
>AIDS is not a penalty for anything; it's a disease, and it really
>doesn't care what you did to contract it. Whether you had unprotected
>sex with multiple partners, or whether you shared needles, or whether
>you got a transfusion of tainted blood, or whether your mother passed
>it to you when you were born, it *doesn't matter*. As far as HIV is
>concerned, it's all the same thing. The fact that it first showed up
>in gays in the US is a quirk of history; had Patient 0 been fully
>hetero, the situation would likely be far more grave today.
>
>AIDS is not a moral judgement on anyone, anymore than influenza or
>bubonic plague or ebola are moral judgements.
>
>>
>> >> If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
>> >> cure now.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why stop with the queers, Hugh? Hell, AIDS is cutting a pretty good
>> >swath through black Americans and Africans. I suppose that's just
>> >gravy, though.
>>
>> No, it's unfortunate.
>
>And it's unfortunate that you can make such a boneheadedly obnoxious
>statement that the only reason we don't have a cure is because "people"
>want homosexuals to die. That's a particularly ugly kind of bigotry
>there, Bubba, and you seriously need to check your own moral compass
>before bitching about "liberals" and "queers".
>
>>
>> Hugh
For you, reading comprehension is non-existent. I qualified my
statement with "probably". You are a liar the way you rephrased my
statement as a positive.
Everybody is a bigot about something. So what else is new, boy?
I'm not bitching - that's complaining. Just about everything goes my
way so I really don't have any complaints.
And before you make a liar of yourself again note the "Just about
everything" in my last sentence. That's a qualifier, little feller.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742293 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 21:13 |
|
On 13 Dec 2005 18:46:48 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:03:24 GMT,
>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>
>>>Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
>>>implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
>>>feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
>>>mean that it isn't true.
>>>.
>>>
>> So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought I
>> had the franchise on describing you?
>>
>> I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have seen
>> starts with some water creature immigrating to land and progressing
>> from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
>
>And just where do you get your information on evolution? Be specific here.
>Give us a couple of references.
>
>>
>> So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
>> morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate your
>> pointing this out.
>
>When did Adam and Eve live? What were Adam and Eve?
>
>--
>Aaron Clausen
>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>
I'll be dadgum if I'm going to be yoyr tutor for pre-kindergarten.
You must be 36 years old. I have a friend who is 18 and he's only half
nuts.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742294 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 21:07 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2005 11:20:16 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
> >> >I don't think China is doing that well. If it were people would be
> >> >trying to go there. And you don't see that. Maybe because economic
> >> >growth isn't everything. I don't think you'd be able to express your
> >> >views so freely if you were there
> >>
> >> My response was to the point that human rights seemed to be the basis
> >> for our progress over the years. My point was that it obviously was
> >> not and I gave an example.
> >>
> >
> >My idea of progress is a bit broader than yours. It isn't limited to
> >material progress. If that's what you're talking about, then you're
> >right.
>
> The Constitution rights are life, liberty and the PURSUIT of
> happiness. I don't see any of those being denied in this country today
> even though some fringe elements are whining.
>
> >> I'm not an activist in expressing views. My posts are about football
> >> and responses to liberal idiocy.
> >
> >you should stick to football
>
> I would if liberals did. I have no axe to grind - I grind someone
> else's.
>
> >> >> >> I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
> >> >> >> much worse off, albeit their right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Maybe for you, but certainly not for them.
> >> >>
> >> >> You really grasp the obvious, don't you?
> >> >
> >> >You don't seem to be grasping it though. If your interests are contrary
> >> >to the vast majority's interests you shouldn't be surprised if nobody
> >> >agrees with you. All you have left is your old hermit routine
> >>
> >> 1. My vote in the last two Presidential elections counted so your
> >> "vast majority" is only in your dreams.
> >
> >I thought even the republican party was a bit too mild for your taste.
> >My mistake.
>
> Yes and no.
>
>
> >> 2. I really don't care whether anyone agrees with me. In fact I expect
> >> naive young people to disagree. The SCOTUS will soon be agreeing with
> >> me. thus trumping your pipe dreams.
> >
> >true
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And we had child labor laws and drug laws in the 40s - I don't recall
> >> >> >> about food inspection. I know beef was inspected. And the restaurants
> >> >> >> back then were very clean of their own volition - they were Mom an Pop
> >> >> >> restaurants and repeat business depended on it. Knowing when you will
> >> >> >> be inspected sorta defeats the purpose.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
> >> >> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
> >> >> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So ... Do you or do you not want to live longer? If you don't want to
> >> >> >live longer in order to not be infected by those deseases you can
> >> >> >allways kill yourself. Or get infected with tuberculosis and die with a
> >> >> >desease from the good old days. Whatever pleases you best.
> >> >
> >> >Strange... no coment here? I guess your eyes are blind to what
> >> >contradicts your scatological views
> >>
> >> The answer to the question seemed obvious. Your comments were absurd.
> >
> >Not that obvious or absurd considering your comments. Or can't you spot
> >the contradiction?
>
> The contradictions were on purpose to show that most gains were
> accompanied by losses. Sorry you missed it.
