Planned Parenthood Perversity

Secret Squirrel wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

wrote in
ups.com:



Secret Squirrel wrote:

While I'm posting URLs, here's the story on the 'sex
offender' from Colorado who got 'treatment' for what
sounds like fairly innocent, non-penetrative sex play
while he was 12 (I remembered wrongly) with an 8-yo girl.

Right. Child molestation is "innocent."

In this case, undoubtedly yes. Non-penetrative sex play between
two kids, both under 13, where it stopped when the girl said
"stop".

In fact, maybe in most cases consensual contact between "adults"
(legally defined) and "children" (again, legally defined) is
harmless, when you exclude the two important caveats of *real*
rape and incest. In fact, the biggest age group on most states'
sex offender registry is under-25 year olds, which should tell
you something. Kids who had sex with other kids who ran afoul
of some arbitrary age limit. (And sometimes, maybe not even sex,
according to a recent web page I've read, which claimed that
some teen boys get on the registry because of pranks like
*mooning* somebody. I'd like to see confirmation of that,
however).

I think I understand now. You'd like the "consensual" sex between you
and the child you've had your eye on to be legal. Unfortunately,
predators like yourself will always operate outside the law. Which
Megan's Law website can I find you on?


What a clown you are.

So sayeth the guy who defends Fox News, the news organization
that defends its right to deliberately lie?

Like I said, your silence on the clearly leftist bent of 80% of the
domestic media neatly and easily destroys your whining, prissy mewling
vis-a-vis FNC.

And who thinks that
the DSM is just an 'opinion piece'?

It's clearly an opinion piece, destroyed by the world consensus that
Saddam had WMD's, and now we learn that the originals were destroyed.
Like the left didn't have enough problems with documentation.


Interesting this:

Here's the bonus question: what does "fix" mean in British? Hear that?
That's the sound of your entire world crashing around you.

a study of people who watched Fox News
by the University of Maryland found them to be the *worst*
informed when compared to CNN or PBS when quized about the
factual content of current events. Maybe not surprising when
you rely on a news services that openly admits to lying and
distorting the news?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/714.html

"In other words, Fox News viewers are literally less informed
about these basic facts. They have, put simply, been led to
believe things that are simply not true. These poor dupes
would have done better in this survey, statistically
speaking, if they received no news at all and simply guessed
whether the claims were accurate."

Secret Squirrel


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQEVAwUBQrS1gT/rA6+b3AyhAQFpXwgAr688MMTIBgQel9KdAfD9NiZFwW413rDD
2VG9OojkAlYjK5M+QTLmwRAjcbQvOuBWSB4QzpmEqsJgLyxnvg Sx1YR8x8sEas0H
MJDKH73sF92HNB5H/QkHUvN2XA/mM+3c4ZP6H4Gjr/CV1h+pp0le8veqcUlS6yYl
z7mPomraoSD4DGKds50nT0yAahJA+EhjixMOtHXk95xUMSPjHr Xtqghq+SY/NLqP
51k2quXBexxPagfcqONk0KVO9iqU22u6mE6PTlb46ha4bdcgfd koII2C7ewG588C
LPh28j5IifHMI4nSqG8ZxVybl16RWp4ZCeuDcXKUNDie8Yd+NP y7uA==
=bRab
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

wrote:
wrote:
It's bad when it doesn't reflect the truth, which our ahem
right-wing press (yes, it's mostly right-wing) doesn't do.

It's okay that you have to lie because you can't stand that 80% of the
domestic media is out to embarrass the Bush administration, but try not
to do so in the face of so much contradictory evidence.

I had no idea defense contractors were out to
embarrass the Bush administration.

You didn't know that most of the domestic media is anti-Bush, so I'm
not surprised reality escapses you.

Why would defense contractors be anti-Bush? After
all, he gives them billions for an essentially
nonsensical defense plan.

Oh, I forgot to mention: Defense contractors own
most of the mainstream media.

Sure you did. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't couteract the
far-left bias of 80% of the domestic media. Don't cry.


If they were
out to embarrass the Bush administration, they
would admit that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs
or connections to Al Qaida.

They've admitted the first ad nauseum but avoided the second since it's
utterly untrue.

And they knew Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons
even before that.

They knew after they entered the country and they weren't there.

Powell even said so in March
2002. As for connections to Al Qaida, read the
9/11 Commission Report. No connection between
Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Which is completely different from no connection between Hussein and Al
Qaida.


Of course, Bush didn't want Congress to
investigate 9/11. I wonder why . . .

Because Bush was behind it of course.


