subject:
Vindictive reason vs. vulnerable votaries (was: Re: Assorted woo,
	acupuncture ....

text:
On Mar 5, 9:49 am, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

Whether possessing an IQ above 100 or below, so many people are
vulnerable - but only to a certain extent. Their specific
vulnerabilities and the group relationship particular to them is that
balance of an equation where their own unfulfilled needs are either
being filled or exploited by someone else.

In Scientology the biz is to find whoever is so vulnerable
(intellectually, emotionally) that they'll declare they believe in
complete and total bullshit. The church takes them in & makes them
station the money pump. Just as with codependent relationships guilt
is the great lever. That's the way to extract what is wanted w/out
direct coercion, the tithing is proffered willingly. The point here is
the shared principles or beliefs are the lever to shoehorn a great
many people into a common cause.

Compare that formula to a healthy religious group: There are definite
similarities. Where's the line between beliefs that are delusional or
not, exploitative or healthy, and so on? But how many decent and
agnostic Xians (those who lurk quietly in the back pews) would still
be mortified to ever express the blasphemy of declaring God
nonexistent, that Mary was not a virgin, that the entire Christ mythos
was obvious borrowed from the Mediterranean pantheons of the time?

This is hard stuff for many people, I know b/c it was for me - it took
years to find emancipation from the stress of heresy (long after I was
a declared atheist). I found such little solace in pure reason, which
that's why I'm so sympathetic to the problem of votaries and their
beliefs. They suffer for their faith and such obviously syncretic
beliefs. Their naive spirituality encumbers them but the functional
humanism of their religio-societal peers supports them, making for a
Gordian Knot both intractable and permanent. Speaking against faith is
like speaking against everyone you know and it's pure hell to dare so.
Pseudo-pious homophobia is functionally vicarious and the real
homophobia is the fear of the implied ostracism that would occur from
speaking in favor of acceptance and reason.

THIS is the real problem, it's the real and tangible socio-
psychological realm of acceptance and the fear of rejection. Accepting
a thing - whatever it may be - that has been broadly denounced as
grossly unacceptable by the group creates such an abidingly insidious
anxiety that very few can see through it or emancipate themselves from
it. Demanding reason, demanding an extinction of views and forms only
serves to threaten, to reify the very walls reason would claim
privilege to dissolve.

We cannot demand reason, we can only demonstrate it, bear witness to
its fruits. That is all we can do. And if reason cannot penetrate the
mote of ill-reason some panentheist might harbor, then we shouldn't
pursue the matter any further. It's of no consequence whether a votary
anthropizes emptiness as some personal Jesus or they imagine some
expansive voidness - the reason these beliefs are so durable is
because they represent deep metaphors of life and death. It's just too
much to ask people to drop everything they hold dear, when it goes way
beyond a mere guilty pleasure or intellectual conceit.

/l


author: halfawake

subject:
Re: Assorted woo, acupuncture and mind power (was Re: Raiding the
  Pantyry)

text:
Evelyn wrote:

Nice to hear about your knowledge and interest in this.  Your talk about
the seasons and the different types of herbs could form a nice
foundation for a poem sometime.  Good to know you have this information!

Best,
Robert

= = = = = = = = =


author: DT

text:
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:

So there's gonna be rain AND sex?  Cool!

DT


author: Evelyn

subject: Re: Assorted woo, acupuncture and mind power (was Re: Raiding the Pantyry)

text:
"niunian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The first guy, the Korean, was really an expert and he was good.   The
second one has a place right here in Woodstock, and he is Chinese.   He
didn't make my pain any worse, he just didn't make it go away.   But then
nothing could, even the strongest drugs barely helped.   The only thing that
cured that pain was time, and it took a long time to go.


text:
"liaM" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4b8bcc99$0$15818$[email]...

Yes, she certainly does.   I took care of my mother in law who had
alzheimers disease for 3 1/2 years.   It was the single most difficult thing
I ever did in my life.

Send your friend a big hug from me.   She sounds like one of the real
bodhisattvas on this earth.


subject:
Re: Assorted woo, acupuncture and mind power (was Re: Raiding the
 Pantyry)

text:
Evelyn wrote:

In a way this is where practice comes down to real life.  I also have a
really hard time, in the face of life's obstacles, staying involved with
  the things that are, in some ways, closest to me - which to me at
present are the book I've been working on and writing in general,
poetry, Buddhist study and some other kinds of study, and playing music
maybe especially.  I've got a list of things that are what I think I
would be doing if i didn't have to do all this other stuff, and if
organizational problems didn't get in the way.  It's not exactly the
same as health challenges, although there are some components of that too.

But I guess I'm generalizing this out to:  what keeps us from doing what
we really most want to do, things that are expression of our "true self"
or however you want to put it.  I would think that mindfulness and being
in touch with what is really happening in the moment would somehow
translate into following deeper more true desires not based on
distraction and succumbing to obstacles, but it continues to seem very
hard to stay focused on stuff that is not directly or indirectly about
physical survival.

Someone said to me that I had no problem keeping a commitment to other
people, to work, etc., but I had almost no ability to keep a commitment
to myself.  Luckily, part of what I want to do turned into my work, or
I'd really lose touch.  [And thank God for my usenet addiction, which
keeps me semi-connected to something that resembles philosophy and/or
spirituality.]

One keeps trying, but it's a quandary.

Best,
Robert

= = = = = = = = =


text:
"halfawake" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hmiamn$o30$[email]...

Agreed!


author: Hollywood Lee

subject: Re: Vindictive reason vs. vulnerable votaries

text:
On 3/6/2010 6:13 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:

It's why we built las vegas.


author: Kitty P

subject: Re: Vindictive reason vs. vulnerable votaries (was: Re: Assorted woo, acupuncture ....

text:
"Beerlet Dhiblang" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Mar 5, 9:49 am, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

Whether possessing an IQ above 100 or below, so many people are
vulnerable - but only to a certain extent. Their specific
vulnerabilities and the group relationship particular to them is that
balance of an equation where their own unfulfilled needs are either
being filled or exploited by someone else.

In Scientology the biz is to find whoever is so vulnerable
(intellectually, emotionally) that they'll declare they believe in
complete and total bullshit. The church takes them in & makes them
station the money pump. Just as with codependent relationships guilt
is the great lever. That's the way to extract what is wanted w/out
direct coercion, the tithing is proffered willingly. The point here is
the shared principles or beliefs are the lever to shoehorn a great
many people into a common cause.

Compare that formula to a healthy religious group: There are definite
similarities. Where's the line between beliefs that are delusional or
not, exploitative or healthy, and so on? But how many decent and
agnostic Xians (those who lurk quietly in the back pews) would still
be mortified to ever express the blasphemy of declaring God
nonexistent, that Mary was not a virgin, that the entire Christ mythos
was obvious borrowed from the Mediterranean pantheons of the time?

This is hard stuff for many people, I know b/c it was for me - it took
years to find emancipation from the stress of heresy (long after I was
a declared atheist). I found such little solace in pure reason, which
that's why I'm so sympathetic to the problem of votaries and their
beliefs. They suffer for their faith and such obviously syncretic
beliefs. Their naive spirituality encumbers them but the functional
humanism of their religio-societal peers supports them, making for a
Gordian Knot both intractable and permanent. Speaking against faith is
like speaking against everyone you know and it's pure hell to dare so.
Pseudo-pious homophobia is functionally vicarious and the real
homophobia is the fear of the implied ostracism that would occur from
speaking in favor of acceptance and reason.

THIS is the real problem, it's the real and tangible socio-
psychological realm of acceptance and the fear of rejection. Accepting
a thing - whatever it may be - that has been broadly denounced as
grossly unacceptable by the group creates such an abidingly insidious
anxiety that very few can see through it or emancipate themselves from
it. Demanding reason, demanding an extinction of views and forms only
serves to threaten, to reify the very walls reason would claim
privilege to dissolve.

We cannot demand reason, we can only demonstrate it, bear witness to
its fruits. That is all we can do. And if reason cannot penetrate the
mote of ill-reason some panentheist might harbor, then we shouldn't
pursue the matter any further. It's of no consequence whether a votary
anthropizes emptiness as some personal Jesus or they imagine some
expansive voidness - the reason these beliefs are so durable is
because they represent deep metaphors of life and death. It's just too
much to ask people to drop everything they hold dear, when it goes way
beyond a mere guilty pleasure or intellectual conceit.

/l
----

Well said


author: niunian

text:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:58:10 -0500, "Evelyn" <[email]>
wrote:

Now you make me suspect the ability of your surgeon. :-)


author: Keynes

text:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:05:33 -0500, halfawake <[email]> wrote:

I've spent my whole life preparing for ten careers.
Now that I'm a card carrying geezer, I'm beginning
to suspect that none of my talents and interests will
ever get started. (Officially.) But WTH it's been fun.


author: Wilson

text:
On 3/1/2010 10:07 PM, Hidden Draggin wrote:

Hence the rubbers.  No one likes cold wet feet.


text:
"niunian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Shoulder surgery, according to my orthopedic guy, is the most painful of all
orthopedic surgeries.   And my break was extremely bad.   He said the only
way it could possibly have been any worse was if the bone was protruding,
and he did suggest replacing the shoulder joint at the time, which seemed
rather radical to me, so I went with the other option, that of repairing the
break.    I still have several stainless steel screws in it, and always
will.


text:
"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I can relate to that statement very well!


text:
On 3/2/2010 8:03 AM, Wilson wrote:

My pet duck, Didwapple, disagrees.


text:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:46:02 -0500, "Evelyn" <[email]>
wrote:

I'm sorry for your problem, but the purpose of our life is to take the
challenge and smile in the end. That is what makes life worth living.
Hope one day you will smile like me too.