>
> >> >> >> We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
> >> >> >> more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
> >> >> >> problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
> >> >> >> single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
> >> >> >> made it better than the old simple one.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >where - exactly - do you draw the line betwen what belongs to the good
> >> >> >old days and what belongs to the dark new times? Are you saying that
> >> >> >all that you wrote above is recent?
> >> >>
> >> >> Please read again and note the word "more" is used frequently.
> >> >
> >> >well, i think the threat of nuclear disaster for one has been greater
> >> >in the past than it is now. As for civil rights and harassment problems
> >> >that has to do with having recognized some civil rights which were not
> >> >recognized before. That's good. People need to fight for their rights
> >>
> >> People need to understand their rights. There is considerable evidence
> >> they don't.
> >
> >You being a fine example of that
>
> One has the right to be a liberal or a queer or an atheist. I have the
> right to diss him. What don't I understand?
What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
>
> >> >> >> You have the minimum wage which has driven up costs to the point where
> >> >> >> we have to outsource and renege on pensions to remain in business.
> >> >> >> Bankruptcies are at an all-time high as are crowded prisons. You have
> >> >> >> won some and lost some.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The ones responsible for this trait are big corps who would rather
> >> >> >transfer their production to countries where people don't hav any
> >> >> >rights and so can be exploited relentlessly. Or are you saying that the
> >> >> >ones to blame are the people who refuse to be slaves?
> >> >>
> >> >> I wasn't a slave, I wasn't exploited and I started at about $1.15 per
> >> >> hour and we lived pretty well. I went to work with a corporation 2
> >> >> years later for about $1.70 per hour. And I retired at age 59.
> >> >> Liberals and the union boosted the wage and drove the jobs out of the
> >> >> country. You people just can't handle life.
> >> >
> >> >Liberals and the unions? It's the economy stupid. If the gross of
> >> >production is being transfered to places where the average income is
> >> >nowadays bellow what you earned decades ago and there is no subsequent
> >> >fall in the prices is it still the unions and liberals' fault. Or is it
> >> >just that the greedy bastards who run those companies don't care about
> >> >you or any other organic automaton running their errands.
> >> >What is your solution? Should the minimum wage be extinguished,
> >> >healthcare destroyed, child labour laws revoked? What if we start
> >> >working for nothing at all? That would be perfect right? No need to
> >> >outsource. Maybe you would like to see more sweatshops around. I'm sure
> >> >the number of drugies and bastards would diminish.
> >> >
> >> >What I don't get is: are you masochistic, a sadist or just frustrated?
> >>
> >> First, it's nothing sexual. Next, I have no desire to inflict pain on
> >> myself. I say what I think - if the readers can't take it they have
> >> several choices.
> >
> >a sadist then. or maybe you just want to get even since you can't fight
> >the powerful and need to follow them arround in whatever greedy scheme
> >they've got. Hope the crumbs left after their feasts are enough to go
> >on satisfying you.
>
> >But of course they will. You're a good boy aren't you?
>
> I did nothing that anyone else couldn't do with talent and
> conscientiousness. Most suffer because they are lazy trash.
> >
> >> Third, I don't know what frustrated means.
> >
> >Good for you. It might help you not having to deal with the fealing
> >
> >> >> >> The list could continue "on into the night" ("ad infinitum" in Latin).
> >> >> >> 8-)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> When were the good times is certainly arguable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One more sign of your confusion
> >> >>
> >> >> But I'm the one who is comfortable while you have the problems. You
> >> >> should be so lucky to be as confused as I am.
> >> >
> >> >Strange ... You seem to be the one complaining about everything
> >>
> >> That'll be the day. I'm loving it because I'm still winning.
> >
> >what about this:
> >
> >"We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
> >more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
> >problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
> >single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
> >made it better than the old simple one."
> >
> >you really are confusion (or maybe the memory's going eh)
> >
> >Chico
>
> I don't have problems, I enjoy confrontation, drugs are only in the
> newspaper, I've never been harrassed, and my family is married with no
> bastards and all old enough are working except retirees.
>
> So I only benefit. I was talking about all the whiners and bleeding
> hearts here.
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742298 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 21:19 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
> I don't have problems, I enjoy confrontation, drugs are only in the
> newspaper, I've never been harrassed, and my family is married with no
> bastards [...]
Not quite.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742299 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 21:14 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2005 11:38:55 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On 13 Dec 2005 07:57:14 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> >> On 12 Dec 2005 11:47:00 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> >> >[snip]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
> >> >> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
> >> >> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Wait a minute. Diseases arise of their own accord; ""our generation"
> >> >> >isn't responsible for AIDS or Legionnaire's or bird flu or cancer any
> >> >> >more than "your generation" was responsible for polio or the clap.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Neither does living longer by itself put you at greater risk for
> >> >> >contracting any of those.
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's isolate one. You love queers, you've spread AIDS almost
> >> >> uncontrollably all over the world.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >*I* love queers? *I've* spread AIDS almost uncontrollably all over the
> >> >world? Wow, I never realized that. Guess that explains the blackouts,
> >> >though -- I guess I've been one busy little bee. Thanks for
> >> >straightening that out for me, Bubba.
> >>
> >> I used "you" generally.
> >
> >No shit. Care to define who that "you" was supposed to address (like I
> >can't guess)?