Or they would admit
that supply-side economics and "faith-based
initiatives" are perpetual motion. Or they
would've talked about Enron more. Or about
Diebold at all, since anyone knows how easy it
is to make a computer display one thing, print
something else, and store a third thing. (And if
you don't, there's probably white-out all over
your monitor.)

OIC, they should've reflected your own personal socialist persuasions
so you'd have something new to masturbate over. What a fun way to avoid
admitting that you were completely ****ing wrong.

Oh, just because I don't see how reducing
taxes can cut the deficit makes me a
socialist. Here's a clue: The rich don't need
more money. There are no starving
billionaires.

No, the above makes you a socialist. Here's a clue: just because the
rich don't need more money (which of course isn't your place to say
thanks to it not being your ****ing money) doesn't mean the government
is entitled to it, especially considering their pathetic track record
with spending tax money.


If Enron makes me a socialist, then I guess a
socialist is someone who can't stand thieves.

As for Diebold, I bet you are the type who
puts white-out on your monitor.

Oh, you mean Jeff Gannon? Proven true.

Memogate and Korangate. I know you don't like to talk about it since it
drives you to drink, but you can't keep avoding reality for the rest of
your life.

There's evidence Bush set Memogate up.

There's no such evidence.

Plus,
the media didn't cover the exposing of the
Swift Boat "Veterans" for "Truth".

Sure they did. Ad nauseum. Sorry.


As far as Korangate goes, the Defense
Department says it's true.

The Defense Department did no such thing. Sorry.


DSM?
Bush's only defense has been to cite prewar
intelligence which has already been discredited.

Yes, but prewar intelligence was discredited because there were no
WMD's,

Actually most of the prewar intelligence went
in favor of Saddam not having WMDs.

Sorry, liar, but the intelligence overwhelmingly went in favor of
Saddam having WMD's, which caused everyone on Earth to claim he did
have them.

It was
stuff like "These factories COULD be
pharmaceutical plants or they COULD be making
chemical weapons." It was stuff like
"biological weapons facilities" which turned
out to be hydrogen for artillery balloons!

not because someone wrote an opinion piece three years ago that
utterly contradicted the beliefs of Democrats, Republicans, and most of
the industrialized world.

The DSM isn't an opinion piece.

Sure it is. And it's utterly contradicted by the worldwide consensus
that Saddam had WMD's.

it's official
minutes. As far as "most of the industrialized
world", does that include Europe, Canada,
Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand?
Does it include the CIA?

That's right. And they all said the same thing.


Perhaps we should talk about Monica Lewinsky. Or
about how the right-wing media thought Clinton
was responsible for the deaths of two Arkansas
teens who were hit by a train. (And the images of
silent movies just keep coming.)

Or we can talk about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, but I don't want to get you
too upset.

Oh, so you're admitting Rummy and Asscroft
ordered those.

Twisting others' words is fun for a gimp, but unfortunately it's no way
to win an argument.


Face it, the media had no qualms reporting on
things which didn't happen (Troopergate,
Filegate, the "Clinton murders") or which
were irrelevant (Monica Lewinsky). By
comparison, they're handling Bush with kid
gloves.

The media is pounding Bush over two things: that he's a torturer and
Iraq is going horribly. Over and over. Everyday. But keep living in the
clouds.

wrote:
Why would defense contractors be anti-Bush? After
all, he gives them billions for an essentially
nonsensical defense plan.

Oh, I forgot to mention: Defense contractors own
most of the mainstream media.

Sure you did. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't couteract the
far-left bias of 80% of the domestic media. Don't cry.

The hell? Let me spell it out for you:

Let's look at it:

,---------If the media is--------.
! !
V V
left-wing right-wing
! the majority of stories !
! will be !
V V
against the for the
Iraq war Iraq war

And they knew Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons
even before that.

They knew after they entered the country and they weren't there.

Actually, they knew it before. The U.N. kept saying
there were no weapons. Let's look at the countries in
favor of the war: Iceland? Japan? That'd be nice, but
they have no military. Palau? Oh, they can serve
drinks. Mongolia? They were geopolitically quite
powerful, 800 years ago. Oh, there's the UK,
Australia, and Spain, but you can say adios to Spain
and al salaam a'alaykum to Sudan.

Powell even said so in March
2002. As for connections to Al Qaida, read the
9/11 Commission Report. No connection between
Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Which is completely different from no connection between Hussein and Al
Qaida.

Nope, also no connection between Saddam Hussein and
Al Qaida. At least no direct connection. Donald
Rumsfeld's apparently chummy with both of them,
judging by clips and photos from the 80s.

Of course, Bush didn't want Congress to
investigate 9/11. I wonder why . . .

Because Bush was behind it of course.