:-)


author: Lee Rudolph

text:
Hollywood Lee <[email]> writes:

A duck may be somebody's mother, fucker.

Lee Rudolph


text:
"niunian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I am smiling now and do so every day.   It is a conscious choice.

I only mentioned the old injury because it came up in the conversation about
the efficacy of acupuncture for pain relief.

Here is a quote you might enjoy.

"Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is, having
nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst
into laughter."    -Longchenpa


text:
On 3/2/2010 8:11 AM, Lee Rudolph wrote:

Didwapple is a he, but he appreciates the sentiment.


text:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:40:55 -0500, "Evelyn" <[email]>
wrote:

Huh? Isn't that a laborious choice?

I don't see the humor of it. Skinning young woman to make temple drum
is hardly a laughable thing by human measure. Perhaps it is a
non-human you are quoting?


text:
"niunian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

What you read into this post is utterly ridiculous.
Bye.....


text:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:05:38 -0500, "Evelyn" <[email]>
wrote:

So long.


author: liaM

text:
Le 2/28/2010 6:09 PM, niunian a ï¿½crit :

Would be washing marrow and wagging fingers at ideas..  What a wimp !


text:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:39:05 +0100, liaM <[email]> wrote:

Ideas are a dime a dozen. It's nothing but worthless shit. It's the
spirit behind those ideas that will either kill or save. You fucking
fool!


text:
Le 2/28/2010 9:53 PM, niunian a ï¿½crit :

There you go again.  Your mind is a trough for truisms.


text:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:07:51 +0100, liaM <[email]> wrote:

No, there you go gain. Pretending to know which you really don't with
ill conceived sophistry.


author: Lawson English

subject: Response to criticism found in Skeptical Inquirer

text:
Comments?

Are the editors of _Skeptical Inquirer_ as skeptical of articles that they
approve for publication as they should be?

http://www.istpp.org/crime_prevention/voodoo_rebuttal.html


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Response to criticism found in Skeptical Inquirer

text:
Lawson - At first, to the average skeptic, the CISCOP organization looks
very promising. It is important to sort out legitimate from fraudulent
research. However, CISCOP cannot provide the objectivity needed to
accomplish this task. The reason becomes clear when you realize who started
CISCOP and why.

CISCOP was founded in 1976 under the sponsorship of the American Humanist
Association. Essentialy humanism is a school of thought concerned with human
interests and human values as opposed to religious or spiritual values. The
intention of the secular humanists is to create a worldwide secular society.
In this sense, humanists are the other extreme end to religious
fundamentalists.

Both being extreme, it is very difficult to remain objective, when you a
have already stated what you are going to believe. In fact, the Skeptical
Inquirer is but a mere prosecutor, not a judge. The magazine is an advocate
of a particular point of view, that is, secular materialism. This point of
view finds religions and spiritual experiences to be easy targets, yet, in
their zeal to debunk, they forfiet their own credibility by ignoring other
evidence which flatly contradicts their own point of view.

As the Sage Naga Arjuna said: "Every point of view, when taken to extremes,
will be found to be self-contradictory."


author: John Griffin

text:
"[email]" <[email]> wrote in message
news:w6QS8.162861$[email]...
started
human
The
society.
advocate
extremes,

Weak.


author: Michael Burnem

text:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:16:15 +0200, John Griffin wrote:

Weaker.


author: adri bate

text:
Fuck Sage Naga Arjuna.

The poster did have a point.  Skeptical Inquierer and Skeptic magazine are
pretty cool, but they do advocate athieism, it seems to me.  Which is bullshit.
 How do they know?  Shouldn't they be taking an agnostic position?  They do a
pretty good job of debunking, but consistency is not a strong point.


author: ~BEN~

text:
sorry ppl, I'm new to this newsgroup thing and I'm not sure if mycomments
are welcome, but in regards to the question of athiesm vs agnosticism.
shouldn't everyone be taking an either/or position on this subject? I
personally am an athiest, simply because I find no plausible proof for the
existence of god or any gods!

Agnosticism is a cop out which is based on the assumption that there MAY be
proof of a god that they  may or may not believe in !?????
What the FUCK is this??? choose a side ppl!!!!!
There has never been any plausible proof that a God or Gods exist!! If one
comes up then I might be persuaded to change sides, but I am not going to
settle for agnosticism

By subscribing to agnosticism u are essentially deluding urself into
believing that maybe there will be proof that there is a god
someday!!....and therefore placing urself into the same category as those
other delutional freeks that call themselves christians etc.... those that
have FAITH!!!!!!!!!???????

Agnostics are just the same as those who believe! They are empty and need to
find some other meaning for their existence other than their mundane day to
day living which they created for themselves!!

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
Your life is the life u created for urself! ....not some product of an
omnipotent god!!!
If u really feel the need to blame someone for the mistakes u make every day
of ur life then u have no further to look than urself!!

From: an angry non-believer that can't believe ppl in this day and age still
run their day to day lives around a book of fiction!

adri bate <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
bullshit.
do a


subject: #Krugman: Send in the Clueless

text:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/send-in-the-clueless.html?_r=1

Send in the Clueless
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 4, 2011

There are two crucial things you need to understand about the current
state of American politics. First, given the still dire economic
situation, 2012 should be a year of Republican triumph. Second, the
G.O.P. may nonetheless snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — because
Herman Cain was not an accident.

Think about what it takes to be a viable Republican candidate today. You
have to denounce Big Government and high taxes without alienating the
older voters who were the key to G.O.P. victories last year — and who,
even as they declare their hatred of government, will balk at any hint of
cuts to Social Security and Medicare (death panels!).

And you also have to denounce President Obama, who enacted a Republican-
designed health reform and killed Osama bin Laden, as a radical socialist
who is undermining American security.

So what kind of politician can meet these basic G.O.P. requirements?
There are only two ways to make the cut: to be totally cynical or totally
clueless.

Mitt Romney embodies the first option. He’s not a stupid man; he knows
perfectly well, to take a not incidental example, that the Obama health
reform is identical in all important respects to the reform he himself
introduced in Massachusetts — but that doesn’t stop him from denouncing
the Obama plan as a vast government takeover that is nothing like what he
did. He presumably knows how to read a budget, which means that he must
know that defense spending has continued to rise under the current
administration, but this doesn’t stop him from pledging to reverse Mr.
Obama’s “massive defense cuts.”

Mr. Romney’s strategy, in short, is to pretend that he shares the
ignorance and misconceptions of the Republican base. He isn’t a stupid
man — but he seems to play one on TV.

Unfortunately from his point of view, however, his acting skills leave
something to be desired, and his insincerity shines through. So the base
still hungers for someone who really, truly believes what every candidate
for the party’s nomination must pretend to believe. Yet as I said, the
only way to actually believe the modern G.O.P. catechism is to be
completely clueless.

And that’s why the Republican primary has taken the form it has, in which
a candidate nobody likes and nobody trusts has faced a series of clueless
challengers, each of whom has briefly soared before imploding under the
pressure of his or her own cluelessness. Think in particular of Rick
Perry, a conservative true believer who seemingly had everything it took
to clinch the nomination — until he opened his mouth.

So will Newt Gingrich suffer the same fate? Not necessarily.

Many observers seem surprised that Mr. Gingrich’s, well, colorful
personal history isn’t causing him more problems, but they shouldn’t be.
If hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, conservatives often seem
inclined to accept that tribute, voting for candidates who publicly
espouse conservative moral principles whatever their personal behavior.
Did I mention that David Vitter is still in the Senate?

And Mr. Gingrich has some advantages none of the previous challengers
had. He is by no means the deep thinker he imagines himself to be, but
he’s a glib speaker, even when he has no idea what he’s talking about.
And my sense is that he’s also very good at doublethink — that even when
he knows what he’s saying isn’t true, he manages to believe it while he’s
saying it. So he may not implode like his predecessors.

The larger point, however, is that whoever finally gets the Republican
nomination will be a deeply flawed candidate. And these flaws won’t be an
accident, the result of bad luck regarding who chose to make a run this
time around; the fact that the party is committed to demonstrably false
beliefs means that only fakers or the befuddled can get through the
selection process.

Of course, given the terrible economic picture and the tendency of voters
to blame whoever holds the White House for bad times, even a deeply
flawed G.O.P. nominee might very well win the presidency. But then what?

The Washington Post quotes an unnamed Republican adviser who compared
what happened to Mr. Cain, when he suddenly found himself leading in the
polls, to the proverbial tale of the dog who had better not catch that
car he’s chasing. “Something great and awful happened, the dog caught the
car. And of course, dogs don’t know how to drive cars. So he had no idea
what to do with it.”

The same metaphor, it seems to me, might apply to the G.O.P. pursuit of
the White House next year. If the dog actually catches the car — the
actual job of running the U.S. government — it will have no idea what to
do, because the realities of government in the 21st century bear no
resemblance to the mythology all ambitious Republican politicians must
pretend to believe. And what will happen then?
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK


subject: Re: #Krugman: Send in the Clueless

text:
"6338 Dead, 1481 since 1/20/09" <[email]> wrote in message
news:jbjukj$2s9$[email]...