> >
> >> >
> >> >Okay, first off, I really do not give a rat's ass about homosexuals one
> >> >way or the other; they don't bug me, I don't bug them. I don't think
> >> >they deserve special treatment, but by that same token I expect them to
> >> >be afforded the same rights and consideration as any other American
> >> >citizen, including certain curmudgeonly war vets. However, from now on
> >> >I will be sure to champion homosexual causes just because I know it
> >> >will piss you off.
> >>
> >> You're just showing that there are more horses's asses than horses. If
> >> you want to bother me you'd better get help.
> >
> >No problem, I suspect there are quite a few participants in this thread
> >who'd be willing.
> >
> >Oh, that's not what you meant. Silly me.
> >
> >> >
> >> >Secondly, HIV *doesn't care* what the sexual orientation of its host
> >> >is; it's equally virulent among the heterosexual population. Look at
> >> >the statistics for Africa sometime; over 13 million women, almost 2
> >> >million children. I doubt they all fucked gay men.
> >>
> >> It's the penalty for promiscuity and being queer.
> >
> >Yeah, all those promiscuous, queer children.
> >
> >> Unfortunately decent people acquite it, too.
> >
> >Which kind of argues against the whole "penalty for being promiscuous
> >and queer" thing.
> >
> >AIDS is not a penalty for anything; it's a disease, and it really
> >doesn't care what you did to contract it. Whether you had unprotected
> >sex with multiple partners, or whether you shared needles, or whether
> >you got a transfusion of tainted blood, or whether your mother passed
> >it to you when you were born, it *doesn't matter*. As far as HIV is
> >concerned, it's all the same thing. The fact that it first showed up
> >in gays in the US is a quirk of history; had Patient 0 been fully
> >hetero, the situation would likely be far more grave today.
> >
> >AIDS is not a moral judgement on anyone, anymore than influenza or
> >bubonic plague or ebola are moral judgements.
> >
> >>
> >> >> If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
> >> >> cure now.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Why stop with the queers, Hugh? Hell, AIDS is cutting a pretty good
> >> >swath through black Americans and Africans. I suppose that's just
> >> >gravy, though.
> >>
> >> No, it's unfortunate.
> >
> >And it's unfortunate that you can make such a boneheadedly obnoxious
> >statement that the only reason we don't have a cure is because "people"
> >want homosexuals to die. That's a particularly ugly kind of bigotry
> >there, Bubba, and you seriously need to check your own moral compass
> >before bitching about "liberals" and "queers".
> >
> >>
> >> Hugh
>
> For you, reading comprehension is non-existent. I qualified my
> statement with "probably". You are a liar the way you rephrased my
> statement as a positive.
>
> Everybody is a bigot about something. So what else is new, boy?
>
> I'm not bitching - that's complaining. Just about everything goes my
> way so I really don't have any complaints.
>
> And before you make a liar of yourself again note the "Just about
> everything" in my last sentence. That's a qualifier, little feller.
What a load of bullshit this is.....so to paraphrase:
I say "I think that all AIDS victims probably deserve it"
You say "You think that AIDS victims deserve their suffering?"
I say "No....that's not what I said.....I said that they *probably*
deserve it, don't put words in my mouth!"
Is that the line of dogdery that you are trying to put forth?
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742328 ] |
Di, 13 Dezember 2005 22:12 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2005 11:38:55 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On 13 Dec 2005 07:57:14 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> >> On 12 Dec 2005 11:47:00 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> >> >[snip]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
> >> >> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
> >> >> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Wait a minute. Diseases arise of their own accord; ""our generation"
> >> >> >isn't responsible for AIDS or Legionnaire's or bird flu or cancer any
> >> >> >more than "your generation" was responsible for polio or the clap.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Neither does living longer by itself put you at greater risk for
> >> >> >contracting any of those.
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's isolate one. You love queers, you've spread AIDS almost
> >> >> uncontrollably all over the world.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >*I* love queers? *I've* spread AIDS almost uncontrollably all over the
> >> >world? Wow, I never realized that. Guess that explains the blackouts,
> >> >though -- I guess I've been one busy little bee. Thanks for
> >> >straightening that out for me, Bubba.
> >>
> >> I used "you" generally.
> >
> >No shit. Care to define who that "you" was supposed to address (like I
> >can't guess)?
> >
> >> >
> >> >Okay, first off, I really do not give a rat's ass about homosexuals one
> >> >way or the other; they don't bug me, I don't bug them. I don't think
> >> >they deserve special treatment, but by that same token I expect them to
> >> >be afforded the same rights and consideration as any other American
> >> >citizen, including certain curmudgeonly war vets. However, from now on
> >> >I will be sure to champion homosexual causes just because I know it
> >> >will piss you off.
> >>
> >> You're just showing that there are more horses's asses than horses. If
> >> you want to bother me you'd better get help.
> >
> >No problem, I suspect there are quite a few participants in this thread
> >who'd be willing.
> >
> >Oh, that's not what you meant. Silly me.
> >
> >> >
> >> >Secondly, HIV *doesn't care* what the sexual orientation of its host
> >> >is; it's equally virulent among the heterosexual population. Look at
> >> >the statistics for Africa sometime; over 13 million women, almost 2
> >> >million children. I doubt they all fucked gay men.
> >>
> >> It's the penalty for promiscuity and being queer.