Thanks for confessing to that.

Oh, just because I don't see how reducing
taxes can cut the deficit makes me a
socialist. Here's a clue: The rich don't need
more money. There are no starving
billionaires.

No, the above makes you a socialist. Here's a clue: just because the
rich don't need more money (which of course isn't your place to say
thanks to it not being your ****ing money) doesn't mean the government
is entitled to it, especially considering their pathetic track record
with spending tax money.

Some more clues:

1. The debts are higher under Republican presidents.
2. Income tax is legal. Ever read the constitution?

Oh, you mean Jeff Gannon? Proven true.

Memogate and Korangate. I know you don't like to talk about it since it
drives you to drink, but you can't keep avoding reality for the rest of
your life.

There's evidence Bush set Memogate up.

There's no such evidence.

Circumstantial evidence, but we can always look at
Rove's history since the 70s.

Plus,
the media didn't cover the exposing of the
Swift Boat "Veterans" for "Truth".

Sure they did. Ad nauseum. Sorry.

No, I don't remember them covering it. Really.
Which is quite funny, since I got spam from the
Swifties telling me that I'm apparently a Vietnam
vet and I should join them against Kerry. I wasn't
even born yet.

As far as Korangate goes, the Defense
Department says it's true.

The Defense Department did no such thing. Sorry.

Either way, Isikoff was obsessed with Monica
Lewinsky, so I seriously doubt his "liberal bias"
is true. You, on the other hand are bi-assed:
Enough of an ass for two people.

Actually most of the prewar intelligence went
in favor of Saddam not having WMDs.

Sorry, liar, but the intelligence overwhelmingly went in favor of
Saddam having WMD's, which caused everyone on Earth to claim he did
have them.

"Everyone on Earth"? Is the rest of the world
on Mars?

not because someone wrote an opinion piece three years ago that
utterly contradicted the beliefs of Democrats, Republicans, and most of
the industrialized world.

The DSM isn't an opinion piece.

Sure it is. And it's utterly contradicted by the worldwide consensus
that Saddam had WMD's.

Which is false.

it's official
minutes. As far as "most of the industrialized
world", does that include Europe, Canada,
Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand?
Does it include the CIA?

That's right. And they all said the same thing.

Strange, because I've got these press releases
from the UN dated 2002 saying that there was no
evidence Saddam had WMDs.

Face it, the media had no qualms reporting on
things which didn't happen (Troopergate,
Filegate, the "Clinton murders") or which
were irrelevant (Monica Lewinsky). By
comparison, they're handling Bush with kid
gloves.

The media is pounding Bush over two things: that he's a torturer and
Iraq is going horribly. Over and over. Everyday. But keep living in the
clouds.

Um, when? Studies have found you're actually
more informed watching no news at all then
watching 24-hour news.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:03:09 -0500,
wrote

Circumstantial evidence, but we can always look at
Rove's history since the 70s.

Plus,
the media didn't cover the exposing of the
Swift Boat "Veterans" for "Truth".

Sure they did. Ad nauseum. Sorry.

No, I don't remember them covering it. Really.
Which is quite funny, since I got spam from the
Swifties telling me that I'm apparently a Vietnam
vet and I should join them against Kerry. I wasn't
even born yet.


But you have to grant President George W C Bush41 the honor
of never having thrown his VietNam medals and ribbons over
the fense at - well - wherever one throws medals and
ribbons.

George W C Bush 41 is a true - well - uh - I was meanin' to
say - but - however - Texas and Alabama were - uh - well -
uh - I wuz gonna say that - ya see - ole George is jus' a
good old Connecticut [HA! Spelled it right this time and
all y'all Bush athletic supporters keep saying that
Southerners are all dumbasses and not fit to be called
"Americans"].

Anyway, George W C Bush makes all of us proud to be called
Connecticutettes and we've watched ole Sweet Georgia hogtie
horses and horsetie hogs and that ole boy just almost
figgered (and George W H Bush KNOWS what ryhmes with
"figgered") and even if his wife thinks he's not quite a
man, he's all the man the Repoublican party can handle (ya
have to remember what sort of "man" identifies with Sweet
Georgia Wants It Right Here and Now).


After all, when compared to President William Clinton,
George W C Bush43 comes in a strong second in the manhood
race (okay, it wasn't very "strong".]


And that's something that "he" and his "male" suporters can
proudly boast.


George W C Bush has something no male has ever had!



Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:04:42 -0500, Gray Shockley wrote

George W C Bush 41


Obviously 43. 41 was a pretty genuine brave man and, under
some definitions, a "war hero".

I wish his sons had taken after him.


gray