A great column!


subject: Re: #Krugman: Send in the Clueless

text:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:51:25 -0500, Sid9 wrote:

_r=1

If they did debate, Obama would win.  He would be picking apart Newt's
misstatements of facts and having a grand old time of it.  Newt isn't
even that well grounded in theory, let alone on-the-ground political
realities.

--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK


author: Wexford

subject: Re: #Krugman: Send in the Clueless

text:
On Dec 5, 9:29 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:

I don't share Krugman's assessment of Newt. Newt is glib (not
intelligent, but glib) when he's spewing his prattle to the great
republican unwashed, but he doesn't do well when he's away from his
kind. I once saw him devastated in a debate with Gary Hart and old
George McGovern. Obama would take his lunch. He knows that and he'll
never debate Obama. Instead, if he is nominated he'll run TV ads
claiming that Obama wouldn't debate him. I don't think it will work.
His personal baggage will sink him. The good Baptists and Evangelicals
may not vote for Obama, but unless they put gay death panels on the
state ballot, won't vote at all in the election, if Newt runs. Romney
may be patently phony but he won't alienate people the way Newt will.
The Fundies don't like Mormonism, but they might hold their noses and
vote for one. They can always tell themselves he's a good family man
and besides, he's rich, a sure sign of being one of the Elect.
Besides, Newt is just plain ugly, and old. People don't elect old,
ugly presidents.


subject: Re: #Krugman: Send in the Clueless

text:
"Wexford" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
.
.
.
Newt will almost guarantee Obama a second term.

I hope Limbo doesnï¿½t waiver!


author: Not Sure

subject: Re: #Krugman: Send in the Clueless

text:
On Dec 5, 7:35 pm, Wexford <[email]> wrote:

Keep telling yourself that, clown :)

He knows that and he'll


author: Robert Tkoch

subject: Helio Forecast:Thursday

text:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------------5EC925A84F000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

ï¿½


author: Benjamin P. Carter

subject: Re: Helio Forecast:Thursday

text:
This astrological material doesn't belong in talk.philosophy.misc or any
other newsgroup relating to philosophy.  I see from the header that this
material is also posted to alt.astrology (where it belongs),
alt.consciousness, talk.religion.newage, .misc,alt.romance, and alt.love.
That would be an excessive number of newsgroups even if the material was
of any value.


author: Myrl

subject: Re: Some Sanity on Merck's Gardasil from Dr. Reichman: Can a vaccine treat my existing HPV infection?

text:
On Aug 31, 5:47 pm, Mark Probert <[email]> wrote:

Absolutely - That's what vaccines do, they PREVENT disease, so one
knows whether without the vaccine, that individual would have ever
developed the disease.

Ilena Rosenthal wants to focus on screenings and tests. . .But, that
would be because PREVENTION of HPV, through a vaccine, HAS NOT
happened.  Ilena Rosenthal is looking for disease - not trying to
prevent it!

Another analogy would be if we asked the question, "I wonder if Johnny
would have contracted Measles, if he hadn't received the measles
vaccine?"

We know that kids by the millions got measles before the vaccine, and
that millions don't get it now!

Just as we know that 250,000 - 290,000 women die each year from
Cervical Cancer now, and hopefully, with a vaccine, we will be able to
save 70% of them, by preventing the HPV strains, that cause the
disease.

If we wait until AFTER a girl has contracted HPV, then according to
the studies, it may be too late to protect them from Cervical Cancer.

It has been estimated that 1 in 4 women have the HPV virus.


text:
On Aug 29, 3:45 pm, Ilena Rose <[email]> wrote:

Ilena continues to trivalize the 250,000 - 290,000 women, who die each
year from Cervical Cancer, while tauting her "7" associated deaths
with the Gardasil vaccine.

It has been estimated that 70% of the 250,000 - 290,000 women who die
of Cervical Cancer each year, could be saved by the Gardasil vaccine,
which protects against the HPV virus.

There has also been NO PROOF, that Ilena Rosenthal's tauted "7"
associated deaths, were actually caused by the vaccine.

Ilena campaigns for screening and testing. . .However testing and
screenings will only find HPV, and Cervical Cancer, it WILL NOT
PREVENT IT!

Ilena's stance is to TREAT the disease, rather than PREVENT it!  It is
estimated that 1 in 4 women are infected with the HPV virus, which
Gardasil would protect against .


text:
On Aug 29, 7:44 pm, edgger <[email]> wrote:

Edgger - I suspect the word "could" reflects on the idea of
protection, IF a girl receives the vaccine.  Of course if she does
not, protection "couldn't" really exist then - could it.

Of course if we used screenings and testing for HPV (like some folks
would rather we do) - then PREVENTION AND PROTECTION would be a moot
point, wouldn't it.

I like the article below.  It is one of many I have read on the
subject.  It actually quotes 75^ protection.  But I stick with other
accountings putting it at 70%, just to keep a "conservative" estimate,
so as to not encite the anti-vac folks, any more than they already
are!

Cancer jab 'stops 75% of deaths'

Vaccinating all 12-year-old girls against the virus which causes most
cervical cancers could cut deaths from the disease by 75%, a study
suggests.

GlaxoSmithKline's Cervarix jab targets two strains of the human
papillomavirus.

The firm's findings were presented at the International Papillomavirus
Conference, along with a study on rival jab Gardasil from Sanofi
Pasteur.

Gardasil was found to be effective on more strains of HPV than first
thought.

The idea of finally being able to prevent cases of cervical cancer
with a vaccine is extremely exciting

Dr Anne Szarewski, of Cancer Research UK

For the Cervarix research, a computer model was used to predict the
outcome of vaccinating all 12-year-old girls in the UK - a total of
376,385.

Applied to the whole of the UK on the basis of the latest cervical
cancer figures, it would mean 262 deaths each year, compared with the
current level of around 1,000.

The number of annual cases of the disease would also drop from 2,841
to 682.

The researchers admitted 100% coverage assumed in the study was
unrealistic, but said even if 80% were vaccinated, the number of
deaths would drop by 61%.

Cervarix works by targeting HPV 16 and HPV 18, the two most common
forms of the disease.

It has also been found to be effective at targeting some of the other
most common strains.

Competition

GSK is in fierce competition with Sanofi Pasteur, who are about to see
their vaccine, Gardasil, granted a European licence.

Cervarix is still being developed and will not reach European approval
stage for around another year.

The research into Gardasil, presented at the conference in Prague, the
Czech Republic and funded by Sanofi Pasteur, found it provided
protection against 85% of HPV strains responsible for cervical cancer
- up from 75% shown by previous studies.

Dr Nick Kitchin, medical director at Sanofi Pasteur, said the results
were "very promising".

Dr Anne Szarewski, clinical consultant at Cancer Research UK, said:
"HPV vaccination offers great promise in terms of reducing the number
of cases of cervical cancer and preventing deaths from it.

"Beyond the cases and the deaths, hundreds of thousands of women each
year in the UK suffer anxiety when they have an abnormal smear
result.

"The idea of finally being able to prevent cases of cervical cancer
with a vaccine is extremely exciting."

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/5311598.stm

Published: 2006/09/04 09:44:27 GMT


text:
Edgger - Here's another article:

Epidemiology of cancer of the cervix: global and national perspective.

1: J Indian Med Assoc. 2000 Feb;98(2):49-52. Related Articles, Links

Shanta V, Krishnamurthi S, Gajalakshmi CK, Swaminathan R, Ravichandran
K.

Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai.

Cancer of the uterine cervix is one of the leading causes of cancer
death among women worldwide. The estimated new cancer cervix cases per
year is 500,000 of which 79% occur in the developing countries. Cancer
cervix occupies either the top rank or second among cancers in women
in the developing countries, whereas in the affluent countries cancer
cervix does not even find a place in the top 5 leading cancers in
women. The truncated rate (TR) in the age group 35-64 years in
Chennai, India, is even higher (99.1/100,000; 1982-95) than rate
reported from Cali, Colombia (77.4/100,000, 1987-91). The cervical
cancer burden in India alone is estimated as 100,000 in 2001 AD. The
differential pattern of cervical cancer and the wide variation in
incidence are possibly related to environmental differences.
Aetiologic association and possible risk factors for cervical
carcinoma have been extensively studied. The factors are: Sexual and
reproductive factors, socio-economic factors (education and income),
viruses e.g., herpes simplex virus (HSV), human papillomavirus (HPV),
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in cervical carcinogenesis and
other factors like smoking, diet, oral contraceptives, hormones, etc.
The accumulated evidence suggests that cervical cancer is preventable
and is highly suitable for primary prevention. Sexual hygiene, use of
barrier contraceptives and ritual circumcision can undoubtedly reduce
cervical cancer incidence. Education, cervical cancer screening of
high risk groups and improvement in socio-economic status can reduce
cervical cancer morbidity and mortality significantly.

PIP: Cancer of the uterine cervix is one of the leading causes of
cancer death among women worldwide. The estimated number of new
cervical cancer cases per year is 500,000, of which 79% occur in
developing countries. Cervical cancer is ranked highest or second-
highest among cancers in women in developing countries, whereas in
affluent countries cervical cancer does not even rate within the top 5
leading cancers in women. The truncated rate in the age group 35-64
years in Chennai, India, is even higher (99.1/100,000; 1982-95) than
the rate reported from Cali, Colombia (77.4/100,000; 1987-91). The
cervical cancer burden in India alone is estimated to reach 100,000 by
2001. The differential patterns of cervical cancer and the wide
variation in incidence are possibly related to environmental
differences. Etiologic associations and possible risk factors for
cervical carcinoma have been extensively studied. The factors are:
sexual and reproductive factors; socioeconomic factors (education and
income); viruses (e.g., herpes simplex virus, human papillomavirus,
HIV); and other factors such as smoking, diet, oral contraceptives,
hormones, etc. The accumulated evidence suggests that cervical cancer
is preventable and is highly suitable for primary prevention. Sexual
hygiene, use of barrier contraceptives, and ritual circumcision can
undoubtedly reduce cervical cancer incidence. Education, cervical
cancer screening of high-risk groups, and improvement in socioeconomic
status can reduce cervical cancer morbidity and mortality
significantly.