> >
> >Yeah, all those promiscuous, queer children.
> >
> >> Unfortunately decent people acquite it, too.
> >
> >Which kind of argues against the whole "penalty for being promiscuous
> >and queer" thing.
> >
> >AIDS is not a penalty for anything; it's a disease, and it really
> >doesn't care what you did to contract it. Whether you had unprotected
> >sex with multiple partners, or whether you shared needles, or whether
> >you got a transfusion of tainted blood, or whether your mother passed
> >it to you when you were born, it *doesn't matter*. As far as HIV is
> >concerned, it's all the same thing. The fact that it first showed up
> >in gays in the US is a quirk of history; had Patient 0 been fully
> >hetero, the situation would likely be far more grave today.
> >
> >AIDS is not a moral judgement on anyone, anymore than influenza or
> >bubonic plague or ebola are moral judgements.
> >
> >>
> >> >> If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
> >> >> cure now.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Why stop with the queers, Hugh? Hell, AIDS is cutting a pretty good
> >> >swath through black Americans and Africans. I suppose that's just
> >> >gravy, though.
> >>
> >> No, it's unfortunate.
> >
> >And it's unfortunate that you can make such a boneheadedly obnoxious
> >statement that the only reason we don't have a cure is because "people"
> >want homosexuals to die. That's a particularly ugly kind of bigotry
> >there, Bubba, and you seriously need to check your own moral compass
> >before bitching about "liberals" and "queers".
> >
> >>
> >> Hugh
>
> For you, reading comprehension is non-existent. I qualified my
> statement with "probably". You are a liar the way you rephrased my
> statement as a positive.
>
You didn't qualify *squat*, Hugh.
"If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be
a cure now."
We would probably have found a cure by now, but for the unfortunate
fact that the majority of AIDS patients are gay and icky and not worth
saving.
*As written*, there's simply no other way to interpret that sentence.
If that's not what you meant, you *really* need to find a better way to
say it.
Had you written something like "It's probably because people want to
get rid of queers that we haven't seen a cure by now," *then* you'd
have reason to take me to task.
> Everybody is a bigot about something. So what else is new, boy?
The difference is that some people learn to recognize their own
bigotry, and try to move past it.
>
> I'm not bitching - that's complaining. Just about everything goes my
> way so I really don't have any complaints.
>
Then what the hell was that rant about "us" giving "you" AIDS and
Legionnaire's and bird flu and more cancer? Not complaining? Not
bitching?
> And before you make a liar of yourself again note the "Just about
> everything" in my last sentence. That's a qualifier, little feller.
>
Yes SIR, noted SIR, may I fetch you a new tube of Fixodent SIR?
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742378 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 01:32 |
|
On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
>supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
>own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
>*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
>
>America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
>respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
>themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
observation is accurate.
For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
formed to protest.
We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
gangs formed to ban guns.
We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
Unions strike because they don't get their way.
And, of course, each anti group points to civil rights as the excuse
for its' movement
In each case, and a slew more I could mention, it is exactly as you
said, someone didn't respect the rights of someone. In most cases it
is the attempt to overturn precedent.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742379 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 01:37 |
|
On 13 Dec 2005 12:14:26 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2005 11:38:55 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> On 13 Dec 2005 07:57:14 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> >> On 12 Dec 2005 11:47:00 -0800, "John Bode" <john_bode [at] my-deja.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> >> >[snip]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
>> >> >> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
>> >> >> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Wait a minute. Diseases arise of their own accord; ""our generation"
>> >> >> >isn't responsible for AIDS or Legionnaire's or bird flu or cancer any
>> >> >> >more than "your generation" was responsible for polio or the clap.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Neither does living longer by itself put you at greater risk for
>> >> >> >contracting any of those.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Let's isolate one. You love queers, you've spread AIDS almost
>> >> >> uncontrollably all over the world.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >*I* love queers? *I've* spread AIDS almost uncontrollably all over the
>> >> >world? Wow, I never realized that. Guess that explains the blackouts,
>> >> >though -- I guess I've been one busy little bee. Thanks for
>> >> >straightening that out for me, Bubba.
>> >>
>> >> I used "you" generally.
>> >
>> >No shit. Care to define who that "you" was supposed to address (like I
>> >can't guess)?
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Okay, first off, I really do not give a rat's ass about homosexuals one
>> >> >way or the other; they don't bug me, I don't bug them. I don't think
>> >> >they deserve special treatment, but by that same token I expect them to
>> >> >be afforded the same rights and consideration as any other American
>> >> >citizen, including certain curmudgeonly war vets. However, from now on
>> >> >I will be sure to champion homosexual causes just because I know it
>> >> >will piss you off.
>> >>
>> >> You're just showing that there are more horses's asses than horses. If
>> >> you want to bother me you'd better get help.
>> >
>> >No problem, I suspect there are quite a few participants in this thread
>> >who'd be willing.
>> >
>> >Oh, that's not what you meant. Silly me.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Secondly, HIV *doesn't care* what the sexual orientation of its host
>> >> >is; it's equally virulent among the heterosexual population. Look at
>> >> >the statistics for Africa sometime; over 13 million women, almost 2
>> >> >million children. I doubt they all fucked gay men.
>> >>
>> >> It's the penalty for promiscuity and being queer.
>> >
>> >Yeah, all those promiscuous, queer children.
>> >
>> >> Unfortunately decent people acquite it, too.
>> >
>> >Which kind of argues against the whole "penalty for being promiscuous
>> >and queer" thing.
>> >
>> >AIDS is not a penalty for anything; it's a disease, and it really
>> >doesn't care what you did to contract it. Whether you had unprotected
>> >sex with multiple partners, or whether you shared needles, or whether
>> >you got a transfusion of tainted blood, or whether your mother passed
>> >it to you when you were born, it *doesn't matter*. As far as HIV is
>> >concerned, it's all the same thing. The fact that it first showed up
>> >in gays in the US is a quirk of history; had Patient 0 been fully
>> >hetero, the situation would likely be far more grave today.
>> >
>> >AIDS is not a moral judgement on anyone, anymore than influenza or
>> >bubonic plague or ebola are moral judgements.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be a
>> >> >> cure now.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Why stop with the queers, Hugh? Hell, AIDS is cutting a pretty good
>> >> >swath through black Americans and Africans. I suppose that's just
>> >> >gravy, though.
>> >>
>> >> No, it's unfortunate.
>> >
>> >And it's unfortunate that you can make such a boneheadedly obnoxious
>> >statement that the only reason we don't have a cure is because "people"
>> >want homosexuals to die. That's a particularly ugly kind of bigotry
>> >there, Bubba, and you seriously need to check your own moral compass
>> >before bitching about "liberals" and "queers".
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Hugh
>>
>> For you, reading comprehension is non-existent. I qualified my
>> statement with "probably". You are a liar the way you rephrased my
>> statement as a positive.
>>
>> Everybody is a bigot about something. So what else is new, boy?
>>
>> I'm not bitching - that's complaining. Just about everything goes my
>> way so I really don't have any complaints.
>>
>> And before you make a liar of yourself again note the "Just about
>> everything" in my last sentence. That's a qualifier, little feller.
>
>What a load of bullshit this is.....so to paraphrase:
>
>I say "I think that all AIDS victims probably deserve it"
>
>You say "You think that AIDS victims deserve their suffering?"
>I say "No....that's not what I said.....I said that they *probably*
>deserve it, don't put words in my mouth!"
>
>Is that the line of dogdery that you are trying to put forth?
You're half way to being a wit.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742381 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 01:43 |
|
On 13 Dec 2005 13:12:54 -0800, john_bode [at] my-deja.com wrote:
>> For you, reading comprehension is non-existent. I qualified my
>> statement with "probably". You are a liar the way you rephrased my
>> statement as a positive.
>>
>
>You didn't qualify *squat*, Hugh.
>
> "If people didn't want to get rid of queers there would probably be
>a cure now."
>
>We would probably have found a cure by now, but for the unfortunate
>fact that the majority of AIDS patients are gay and icky and not worth
>saving.
>
>*As written*, there's simply no other way to interpret that sentence.
>If that's not what you meant, you *really* need to find a better way to
>say it.
Excuse me. I had no idea you were so limited in reading comprehension.
>Had you written something like "It's probably because people want to
>get rid of queers that we haven't seen a cure by now," *then* you'd
>have reason to take me to task.
>
>> Everybody is a bigot about something. So what else is new, boy?
>
>The difference is that some people learn to recognize their own
>bigotry, and try to move past it.
Hippopotamus hockey. >
>>
>> I'm not bitching - that's complaining. Just about everything goes my
>> way so I really don't have any complaints.
>>
>
>Then what the hell was that rant about "us" giving "you" AIDS and
>Legionnaire's and bird flu and more cancer? Not complaining? Not
>bitching?
That was a statement in response to someone. It was matter of fact.
>> And before you make a liar of yourself again note the "Just about
>> everything" in my last sentence. That's a qualifier, little feller.
>>
>
>Yes SIR, noted SIR, may I fetch you a new tube of Fixodent SIR?
I'll let you know when to fetch.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742384 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 01:40 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
> >
> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
>
> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
> observation is accurate.
>
> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
> formed to protest.
No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
>
> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
> gangs formed to ban guns.
Exactly where....have guns been banned?
>
> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
>
> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
reaches an impasse.
>
> And, of course, each anti group points to civil rights as the excuse
> for its' movement
Like the anti-gay group, anti-abortion, anti-union, anti-health-care,
anti-science, anti-eductaion, anti-anything-that-I don't-believe-in
groups?
>
> In each case, and a slew more I could mention, it is exactly as you
> said, someone didn't respect the rights of someone. In most cases it
> is the attempt to overturn precedent.
>
> Hugh
Betcha!
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742416 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 03:38 |
|
On 13 Dec 2005 16:40:57 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
>> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
>> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
>> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
>> >
>> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
>> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
>> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
>>
>> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
>> observation is accurate.
>>
>> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
>> formed to protest.
>
>No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
>been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
The point is about rights. The law gives the right to execute. Some
group want to overturn that right. You can't respect the rights of
both.
>>
>> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
>> gangs formed to ban guns.
>
>Exactly where....have guns been banned?
WHo said they were banned. I said groups had been formed to ban them.
Fortunately they are unsuccessful so far. You can't respect the rights
of both. But you'd better respect my guns.