MeSH Terms:
Adenocarcinoma/etiology
Adenocarcinoma/mortality*
Adult
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/etiology
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/mortality*
Cause of Death*
Cross-Sectional Studies
Developing Countries*
Female
Humans
Incidence
India/epidemiology
Middle Aged
Risk Factors
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/etiology
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/mortality*

PMID: 11016150 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


text:
Here's what Planned Parenthood has to say.

Safety of the HPV Vaccine Gardasil

It has come to our attention at Planned Parenthood of Montana that
there is information circulating via email regarding the safety of the
HPV vaccine Gardasil. Below is some information and quick facts for
clarification so that young women are not misinformed about the
vaccine and its potential to save lives.

First, the source of the alert, JudicialWatch, is a conservative think
tank that opposes the use of the HPV vaccine. It's interpretation of
the FDA reports neglects to include the basic disclaimer included on
the FDA VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) website:

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any
reported event, no cause and effect relationship has been established.
VAERS is interested in all potential associations between vaccines and
adverse events. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event
following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a
vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation
that a vaccine caused the event.

In addition, VAERS notes: "In some media reports and on some web sites
on the Internet, VAERS reports are presented as verified cases of
vaccine deaths and injuries. Statements such as these misrepresent the
nature of the VAERS surveillance system."

Regarding the safety of Gardasil, the Wall Street Journal followed up
on the JudicialWatch report and provided the following information
regarding the adverse reports including the three deaths:

The new data also show that three female patients who received the
vaccine died. However, Merck, the FDA and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, which helps the FDA monitor vaccine adverse
events, said the deaths were unlikely to have been caused by
Gardasil.
Two of the women were taking birth-control pills and died from blood
clots, a known risk of contraceptive medication, according to the CDC.
The third, a 12-year-old girl, suffered from heart disease and died
from a heart inflammation brought on by the flu, the CDC said.

So far, there have been 1,637 reports of adverse reactions, not an
unusually high number given that two million to three million women
may have received the vaccine. Most of the adverse events involve
minor side effects such as pain at the site of injection, itching and
dizziness. Merck has distributed more than five million doses of
Gardasil in the U.S. since its introduction in June 2006. The vaccine
is administered in three shots over a period of six months.

Karen Riley, a spokeswoman for the FDA, said the agency was closely
monitoring the adverse events associated with Gardasil, including the
pregnancy complications, but "we haven't seen anything at this point
that would suggest we'd make any changes in the product."

We hope this information clarifies some of the concern about Gardasil.
It's critically important that accurate information about vaccines be
presented and that the source of the "concern" be investigated should
a conflict of interest be a consideration.

As with all healthcare issues, Planned Parenthood of Montana makes a
personal commitment to provide its patients with the best- and safest
- health care. We will continue to monitor the FDA and CDC reports
regarding Gardasil and make sure that our friends and patients are
kept well-informed.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/montana/saftey-of-the-hpv-vaccine-ga...


text:
This article quotes 493,000 global cases of cervical cancer, with
273,000 deaths.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/103/14596.html

Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in women in low-resource
countries, 85% of the global cervical cancer burden of approximately
493 000 cases and 273 000 deaths being currently found in developing
countries. "Cervical cancer is a major problem for global public
health" said Dr Peter Boyle, Director of IARC.

Screening still a necessity

While new vaccines have been launched recently to prevent infection by
the two major types of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) responsible for
cervical cancer development, cervical cancer prevention will need to
rely on early detection for a number of years before a sizeable
reduction in incidence and mortality is seen from affordable and
efficient immunization campaigns.

All populations not equal for screening tests

For several decades now, it has been known that the Papanicolaou test
("Pap Smear") is a safe, reliable and effective test for detecting
cervical cancer and pre-cancerous lesions. "However, given resources
and logistics, it is impossible at present to introduce the Pap smear
to all parts of the world", said Dr Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan,
principal author of the study. "On the ground," he added, "in low-
resource settings where cervix cancer is very common, we need a
practical approach to screening and early detection."

For this reason, Dr Sankaranarayanan and colleagues undertook a
randomised controlled trial of a simple technique known as visual
inspection screening, which involves the application of acetic acid
(4%) on the cervix and naked eye inspection for typical acetowhite
coloration of precancerous lesions.

Adapt screening methods to the various settings

In this perspective, "the effort by Sankaranarayanan et al.(1) assumes
enormous public health importance in demonstrating the validity,
efficiency and opportunity of low-tech approaches to cancer
prevention" said Dr Boyle.

This is the largest randomised controlled trial of visual inspection
screening for cervical lesions in a low-resource setting, carried out
in rural India from 2000 to the present, using a low-tech approach.
The scope is wide: over 30 000 women were screened, against
approximately the same number of control women. These results emanate
from a rigorous study, designed to provide strong scientific evidence,
and which has benefited from ethical committees' inputs and approval.

A systematic registration of cancer cases from the entire Dindigul
district by the Dindigul Ambilikkai Cancer Registry (DACR) played an
important role in evaluating the study.

Results

"The study shows a number of important findings with wide-ranging
implications," said Dr Boyle. "There is now evidence from a randomised
trial that screening using visual inspection with 4% acetic acid
(VIA), in the presence of effective treatment for the lesions found,
is effective in reducing incidence and mortality from cervical
cancer."

During the study period, 31 343 women were screened using VIA. Among
these, 1874 women were diagnosed with precancerous lesions, and 72%
received treatment; 167 cervical cancer cases and 83 cervical cancer
deaths were observed compared with 158 cases and 92 deaths in the
control group during 2000-06 ( i.e. women receiving the VIA screening
were 25% less likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than those
who did not and were 35% less likely to die from it).

Conclusions

The study concluded that VIA screening, in the presence of good
training and sustained quality assurance, is an effective method for
preventing cervical cancer in developing countries.

"VIA offers a real-time advantage over other screening methods,
particularly in low-resource settings, with the distinct improvement
of diagnosis and rapid treatment at one go, meaning minimal dropouts.
In addition, a range of healthcare personnel can perform it, from the
nurse level up," said Dr Jacob Cherian, Director, Christian Fellowship
Community Health Centre, Ambillikkai, India.

Dr Sankaranarayanan emphasized that "The key to success is providing
highly effective training of personnel and ensuring that quality
control standards at all parts of the procedure are in place."

Recommendations

"While prevailing conditions do differ dramatically between low-
resource nations, it is vital to set up organized screening programs
in the population, parallel to immunization programs, if we want to
have a significant impact on the incidence and mortality from this
common cancer," concluded Dr Esmy, Principal Investigator at the
Christian Fellowship Community Health Centre, Ambillikkai, India.

Acknowledgement

This study was conducted with active collaboration from the Cancer
Institute (WIA), Chennai, the PSG Institute of Medical Sciences,
Coimbatore, and Dindigul district administrative authorities and
health services. The study was supported by a grant from the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation through the Alliance for Cervical Cancer
Prevention (ACCP), a group of five international organizations with a
shared goal of working to prevent cervical cancer in developing
countries.


author: bigvince

text:
On Aug 29, 10:44 pm, edgger <[email]> wrote:

As the vaccine has yet not been shown to prevent any grade 3 lessions
the best  surrogate point for cancer and has only been shown to reduce
grade 2 lessions by 17% thats the way you talk. This drugs effect on
cancer rates is unproven. Many experts are advising a wait and see
approach.

 Thanks Vince
 .


text:
On Aug 31, 5:08 am, bigvince <[email]> wrote:

I kind of like the following article. . .

Cancer jab 'stops 75% of deaths'

Vaccinating all 12-year-old girls against the virus which causes most
cervical cancers could cut deaths from the disease by 75%, a study
suggests. GlaxoSmithKline's Cervarix jab targets two strains of the
human papillomavirus.

The firm's findings were presented at the International Papillomavirus
Conference, along with a study on rival jab Gardasil from Sanofi
Pasteur.

Gardasil was found to be effective on more strains of HPV than first
thought.

The idea of finally being able to prevent cases of cervical cancer
with a vaccine is extremely exciting

Dr Anne Szarewski, of Cancer Research UK

For the Cervarix research, a computer model was used to predict the
outcome of vaccinating all 12-year-old girls in the UK - a total of
376,385.

Applied to the whole of the UK on the basis of the latest cervical
cancer figures, it would mean 262 deaths each year, compared with the
current level of around 1,000.

The number of annual cases of the disease would also drop from 2,841
to 682.

The researchers admitted 100% coverage assumed in the study was
unrealistic, but said even if 80% were vaccinated, the number of
deaths would drop by 61%.

Cervarix works by targeting HPV 16 and HPV 18, the two most common
forms of the disease.

It has also been found to be effective at targeting some of the other
most common strains.

Competition

GSK is in fierce competition with Sanofi Pasteur, who are about to see
their vaccine, Gardasil, granted a European licence.