>
>>
>> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
>
>And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
>
>>
>> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
>
>Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
>reaches an impasse.
They try to override the rights of the corporation.
>>
>> And, of course, each anti group points to civil rights as the excuse
>> for its' movement
>
>Like the anti-gay group, anti-abortion, anti-union, anti-health-care,
>anti-science, anti-eductaion, anti-anything-that-I don't-believe-in
>groups?
You can't have it both ways.
>
>>
>> In each case, and a slew more I could mention, it is exactly as you
>> said, someone didn't respect the rights of someone. In most cases it
>> is the attempt to overturn precedent.
>>
>> Hugh
>
>Betcha!
And the people who made the precedent have the right to do so. And in
ALMOST every case the side I favor is winning.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742496 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 07:00 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2005 16:40:57 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
> >> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >>
> >> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
> >> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
> >> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
> >> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
> >> >
> >> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
> >> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
> >> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
> >>
> >> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
> >> observation is accurate.
> >>
> >> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
> >> formed to protest.
> >
> >No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
> >been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
>
> The point is about rights. The law gives the right to execute. Some
> group want to overturn that right. You can't respect the rights of
> both.
The rights I was talking about are constitutional and human rights.
Nothing in the constitution about the inalienable right to execute.
>
> >>
> >> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
> >> gangs formed to ban guns.
> >
> >Exactly where....have guns been banned?
>
> WHo said they were banned. I said groups had been formed to ban them.
> Fortunately they are unsuccessful so far. You can't respect the rights
> of both. But you'd better respect my guns.
I am sorry for misunderstanding your meaning....but given my
way....they only guns available to private citizens would be long
barrel and single shot.
> >
> >>
> >> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
> >
> >And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
> >
> >>
> >> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
> >
> >Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
> >reaches an impasse.
>
> They try to override the rights of the corporation.
Wrong...the corporation is bargaining collectively with its employees,
the only muscle available to the employee is the ability to withhold
labour....or do you believe that a corporation can compel its employees
to work under dictated terms?
>
> >>
> >> And, of course, each anti group points to civil rights as the excuse
> >> for its' movement
> >
> >Like the anti-gay group, anti-abortion, anti-union, anti-health-care,
> >anti-science, anti-eductaion, anti-anything-that-I don't-believe-in
> >groups?
>
> You can't have it both ways.
I just want everyone to enjoy the same protections under the
law...that's all.
> >
> >>
> >> In each case, and a slew more I could mention, it is exactly as you
> >> said, someone didn't respect the rights of someone. In most cases it
> >> is the attempt to overturn precedent.
> >>
> >> Hugh
> >
> >Betcha!
>
> And the people who made the precedent have the right to do so. And in
> ALMOST every case the side I favor is winning.
>
> Hugh
Betcha!
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742557 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 15:07 |
|
On 13 Dec 2005 22:00:05 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2005 16:40:57 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>> >> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
>> >> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
>> >> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
>> >> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
>> >> >
>> >> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
>> >> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
>> >> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
>> >>
>> >> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
>> >> observation is accurate.
>> >>
>> >> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
>> >> formed to protest.
>> >
>> >No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
>> >been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
>>
>> The point is about rights. The law gives the right to execute. Some
>> group want to overturn that right. You can't respect the rights of
>> both.
>
>The rights I was talking about are constitutional and human rights.
>Nothing in the constitution about the inalienable right to execute.
The C. gives Congress the right to make laws and execution is legal.
Also, that which is not illegal by written law is legal.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
>> >> gangs formed to ban guns.
>> >
>> >Exactly where....have guns been banned?
>>
>> WHo said they were banned. I said groups had been formed to ban them.
>> Fortunately they are unsuccessful so far. You can't respect the rights
>> of both. But you'd better respect my guns.
>
>I am sorry for misunderstanding your meaning....but given my
>way....they only guns available to private citizens would be long
>barrel and single shot.
There is no way to control that. You might make gun owners hide them
but you won't have your way.
>> >>
>> >> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
>> >
>> >And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
>> >
>> >Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
>> >reaches an impasse.
>>
>> They try to override the rights of the corporation.
>
>Wrong...the corporation is bargaining collectively with its employees,
>the only muscle available to the employee is the ability to withhold
>labour....or do you believe that a corporation can compel its employees
>to work under dictated terms?
I disagree. The employee is not forced to work for that corporation -
he does it by choice because it is the best place for him. The
employee does not own the corporation, the stockholders do.
I thought the company I worked for could compel me to do anything it
wished that was legal and I was happier than a dead pig in the
sunshine about it. I worked for the best corporation that ever
existed. I wish I was young enough to do it all over again with the
same people who reported to me.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> And, of course, each anti group points to civil rights as the excuse
>> >> for its' movement
>> >
>> >Like the anti-gay group, anti-abortion, anti-union, anti-health-care,
>> >anti-science, anti-eductaion, anti-anything-that-I don't-believe-in
>> >groups?
>>
>> You can't have it both ways.
>
>I just want everyone to enjoy the same protections under the
>law...that's all.
Protection, yes, privileges/benefits, no. One should have to earn the
benefits and privileges.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742570 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 15:36 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2005 16:40:57 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
>>> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
>>> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
>>> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
>>> >
>>> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
>>> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
>>> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
>>>
>>> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
>>> observation is accurate.
>>>
>>> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
>>> formed to protest.
>>
>>No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
>>been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
>
> The point is about rights. The law gives the right to execute. Some
> group want to overturn that right. You can't respect the rights of
> both.
>
>>>
>>> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
>>> gangs formed to ban guns.
>>
>>Exactly where....have guns been banned?
>
> WHo said they were banned. I said groups had been formed to ban them.
> Fortunately they are unsuccessful so far. You can't respect the rights
> of both. But you'd better respect my guns.
>>
>>>
>>> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
>>
>>And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
>>
>>>
>>> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
>>
>>Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
>>reaches an impasse.
>
> They try to override the rights of the corporation.
People have rights, corporations do not.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742604 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 16:47 |
|
On 14 Dec 2005 14:36:36 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2005 16:40:57 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>>>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
>>>> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
>>>> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
>>>> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
>>>> >
>>>> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
>>>> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
>>>> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
>>>>
>>>> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
>>>> observation is accurate.
>>>>
>>>> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
>>>> formed to protest.
>>>
>>>No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
>>>been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
>>
>> The point is about rights. The law gives the right to execute. Some
>> group want to overturn that right. You can't respect the rights of
>> both.
>>
>>>>
>>>> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
>>>> gangs formed to ban guns.
>>>
>>>Exactly where....have guns been banned?
>>
>> WHo said they were banned. I said groups had been formed to ban them.
>> Fortunately they are unsuccessful so far. You can't respect the rights
>> of both. But you'd better respect my guns.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
>>>
>>>And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
>>>
>>>Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
>>>reaches an impasse.
>>
>> They try to override the rights of the corporation.
>
>People have rights, corporations do not.
>
>--
>Aaron
A corporation has the right to hire and fire. It has the right to
determine pay scales. It has the right to construct or move
facilities. It has the right to assign work, promote or demote. It
determines working hours.
If those are not rights, what term would you use?
People have the right to resign if they don't agree with the
corporation.
In recent years I hear that there is no loyalty by corp or employee;
so many employees have mostly gripes and no compliments about
corporations. They harp about pay and working conditions. Could it be
that disagreeing with my belief about the relationship of employer and
employee is the root cause of all those problems?
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742617 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 17:13 |
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:13:18 GMT,
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2005 18:46:48 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:03:24 GMT,
>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>
>>>>Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
>>>>implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
>>>>feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
>>>>mean that it isn't true.
>>>>.
>>>>
>>> So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought I
>>> had the franchise on describing you?
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have seen
>>> starts with some water creature immigrating to land and progressing
>>> from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
>>
>>And just where do you get your information on evolution? Be specific here.
>>Give us a couple of references.
>>
>>>
>>> So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
>>> morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate your
>>> pointing this out.
>>
>>When did Adam and Eve live? What were Adam and Eve?
>>
>>--
>>Aaron Clausen
>>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>
> I'll be dadgum if I'm going to be yoyr tutor for pre-kindergarten.
>
> You must be 36 years old. I have a friend who is 18 and he's only half
> nuts.
Evasion noted.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742706 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 20:07 |
|
On 14 Dec 2005 16:13:37 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:13:18 GMT,
>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2005 18:46:48 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:03:24 GMT,
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>>>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
>>>>>implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
>>>>>feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
>>>>>mean that it isn't true.
>>>>>.
>>>>>
>>>> So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought I
>>>> had the franchise on describing you?
>>>>
>>>> I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have seen
>>>> starts with some water creature immigrating to land and progressing
>>>> from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
>>>
>>>And just where do you get your information on evolution? Be specific here.
>>>Give us a couple of references.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
>>>> morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate your
>>>> pointing this out.
>>>
>>>When did Adam and Eve live? What were Adam and Eve?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Aaron Clausen
>>>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>>
>> I'll be dadgum if I'm going to be yoyr tutor for pre-kindergarten.
>>
>> You must be 36 years old. I have a friend who is 18 and he's only half
>> nuts.
>
>Evasion noted.
>
>--
>Aaron Clausen
>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>
Ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer.
But if you really wanted to know Adam lived 4114 BC-3184 BC.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742716 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 20:25 |
|
In talk.origins J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> On 14 Dec 2005 16:13:37 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:13:18 GMT,
>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 13 Dec 2005 18:46:48 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:03:24 GMT,
>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>>>>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
>>>>>>implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
>>>>>>feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
>>>>>>mean that it isn't true.
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought I
>>>>> had the franchise on describing you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have seen
>>>>> starts with some water creature immigrating to land and progressing
>>>>> from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
>>>>
>>>>And just where do you get your information on evolution? Be specific here.
>>>>Give us a couple of references.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
>>>>> morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate your
>>>>> pointing this out.
>>>>
>>>>When did Adam and Eve live? What were Adam and Eve?
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Aaron Clausen
>>>>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>>>
>>> I'll be dadgum if I'm going to be yoyr tutor for pre-kindergarten.
>>>
>>> You must be 36 years old. I have a friend who is 18 and he's only half
>>> nuts.
>>
>>Evasion noted.
>>
>>--
>>Aaron Clausen
>>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>
> Ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer.
> But if you really wanted to know Adam lived 4114 BC-3184 BC.