Cervarix is still being developed and will not reach European approval
stage for around another year.

The research into Gardasil, presented at the conference in Prague, the
Czech Republic and funded by Sanofi Pasteur, found it provided
protection against 85% of HPV strains responsible for cervical cancer
- up from 75% shown by previous studies.

Dr Nick Kitchin, medical director at Sanofi Pasteur, said the results
were "very promising".

Dr Anne Szarewski, clinical consultant at Cancer Research UK, said:
"HPV vaccination offers great promise in terms of reducing the number
of cases of cervical cancer and preventing deaths from it.

"Beyond the cases and the deaths, hundreds of thousands of women each
year in the UK suffer anxiety when they have an abnormal smear
result.

"The idea of finally being able to prevent cases of cervical cancer
with a vaccine is extremely exciting."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/5311598.stm

Published: 2006/09/04 09:44:27 GMT


author: Jeff

subject:
Re: Some Sanity on Merck's Gardasil from Dr. Reichman: Can a vaccine
 treat my existing HPV infection?

text:
bigvince wrote:

Vince, you're comparing apples and oranges. The 17% is in women who have
already been exposed to HPV prior to the vaccine. In girls who have not
been exposed to the viruses yet, it is expected that the protection will
be much higher. In fact there was a 90-100% efficacy rate for each virus
during the licensing trials.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5602.pdf

Thanks for pointing out why it is so important that girls get the
vaccine *before* they get exposed to the viruses.

Thanks.

Jeff


author: Mark Probert

text:
Myrl wrote:

Let's try some logic...

If the vaccine prevents those deaths, then the women did not ever
develop a grade 3 lesion.


author: Paul Harper

subject: Re: Cheeny Getting Ready To "Voluntarily Resign For Health Reasons" In Order to Distract Voters From Fact That Same Crooks In Whitehouse Still Running Country Straight To Hell

text:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:25:46 -0800, john w <[email]> wrote:

God you're easily played.  Who said I was Jewish?  Admit it dim boy,
you're making it up as you go along now, aren't you.

Paul.


author: ujb

subject:
Re: Cheeny Getting Ready To "Voluntarily Resign For Health Reasons"
 In Order to Distract Voters From Fact That Same Crooks In Whitehouse Still
 Running Country Straight To Hell

text:
Paul Harper wrote:

Poor johnny is just showing he is a retard!


text:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:48:08 +0000, Paul Harper <[email]>
wrote:

Greetings, Paul.
A word to the wise regarding old man weatherless---------- we don't
call him 'liar-johnnie' for nothing.

The crud lives to fight, falsely accuse, lie, threaten, and defame.

Anyone who has the good sense to disagree with that one is
automatically labeled a 'demoniac' by him, and told to 'seek help
while you can still afford it'...!
The old boy must have threatened about 800 vpeople with his 'lawsuits'
by now.!

P.S to liar-johnnie:
Yes, I know you'll be reading this with bated breath, weatherless- go
ahead and post another idle threat to 'have me confined to a mental
hospital' -- go for it, old boy! :o)


text:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:25:17 -0500, ujb <[email]> wrote:

I WORK with developmentally delayed people Ujie- and THEY DISPLAY FAR
MORE SENSE than liar-johnnie!
 Seriously.


text:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:12:32 -0500, [email] wrote:

Hi.

These armchair net-warriors are ten a penny - as common and
unchallenging as they are false and trivial. The sort of people
incapable of achieving anything of significance in real life -
including meaningful relationships - so they seek some form of
validation online. Sad pathetic empty shells of people attempting to
project a persona they can only dimly aspire to in real life.

That they are so easily spotted, and so very *very* easily disposed of
must irritate them endlessly. Reduced from their ideal self-image as
people of import to a disappointing reality as dead mice that we cats
play with, they are too stupid or afraid to realise when they lose.

But still. It gives those of us who keep the average IQ as high as a
hundred something to do in the cold winter days <grin>

Paul.


text:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:22:36 +0000, Paul Harper <[email]>
wrote:

you betcha!!
Don't be at all surprised if next our dear old liar-johnnie starts
mouthing off how 'high his IQ is' and he will claim to 'match his
against yours any day' ---- along with labeling you a 'demoniac. !!
:o)


subject: 中俄將在界河舉行首次應急聯合演習

text:
中俄將在界河舉行首次應急聯合演習

【中央社╱台北12日電】 2009.08.12 07:56 pm

黑龍江海事局表示，中俄界河首次應急聯合演習18日將在中國黑河市與俄羅斯布拉戈維申斯克市之間的港區水域全面展開。

新華社說，期間雙方將就人命救助、船舶及設施溢油處置、船舶消防等主要科目展開演習。

黑龍江海事局副局長金永燦表示，這次演習的層次與規模在中俄界河上是前所未有。

中俄雙方將投入240餘人，共計40餘艘海事、航道、水文、環保及其他社會船艇和多架飛機參與救援，打造陸海空立體演習格局。

中俄國境河流黑龍江航道總長2661公里，僅黑龍江省段水路年均通過旅客180萬人次。

報導說，複雜的水域環境、極端氣候現象的增多讓發生水上交通事故、水上險情的幾率大大增加。界河、界湖船舶航行安全和水域防污染工作是中俄兩國共同面對
的課題。黑龍江海事局為此成立了水上搜救中心，逐步確立中俄兩國水上應急反應協調機制。

自2008年以來，黑龍江海事局與俄羅斯聯邦阿穆爾州緊急情況總局進行多次磋商，簽署了兩國界河應急合作協定。本次界河應急聯合演習由此因應而生。


author: Tienxia

text:
This is just another "cut-and-paste" troll post written by the ugly,
despicable, pathological liar of a Philippino whore Meichi. Ignore
her.

Warning about abianchen/Meichi the despicable ugly Thai whore:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/ca085dc133ad3cae...

Abianchen is a fraud, and can't do anything else other than cut-and-
paste! Ha-ha, and above all, she is damn UGLY!

On Aug 12, 7:05 am, "[email]" <[email]>
wrote:


subject: Re: 中俄將在界河舉行首次應急聯合演習

text:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39763545@N04/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meichi_cunt_aka_abianchen_filthy_smelly_...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/
 abianchen is NOT Chinese.
abianchen cunt is NOT a guy.
abianchen cunt is NOT from Taiwan.
abianchen cunt is an ugly fatso tub of lard Filipino whore.
abianchen cunt can not read/write Chinese.
abianchen cunt is an uneducated ill-mannered foul-mouth idiotic
perpetual
lying bitch
Why don't give up instead of constantly making a silly fool of
yourself.
We are just having a wonderful time doing abainchen bashing party.

On Aug 12, 5:05 am, "[email]" <[email]>
wrote:


subject: Re: 中俄將在界河舉行首次應急聯合演習

text:
On Aug 12, 8:05 am, "[email]" <[email]>
wrote:

Visit my websites:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39763545@N04/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/http://www.flickr.com/photo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/

Call me at www.thailovelinks.com and I'll give you a real good time.


author: KabukiBob

subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mind Control

text:
On Sep 13, 9:29 pm, Annointed Remnant <[email]>
wrote:

Wait is this Monk or Jabbers?

 Wgroom, I assume you follow the Bible, If yuo do here is a verse
about calling another a fool:

Matthew 5:22 ESV

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be
liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the
council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of
fire.

Guess you are going to hell.

Moe


author: MadMonkey

text:
KabukiBob wrote:

I will get the hotdogs
Moe, bring the beer

--
=You don't want a Mad Monkey on your back=


author: J

subject: Nigeria to Western nations: We’d sooner refuse aid than legalize same-sex marriage

text:
It is the epitome of racism for Western nations to attempt to dictate to
Nigerians, with the threat of starvation, what their morals should be.
Blacks not only find the gay lifestyle repugnant but, they are also
fighting the scourge of AIDS, which is decimating the dark continent. I
applaud these Negroes for their courage to say "Keep your money".

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nigeria-to-western-nations-wed-sooner-refuse-aid-than-legalize-same-sex-mar

ABUJA, December 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) ï¿½ The Nigerian government
has put the Western world on notice that if the cost of accepting aid is
to allow same-sex couples to ï¿½marry,ï¿½ thatï¿½s a price the country is
unwilling to pay.

Nigeriaï¿½s House of Representatives recently unanimously approved a bill
banning same-sex unions, despite threats from the Obama administration
and United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron that they would consider
withholding aid if the country didnï¿½t recognize gay rights.  The bill
would impose a 14-year prison sentence on anyone who enters a ï¿½same-sex
marriage contract or civil unionï¿½ or aids and abets such an action.
Public displays of affection between homosexuals would result in a
ten-year jail sentence.  The bill also bans gay clubs and organizations.

ï¿½[Same-sex ï¿½marriageï¿½] is alien to our society and culture and it must
not be imported,ï¿½ said House majority leader Mulikat Adeola-Akande.
ï¿½This practice has no place in our culture, religion, Nigeria or
anywhere in Africa. It is immorality and debasement of our culture, we
condemn it in totality.ï¿½

Rep. Adams Jagaba said Nigerians should reject Western attitudes toward
same-sex unions. ï¿½We are a cultured people,ï¿½ he said, ï¿½we cannot carry
everything from other cultures.ï¿½

Rep. Nkeiruka Onyejeocha said she hoped the vote would send a strong
signal to Western nations that Nigeriaï¿½s morals and ethical values are
not for sale.

--
J Young
[email]

http://www.americandecency.org/


author: saracene

subject: Re: Nigeria to Western nations: We’d sooner refuse aid than legalize same-sex marriage

text:
On Dec 12, 4:54 am, J <[email]> wrote:
The Ugandans caved into foreign demands and dropped the death penalty
demands for homsoexual acts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20463887

Do you deplore that?


author: Syd M.

text:
On Dec 11, 11:54 pm, J <[email]> wrote:

Correct.
And the quicker you theists learn that, the better.

PDW


author: Linuxgal

text:
saracene wrote:

I'm sure Pat Robertson will soon be announcing an earthquake to hit
Uganda in divine retaliation.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0


text:
On Dec 12, 8:31 am, Dakota <[email]> wrote:

And they call themselves moral.
If that's moral, then I want no part of it.

PDW


author: Dakota

text:
On 12/12/2012 6:57 AM, Syd M. wrote:
Especially when the so-called morals come from J's hero, a former
Hitler Youth member who is now the Capo di tutti capi of the Roman
Catholic pedophile protection crime syndicate. This evil bastard's
anti-condom policies have resulted in HIV and AIDS running rampant all
over the African continent.


text:
Dakota wrote:

It comes from a persistent belief that there are little fetuses inside
each little sperm, and the only contribution a woman makes is a nice
cozy place to let the winning sperm take root and grow.   That means
every time a Catholic priest goes into the bathroom with a copy of Boy's
Life magazine, he kills about 400 million people.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0


author: Mikkel E

subject: Understanding US

text:
Can anyone help me understand USA?

Exactly what threat does Saddam Hussein pose to the US?
What outcome from a war on Iraq would be a good one? (Other than a
dead Saddam H)
What would be different with Saddam Hussein gone?
What does USA stand to gain from a war?
What is the anticipated reaction of the many Arabs that once again
will witness a country with very different values than themselves,
force its own perceptions of right and wrong on the region?
Will a war on Iraq produce more or less terrorism?

America is the only country with a proven willingness to use nuclear
weapons ï¿½ by what right does the USA think it can impose restrictions
in other countries right to develop the exact same weapons, as USA
itself possesses?
(Don't give me a "good guy"- "bad guy" line.  I'm sure that a majority
of Iraqis consider themselves the good guys fighting an invading force
of bad guys, and so far the only bad guys when it comes to using nukes
are the Americans.)
(And I won't buy the argument, that the American chemical- and
biological programs have not been developed since the ï¿½70s or
whenever. I'm sure that USA could whip up the worlds most advanced
chemical and biological weapons in a very short time.)

Has anyone tried to compare civilian casualties of 9.11 to the number
of civilian casualties inflicted by USA? Start with Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and you will see that it will take a hell of a lot of 9.11s
to even the score. You might argue that the American killing of
civilians was done in times of war ï¿½ I'm sure though that a great
number of people around the world considers the 9.11 attack as an act
of war, and therefore sees it as just as justified. (How else are
these people to fight a war against the world's strongest military
power?)


author: XXXRAYTED

subject: Re: Understanding US

text:
<< by what right does the USA think it can impose restrictions
in other countries right to develop the exact same weapons, as USA
itself possesses?
(Don't give me a "good guy"- "bad guy" line.  I'm sure that a majority
of Iraqis consider themselves the good guys fighting an invading force
of bad guys, and so far the only bad guys when it comes to using nukes
are the Americans.)
(And I won't buy the argument, that the American chemical- and
biological programs have not been developed since the –70s or
whenever. I'm sure that USA could whip up the worlds most advanced
chemical and biological weapons in a very short time.) >>

Right, and that's what keeps us on top.  And i would give you the good guy/bad
guy argument.  If you listened to the president the other night, he pointed out
the torture that these people go through every day at the hands of Saddam.  Do
you want a guy like that taking over the superpower position?  Or how about
China?  If you really believe that somehow everybody will have a equal amount
of WMD's and that would solve the problem, then I would say you are kidding
yourself.  Someone will always want to be on top and treaties are just a joke.
I can point to North Korea as an example.  And yes, the US probably does have
weapons that nobody knows about to use, but how many Americans have to die
before we can get the worlds permission to use them?

If there is anything to be learned by 911, it's that we have to take out the
problem before it hits home.  So I stand totally behind our government.

<>

Well if you believe that attacking harmless unarmed citizens is justified
because of the military advantage US has, then what are we to do, sit there and
live with it because it's fair?  Very warped sense of thinking.  These people
had no reason to attack this country in such a way.  And by the way, we did
give Ossama quite a few breaks with his attacks on our military on several
occasions.  Breaks don't work.  They didn't work with Osama, they didn't work
in Korea and they didn't and won't work with Saddam.  To me it seems quite
simple, you don't deal with agressive people in a nice way.  It doesn't work,
it's never worked in the past and it won't work in the future.


subject: Re: Understanding US

text:
[email] (XXXRAYTED) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

XXXrayted wrote:
If you listened to the president the other night, he pointed out
the torture that these people go through every day at the hands of
Saddam.  Do
you want a guy like that taking over the superpower position?  Or how
about
China?

Well of course your president is gonna present Saddam as a vicious,
torture-loving madman(predictably with ties to Al-Qeida). Even though
I'm quite sure that the world would be better of without Saddam, I
would still take Bush's words with a grain of salt, considering his
situation and his quest. There are a lot of countries that use torture
allso some of USA's long time allies like Israel. The four countries
that execute most of their own citicens are China, Iraq, Saudi Arabia
and USA. This is not a death penalty debate, but my point is that a
lot of countries, including USA is violating the basic human rights.

XXXrayted wrote:
If you really believe that somehow everybody will have a equal amount
of WMD's and that would solve the problem, then I would say you are
kidding
yourself.

I don't beleive that. But I don't beleive either, that USA can stop
human desire to develop technology by force - not forever anyway.
Since nukelear weapons was invented (by USA)there is no putting it
back in the bag. Is it the best philosophy to wage war with all
countries that persue WMD technology forever ? It might be - I don't
have a valid alternative, It's just the "we have em - you try getting
it and we will kill you" attitude, that might backfire in terms of
peoples and countries feeling opressed by USA's selfinstated role as
the world police, and thus getting more and more enemies.

XXXrayted wrote:
Well if you believe that attacking harmless unarmed citizens is
justified

Attacking civilians can never be justified. But as I stated, USA has
probably got most civilian casualties on its concience. I strongly
condemn the 9.11 attack, but my point is that these people feel so
supressed or unfair treated by USA, that they have decided to fight
back. How should they go about that? It would by futile to buy
conventional weapons and declare war on USA. Shortly put: USA must
expect to gain enemies with the way it conducts its foreign policy.
How do USA expect these enemies to fight back? The result of the
American military supremecy is that the enemy will of course find
alternate ways of fighting their war. You say that they(9.11) had no
reason to attack USA in such a way. I'm sure they did it for a reason.
Reasons they felt so strongly about, that they sacrificed their lives
for ít.
Don't get me wrong I'm with you guys on this - I'm just not sure that
the forthcomming attack on Iraq is being done for the right reasons.
I'm afraid that the brave men and women of the American forces are
being misled and used for some underlying political agenda.


author: ZW

subject: Re: huh huh ...

text:
[email] (waggg) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Yes, it is true that their is a myth in the US these days that french
are cowards. It came directly from the fact that the current gvt of
France refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq. It shows how
easy it is for the political power to spin things and manipulate the
media.

The history is rather clear as the article below points out, the
french showed tremendous courage and ability to defend their nation.
They've never tried to invade anyone or commited any genocide. In
fact, during WW II, the country in Europe were the jews were least
persecuted was France; about 75,000 jews were deported from France
(25%), sad, most escaped the Nazis thanks to being protected by the
local french population. In other european countries, the percentage
of jews that were deported were much higher, 50%, 70% and sometimes
90% !!

It's all political, the americans have been brainwashed to believe
inacurate fact. The french being cowards is not the only inacurate
things that are floating around in the US these days.


author: Pepe Le Pew

subject: XXX rated animated French Bashing gifs on fuckfrance.com <<== URL inside

text:
XXX rated animated French Bashing gifs on fuckfrance.com
========================================

Don't look, if you are under 18  or have a weak stomach.

http://www.fuckfrance.com/read.html?postid=381449&replies=13

Pepe Le Pew
    I speak English to the tradesmen, American English with the women,
    French with the queers, Spanish with God and German with my horse.

USA OCCUPATION news:soc.culture.french


author: Constant Reader

subject: Re: huh huh ...

text:
As a citzen of the United States for more than sixty years, and a devotee
of accurate and detailed history, I heartly concur with the sentiments
express in the previous post. I would also add that it has been my sad
experience to witness the "dumbing" down of the American population by an
excess of materialism and it's pusuit, where people here would rather party
than read a book.  And if it isn't in a TV sitcom, then it doesn't exist.
Nobody knows anything anymore in the United States.  Tests show that our
knowledge of the world outside is worse than most of the rest of the world.
Yet, people come along and make the most preposterous statements and expect
intelligent people to swallow them.  Sad.


author: John Starrett

subject: Re: huh huh ...

text:
ZW wrote:

There are many stupid people in the US, and I will guess before reading
the reply I see below your post that you have already recieved a reply
from one of them. It is a shame that some of these people will vote.


author: Tom Jigme Wheat

subject: Reagan Solicitor General: Individual Mandate is Constitutional

text:
I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. … My
authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in
the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution,
and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress’
Commerce power, “what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That
is—to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.” To my mind,
that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the
mandate.