Who did Cain have sex with?
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742722 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 20:40 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2005 14:36:36 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>
> >In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> On 13 Dec 2005 16:40:57 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
> >> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >>>> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
> >>>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
> >>>> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
> >>>> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
> >>>> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
> >>>> >
> >>>> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
> >>>> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
> >>>> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
> >>>>
> >>>> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
> >>>> observation is accurate.
> >>>>
> >>>> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
> >>>> formed to protest.
> >>>
> >>>No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
> >>>been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
> >>
> >> The point is about rights. The law gives the right to execute. Some
> >> group want to overturn that right. You can't respect the rights of
> >> both.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
> >>>> gangs formed to ban guns.
> >>>
> >>>Exactly where....have guns been banned?
> >>
> >> WHo said they were banned. I said groups had been formed to ban them.
> >> Fortunately they are unsuccessful so far. You can't respect the rights
> >> of both. But you'd better respect my guns.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
> >>>
> >>>And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
> >>>
> >>>Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
> >>>reaches an impasse.
> >>
> >> They try to override the rights of the corporation.
> >
> >People have rights, corporations do not.
> >
> >--
> >Aaron
>
> A corporation has the right to hire and fire. It has the right to
> determine pay scales. It has the right to construct or move
> facilities. It has the right to assign work, promote or demote. It
> determines working hours.
Corporations cannot do these indiscriminately...the law does set limits
on all the items you mention.
>
> If those are not rights, what term would you use?
They are not constitutional or human rights.
>
> People have the right to resign if they don't agree with the
> corporation.
Ever heard of constructive dismissal?
>
> In recent years I hear that there is no loyalty by corp or employee;
> so many employees have mostly gripes and no compliments about
> corporations. They harp about pay and working conditions. Could it be
> that disagreeing with my belief about the relationship of employer and
> employee is the root cause of all those problems?
People want to be treated fairly...
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742746 ] |
Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 21:46 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2005 14:36:36 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>
>>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 13 Dec 2005 16:40:57 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>>>>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
>>>>> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
>>>>> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
>>>>> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
>>>>> >
>>>>> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
>>>>> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
>>>>> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
>>>>> observation is accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
>>>>> formed to protest.
>>>>
>>>>No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
>>>>been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
>>>
>>> The point is about rights. The law gives the right to execute. Some
>>> group want to overturn that right. You can't respect the rights of
>>> both.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
>>>>> gangs formed to ban guns.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly where....have guns been banned?
>>>
>>> WHo said they were banned. I said groups had been formed to ban them.
>>> Fortunately they are unsuccessful so far. You can't respect the rights
>>> of both. But you'd better respect my guns.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
>>>>
>>>>And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
>>>>
>>>>Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
>>>>reaches an impasse.
>>>
>>> They try to override the rights of the corporation.
>>
>>People have rights, corporations do not.
>>
>>--
>>Aaron
>
> A corporation has the right to hire and fire. It has the right to
> determine pay scales. It has the right to construct or move
> facilities. It has the right to assign work, promote or demote. It
> determines working hours.
>
> If those are not rights, what term would you use?
They are priviliges, granted by the people. A corporation has no inherent
rights.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742919 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 03:16 |
|
On 14 Dec 2005 11:40:49 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 14 Dec 2005 14:36:36 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >> On 13 Dec 2005 16:40:57 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>> >> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >>>> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>> >>>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
>> >>>> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
>> >>>> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
>> >>>> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
>> >>>> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
>> >>>> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
>> >>>> observation is accurate.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
>> >>>> formed to protest.
>> >>>
>> >>>No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
>> >>>been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
>> >>
>> >> The point is about rights. The law gives the right to execute. Some
>> >> group want to overturn that right. You can't respect the rights of
>> >> both.
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
>> >>>> gangs formed to ban guns.
>> >>>
>> >>>Exactly where....have guns been banned?
>> >>
>> >> WHo said they were banned. I said groups had been formed to ban them.
>> >> Fortunately they are unsuccessful so far. You can't respect the rights
>> >> of both. But you'd better respect my guns.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
>> >>>
>> >>>And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
>> >>>
>> >>>Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
>> >>>reaches an impasse.
>> >>
>> >> They try to override the rights of the corporation.
>> >
>> >People have rights, corporations do not.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Aaron
>>
>> A corporation has the right to hire and fire. It has the right to
>> determine pay scales. It has the right to construct or move
>> facilities. It has the right to assign work, promote or demote. It
>> determines working hours.
>
>Corporations cannot do these indiscriminately...the law does set limits
>on all the items you mention.
>
>>
>> If those are not rights, what term would you use?
>
>They are not constitutional or human rights.
>
>>
>> People have the right to resign if they don't agree with the
>> corporation.
>
>Ever heard of constructive dismissal?
Nope. I retired almost 19 years ago.
>
>>
>> In recent years I hear that there is no loyalty by corp or employee;
>> so many employees have mostly gripes and no compliments about
>> corporations. They harp about pay and working conditions. Could it be
>> that disagreeing with my belief about the relationship of employer and
>> employee is the root cause of all those problems?
>
>People want to be treated fairly...
People want to be treated fairly as they define it
Hugh
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mär 12 22:49:19 CET 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08739 Sekunden |