The mandate is a rule—more accurately, “part of a system of rules by
which commerce is to be governed,” to quote Chief Justice Marshall.
And if that weren’t enough for you—though it is enough for me—you go
back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said “the
powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution.
The government which has the right to do an act”—surely, to regulate
health insurance—“and has imposed on it the duty of performing that
act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select
the means.” And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...]

thomaswheat1975


subject: Re: Reagan Solicitor General: Individual Mandate is Constitutional

text:
On Feb 4, 5:43 pm, "DogDiesel" <[email]> wrote:
so according to you social security and medicare are unconstitutional.
we might as well bring back slavery if you insist on a 18th century
interpration of the constitution.

The supreme court decision gibbons vs ogden gave the federal
government the power to regulate state commerce.  The Court went so
far as to say that even activity entirely within one state could be
regulated by the federal government if the activity had an effect on
interstate commerce. See, National Labor Relations Board v. Jones &
Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 US 1 (1937).

He must only see rich patients.


text:
On Feb 5, 6:33 pm, "Jane_Galt" <[email]> wrote:

You forgot it was republicans under ronald reagan and george bush 1
and 2 that ran budget deficits. Clinton ran a balanced budget. The
Health care reform bill does not add to the deficit. Social Security
and Medicare are constitutional via the commerce clause of the
constitution. When you retire Iam sure you will gladly accept these
programs.

thomaswheat1975


text:
complete testimony of Charles Fried:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-02-02%20Fried%20Testimony.pdf

On Feb 4, 3:15 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <[email]> wrote:


author: DogDiesel

text:
"Tom Jigme Wheat" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. ï¿½ My
authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in
the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution,
and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congressï¿½
Commerce power, ï¿½what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That
isï¿½to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.ï¿½ To my mind,
that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the
mandate.

Thats because you arent too bright.
The power is to regulate to foreign  countries.   Thats it.


text:
On Feb 4, 4:09 pm, "DogDiesel" <[email]> wrote:
The states have the power to opt out of medicaid, but then they lose
federal funding for other programs such as building roads. It cost the
insured more money when the uninsured go to the emergency room.
Article I section 8 authorizes the federal government to regulate
commerce between the states.

I will post article 1 section 8 for your conveniance:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

thomaswheat1975


text:
"Tom Jigme Wheat" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Feb 4, 5:43 pm, "DogDiesel" <[email]> wrote:

so according to you social security and medicare are unconstitutional.
we might as well bring back slavery if you insist on a 18th century
interpration of the constitution.

   No , according to the Constitution , Social security and medicare are
Unconstitutional. New people shouldnt be allowed on. Or have to pay.  And
the old ones should continue to get there benefits  until they pass away.
Slavery is also by ammendment.  illegal. So there is no problem.   The new
deal is unconstitutional. Taking money off the gold standard is
unconstitutional. Slavery has  has been illininated by ammendment.  And
there is no interpretation. Its all very clear. Except to you , for
instance, when you pick and choose your own parts you like. Eventualy,
weather you like it or not. Entitlements are going to stop.  New Commie ones
are obviously a political suicide plan.  And No one has the right to destroy
and steal Americans wealth by economic destruction. It too is ilegal.

Just because you got away with something , New Deal for instance., Doesnt
mean it will stand when it has no ground to stand on.

The federal government robbed everyone and blew it.  America isnt going to
pay  for its fuckups. It needs to be downsized hard. Half would suit me and
America just fine.

The supreme court decision gibbons vs ogden gave the federal
government the power to regulate state commerce.  The Court went so
far as to say that even activity entirely within one state could be
regulated by the federal government if the activity had an effect on
interstate commerce. See, National Labor Relations Board v. Jones &
Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 US 1 (1937).

He must only see rich patients.


text:
"Tom Jigme Wheat" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
complete testimony of Charles Fried:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-02-02%20Fried%20Testimony.pdf

On Feb 4, 3:15 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <[email]> wrote:
  You forgot the part of the constitution where the federal government  isnt
allowed to burdern the states with expenses.
Which means the power to regulate commerce only applies to foreign
countries.

Selective rule boy.

And that pal, is the end of that.


text:
"DogDiesel" <[email]> wrote in message
news:iii4bo$li4$[email]...


text:
"Tom Jigme Wheat" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Feb 4, 4:09 pm, "DogDiesel" <[email]> wrote:

Nope , Again selective boy, You refuse to read everything.

The general welfare clause is not a carte blache authority for government to
create federal programs and raise money through taxes to pay for them
because of a perceived need or desire by the people or politicians. The
argument put forth by the Federalists (see Federalist 41) was that the
"general Welfare" only pertained to those functions clearly and specifically
listed in Article I.

  The General Welfare clause in Article I Section 8
  is an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow
  and not itself a grant of power.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States; [Altered by Amendment XVI "Income
tax".]

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the
subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current
Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall
be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of
the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased
by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be,
for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.

  "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.
The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would
seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments,
which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people,
found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.

  Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and
specific position in our constitutional system and that the scope of
Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position.
But the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that
inherent in all congressional action-the built-in restraints that our system
provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The
political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not
be promulgated.

  The bottom line is . The federal govrnment is not allowed to affect
commerce across state lines. healthcare is off limits.

Dr. Rossiter . a senior psychiatrist. says the liberal agenda preys on
weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

  a.. creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
  b.. satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and
compensation;

  c.. augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

  d.. rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the
will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly
identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood
and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal
mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary
victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run
the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the
liberal mind becomes painfully obvoius.


text:
"DogDiesel" <[email]>  wrote :

...

Yes, and?

Socialist Insecurity is not a power given to the government by the
Constitution!

BULLSHIT!

"Need" is not a legitimate moral claim on the lives and property of others.

Try growing a backbone and not depending on ripping everyone else off to
supply your needs!

You're learning!

Wow, you can teach an old marxist new tricks!

Except that the 16th Amendment nullified the 13th.

So slavery is indeed legal.

Weather?

How about 10%?


author: Shawn Hirn

subject: Re: Liberals Have This Silly Notion That Democracies Are Forever

text:
In article <[email]>,
 "Cleopatra" <[email]> wrote

This may surprise you and other right wing zealots, but the United
States is not, nor has it ever been a democracy. We are a representative
republic. This is why we have a system of checks and balances and a
president who is NOT elected by majority vote. If our system's
government is permitted to run as our founding fathers intended, we'll
be fine, and we'll have the alternative you asked about. Our founding
fathers were very careful to structure our government to avoid getting
into a situation where the majority can force its morality upon a
minority. This is the very reason why we have such a rigorous process to
amend our constitution.

Unfortunately, religious zealots fail to realize that fact and it looks
like they are about to get their way and have one of their own be added
to the United States Supreme Court.

So it looks like our once great nation where freedom reigned supreme is
indeed coming to an end. We are slowly morphing into a religious state,
which is ironic since our men and women are supposedly fighting in the
Middle East right now to prevent that very thing from happening there.


author: Ray Fischer

text:
Shawn Hirn  <[email]> wrote:

A democratic republic.


author: Dennis Kemmerer

text:
"Ray Fischer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:43d7d94e$0$58105$[email]...

Technical correction: it's a constitutional republic.


author: Maxwell Edison

text:
In article <TTRBf.3494$[email]>,  Dennis
Kemmerer at [email] says...

Small technical correction: It *was* a constitutional republic. It's
now a plutocratic oligarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy


text:
Dennis Kemmerer <[email]> wrote:

The US is still a democracy.  Not a pure democracy, but a democracy
nonetheless.


text:
"Ray Fischer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:43d81380$0$58041$[email]...

Well, no it's not. It has democratic components, but it's a republic.


author: BOB

text:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <[email]> wrote in
news:cGUBf.15804$[email]:

A democratic_republic, Klutzenjammer.


text:
Dennis Kemmerer <[email]> wrote:

You don't know what the word "democracy" means.  You also don't seem
to realize that "republic" and "democracy" are not mututally exclusive.

I suggest that you spend time with a dictionary.

This will get you started:
www.m-w.com


author: Andrealphus

text:
In News 43d852da$0$58100$[email],, Ray Fischer at
[email], typed this:

The country was formed as a Constitutionally defined Republic.   We operate
along certain democratic principles, but the country was not formed as a
democracy.


text:
In article <43d852da$0$58100$[email]>,  Ray Fischer at
[email] says...

Communism and socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive,
either.

I suggest you look up oligarchy and see if it is mutually exclusive
with democracy.

"The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is poverty and
wealth.  Wherever men rule by reason of their wealth, whether they be
few or many, that is an oligarchy, and where the poor rule, that is a
democracy."  -  Aristotle, the man who coined both words.


text:
"Ray Fischer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:43d852da$0$58100$[email]...

Apparently you don't understand the difference.

http://www.garymcleod.org/republic.htm

[snip]


text:
Andrealphus <[email]> wrote:

'You also don't seem to realize that "republic" and "democracy" are
not mutually exclusive.'


text:
Dennis Kemmerer <[email]> wrote:

An obviously biased definition and hardly an authoritative one.

A better one:

    democracy:  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the
    people and exercised by them directly OR INDIRECTLY through a system
    of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
	Mirriam Webster dictionary

You can insist that people don't get to vote in the United States but
doing so will only affirm your credentials as an ignorant nutcase.


text:
In News 43d85a74$0$58047$[email],, Ray Fischer at
[email], typed this:

Again, this country was formed as a republic.   They are mutually exclusive
terms in context to forming a country.   A republic, and a democracy are two
different governments.


text:
"Ray Fischer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:43d913e9$0$58099$[email]...

Voting is also one of the characteristics of a republic. Also from
Merriam-Webster:

republic ...a government in which supreme power resides in a body of
citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and
representatives responsible to them and governing according to law...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic


text:
Andrealphus <[email]> wrote:

In a democracy ultimate power rests with the people.  In a republic
ultimate power rests with select voters.

Which is the case with the United States?


author: Matty

text:
On 2006-01-27 00:24:49 +1300, "Andrealphus"
<[email]> said:

Then again, if one were to be picky, are there any *real* democracies
out there, besides those that are occasionally run on knee jerk
populist rhetoric - which can occur in both systems; take the US,
election and gay marriage.

Matt


text:
Dennis Kemmerer <[email]> wrote:

But not democracy.  Notice in your definition that the people do not
necessarily get a vote in a republic.  The voters can be chosen by any
means - money, by the church.


text:
In News 43dbacb5$0$58106$[email],, Ray Fischer at
[email], typed this:

It would depend on your definition of "ultimate power" and to which issue
you want to apply it to.   The us is not supposed to have "ultimate power"
resting with anyone, ergo the seperation of powers within the three branches
of our government.


text:
In News 2006012812430716807-kaiwainz@yahoocom,, Matty at [email],
typed this:

Probably not since ancient Athens.

besides those that are occasionally run on knee jerk

Quite true.


text:
Andrealphus <[email]> wrote:

Dont' play childish games.

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
    denied or abridged by the United States or
    by any state on account of sex.
      19th amendment

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary
    or other election for President
    or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President,
    or for Senator or Representative in
    Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
    any state by reason of failure to pay
    any poll tax or other tax.
      24th amendment

    The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of
    age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the
    United States or any state on account of age.
      26th amendment

Looks like the ultimate power resides with the citizens of the United
States.  The people.

What's the definition of "democracy" again?


text:
On 2006-01-28 12:52:08 +1300, "Andrealphus"
<[email]> said:

Probably explains why so many greek philosophers disagreed with the idea of it.

Popular does not always be correct.

Matt


text:
In News 43dbb6e9$0$58104$[email],, Ray Fischer at
[email], typed this:

I'm not.  Things are not always black and white in the real world.

On issues that a vote is called for.   Do we get to vote on who's executed?
Do we even directly vote for the president?  No to both questions.   Do we
have a right to vote on who is, or is not a slave?

Look it up.  The U.S. was founded as a constitutionally defined republic,
not a democracy.


text:
In News 2006012821454825228-kaiwainz@yahoocom,, Matty at [email],
typed this:

Probably because it had been such a failure for the period of time it was
tried in ancient Athens.

Exactly.


author: Sherkaner

text:
Matty wrote:

In fact, popularity has nothing to do with factual correctness or
anything else.

But the term democracy is generally used today by political scientists
and others when referring to the U.S. and other similar governments.  As
someone pointed out, in the strict sense, there are no
democracies--That's not a very useful definition of the term.


text:
Andrealphus <[email]> wrote:

You're playing games in order to distract from the facts.

Yes.  The voters decide on the laws that get passed and the
punishments for crimes.

Stop playing games.  You're resorting to a fallacy, pretending that
anything less than a pure democracy is not a democracy at all.

 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a
 government in which the SUPREME POWER IS VESTED IN THE PEOPLE and
 exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
 representation usually involving periodically held free elections
 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
     www.m-w.com

You're either an idiot or a liar.


text:
On 2006-01-29 03:44:35 +1300, Sherkaner <[email]> said:

Democracy in the nutshell means 'majority rules' - thats what it is in
a nutshell.

The reality is, however, politicians will make decisions that aren't
popular, but are for the 'good of the nation' in the long term - GWB,
for example, viewed the war in Iraq as 'good for the long term of the
national interest' - rightfully or wrong, was dependent on the outcome;
had there been a clean win, peace, and non of the nastiness that
occured after the war, GWB would have been declared a hero and modern
day robin hood.

What I would say is a good measurement of a democracy is how open a
debate that can occur - its sad to say, but if you look at the US
congress and senate, very little constructive debate is done because of
this 'fear' of being viewed as being 'un-American' or 'un-Patriotic' -
hence the reason why the US went to war with very little resistance.

Matt


text:
In News 43dbd1e6$0$58115$[email],, Ray Fischer at
[email], typed this:

Nope.  Deal with it.

The nation was formed as a constitutionally defined republic, not a
democracy.  That is the fact.

Define "THE SUPREME POWER", and how does the people share in it IN EVERY
SINGLE INSTANCE.

That's the facts.   Deal with it.


text:
Andrealphus <[email]> wrote:

Mindlessly repeating a lie doesn't make it true.  It only shows that
you're an irrational cultist unable to deal with the truth.

Figure it out, moron.


text:
In News 43dbf062$0$58069$[email],, Ray Fischer at
[email], typed this:

It's a fact, deal with it.

You can't even support your arguments.  Of course, we all knew that the
moment you devolved into insult.


text:
Andrealphus <[email]> wrote:

Quite the pro-liar, aren't you?  Never mind debate, never mind truth,
everybody should just accept your edicts.

That definition above along with quotes from the US Constitution prove
oyu to be a liar, and the fact that YOUR "support" consists of nothing
but repeating the same bullshit shows you to be a stupid hypocrite as
well.


text:
In News 43dc5e9e$0$58069$[email],, Ray Fischer at
[email], typed this:

Blah, blah, blah.  That definition does not fit how the U.S. was formed, and
you seem unwilling to defend your position on it.    Take a history lesson.

-- Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. ï¿½ Thomas Jefferson


text:
Andrealphus <[email]> wrote:

Don't let the facts get in the way of your religion.


text:
In News 43dd0c24$0$58082$[email],, Ray Fischer at
[email], typed this:

The fact is that the U.S. was founded as a constitutionally defined
republic, not a democracy.


author: james g. keegan jr.

subject: Re: Abortion is all about sex

text:
In article <[email]>,
 "Dutch" <[email]> wrote:

you proved that you did lie.


author: Dutch

subject: Re: Abortion is all about sex

text:
"james g. keegan jr." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

That's extremely weak, even for you. I have provided the link several times,
look for it here if you're too stupid to find it for yourself.


subject: Re: Abortion is all about sex

text:
In article <[email]>,
 "Dutch" <[email]> wrote:

you shouldn't have posted that lie, then.


author: bacon

subject: Re: Forced Molting...  The Truth

text:
Michael Cerkowski wrote:

The world doesn't begin and end here at t.p.a.  For a reference to the
figure of 8 weeks, check out the PeTA Animal Times at
http://peta-online.org/a199/molt.html and note the headline.  Ah what the
Hell, I'll save ya some trouble.  It says, "Each year, something hideous
happens in the egg industry. Factory farmers intentionally starve millions
of hens for up to eight weeks. This is the birdsï¿½ story."  The story that
follows is rife with the type of lies I have come to expect after many years
of dealing with the creative minds in the PeTA propaganda machine, such as,

"in nature, hens replace old feathers with new ones every single year and
spend about four months" [Try eight to ten weeks]

"Forced molting throws hensï¿½ systems into collapse, stressing and shocking
them into losing their feathers quickly and forcing their worn-out bodies
into a new laying cycle." [Try gives the hens a respite.  These jackasses
would have us believe that you can get worn out spent hens to begin laying
again by starving and torturing them.. Come on!  Use your head!!]

"To trick the hens into laying more eggs, they are deprived of food and
water for two weeks or more." [Try five days and don't forget about those 18
or more eggs in various stages of development which the hens will assimilate
during that time.... hardly starving conditions at all.  Oh... water is
never withheld either.]

"Our researchers uncovered hundreds of thousands of hens slowly and
painfully starving to death as a result of this trauma."

"As the days of torture go on, many birdsï¿½worth only pennies each to the
factory farmerï¿½die. The scared, confused survivorsï¿½ crowded cages fill with
rotting corpses and manure-covered feathers."

I could go on, but I'd give the entire story away.

See above.  The fact that this particular facility is one of the largest in
the western states and that a tour of the area in which this process was
taking place revealing none of the terrible conditions alluded to.  No
rotting corpses, for instance.  The fact that they only fast the fowl for
five days probably means that the ARFs are lying yet again.

I didn't say the words have a different meaning.  I pointed out that the
ARFs changed the name of the procedure.  It is not referred to as forced
molting by the producers.  Forced carries a more negative connotation..
Similar to murder as in mink are murdered rather than mink are killed
(impossible since murder is specifically defined as one human killing
another).

Sorry to tell you, but people don't tune out.  You only wish they would.
You oughta see my email!  I never said the story was a myth.  You read my
posts and you'll see that I have always said this may be a true claim, that
I hadn't researched it, but that I expected to find, when I did research it.
That if it was true at all, it would almost certainly contain lies and
misinformation.  I explained that my suspicions were based on 15+ years of
experience in which every story I'd read about the fur industry and every
other AR generated story that I'd bothered to track down contained lies and
misinformation or was completely false.  In tracking this one down I found
exactly what I expected, the AR story contained lies and misinformation.  A
grain of truth around which the ARFs built a wall of bullshit.

You are the one I am dealing with here.  I don't have time nor the desire to
go back searching for references you claim exist.  Just produce it for me
would you?  I've done so every time you've requested it of me.

Bacon