9/11, sewing, and off topic thoughts

A wrote:
" ...... having 20 sex partners a night 7 days
a week- John

If you are going to post this stuff I really suggest you substanstiate it
with links, documentation and REAL information, not just the numbers that
came out of some propaganda pamphlet you have laying around. An example of
documented information might be a link to the actual report or abstract in a
scientific journal devoted to research.

penny

"A" wrote in message
news:Ekh8d.200405$3l3.16281@attbi_s03...

Snip a lot of off-topic hateful garbage by John.

PLONK!

iris

"A" wrote in message news:

I'm not a gay hater or basher.

Your statements belie your claim.

Instead of taking a word that is thousands of years old
that has a narrow meaning, as all words have to seperate this from that so
we understand each other when we speak. If the gays were smart they would
make up a new word and attach any meaning they want to it and say it is
equal to the word marriage.

"Marriage" has 7 different meanings in the bible, actually, ranging
from what we'd see as a common contemporary marriage to polygamous
marriages to forcible rape of slaves who are then upheld as a spouse.
Indeed, one of the forms of marriage recognized in the bible is that
if a man wanted a woman as a wife and she refuses, he could rape her,
and then he could choose to be punished or take her as his wife -
against her will. I don't think the word has as narrow a meaning as
you would like to believe, and I don't think you're for all of the
"traditional" forms of marraige.

A recent research in the Netherlands came up
with a gay marriage lasting on average 1 1/2 years.

Really? Point me to the research. My recent research provided results
about Denmark, which has been at it a lot longer. Their heterosexual
divorce rate is 46%. Their lesbian divorce rate is 21%. Their gay male
divorce rate is 19%. (Or was it 17%? I'm not sure, I'd have to look it
up.)

Gays socity is very powerful and persuaive-

We do so enjoy our Special Rights, like parking in the special Gay
Parking spaces at the mall, or using the Pink Triangle Line at the
supermarket...

do you want sex out
of wedlock added to the definition of marriage as normal?

Wouldn't it then no longer be out of wedlock, by definition?

What this means is your husband can say the
definition of marriage is I can have sex with you and thousands of other
women- that's quite a licsence.

I've known couples - straight couples - who swing. If it's by
agreement, it's totally their business. If it's not by agreement, they
can divorce... and that's totally their business. Didn't your mother
ever teach you to mind your own business?

A small research in Seattle showed gays having
20 sex partners a night 7 days a week- how much sex do you have with your
husbands a night 7 days a week?

I am *so* behind on my quota, I'm going to be *really* busy at the end
of year Quota Party. (ba dum klang! Thank you, thank you ladies and
gents, I'll be appearing here all week, buy my t-shirts at
radicalhomosexualagenda.com ...)

Seriously, that's just ridiculous. Okay, let's assume I sleep 8 hours
a day, that leaves 16 hours. It takes me an hour each way to and from
work, that leaves 14 hours. Then 8 hours for work, that leaves 6
hours. Then let's estimate I take half an hour each for breakfast and
dinner (those are low estimates, I like at least an hour for dinner)
leaving 5 hours, and assume I have a working lunch. That means I have
to meet, seduce, and have sex with a new person every 15 minutes for
every waking moment that I'm not going about one or another of life's
basic requirements. Grow up! That's just stupid. No man can have an
orgasm every 15 minutes for 5 hours.

Maybe same sex sex is not satisfying?

You'll have to bring me flowers and take me to dinner and ask very
sweetly before I'll discuss that with you.

So vote for Kerry and Edwards. A medical business here in town fired within
the last month or two 40 some doctors because of liability insurance got to
high (now there is one doctor with that business). Edwards made his
millions sueing doctors which buy liability insurance to pay the sue price.

Did you know that 3% of doctors are responsible for something like 95%
of malpractice suits? So why is the American Medical Association so
opposed to allowing them to be named, and why is the republican party
going along with that, and why are you blaming the people who are
asserting their right to use the court system to seek compensation for
their grievances?

Some cases belong in crimial
court not sue court, at least it should go through crimal court first.

We're supposed to accept your opinions on law, while you don't even
know the phrase "civil court"?

Tom Farrell
http://www.VastLiberalConspiracy.com/

Karen Maslowski wrote:

Has it ever occurred to you that MEN are the cause of unwanted
pregnancy? And that if MEN were taking responsibility, we wouldn't have
so much poverty, so many fatherless children, and so many women
desparate enough to want to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

i think your statement is terribly sexist and offensive. Has it ever
occurred to you that except in case of rape, the woman is equally
responsible? I think you owe us men an apology.

Men can
father a child and walk away, never to look back; a woman has to then
carry the child, raise it, and support it for the next 18 years, at
least.

Until she calls up the state social services agency, and has a portion
of his income that they deem to be appropriate (which may have nothing
to do with what he can actually afford) removed directly from his
paycheck for the next 18 to 21 years, and he goes to jail if he can't
afford to pay (for example because of losing his job).

I think you really need to give serious thought to why you have so
much hostility about men and how you'll deal with it.

Tom Farrell
http://www.VastLiberalConspiracy.com/

"A" wrote:

Well, Tom, I disagree!

That's your right.

The President only has 1/3 the power or 1/4 if you count the Supreme Court.

The US has a 3 branch government. The president leads the executive
branch, which executes power, theoretically according to the law. The
legislative branch is congress, and that creates the law. The judicial
branch is the court system, headed by the supreme court, which is not
counted separately. Its function is to determine how the law is
enforced and give orders for its enforcement by the executive branch.

I would think you should know these things if you want to talk about
government in the US, it's grammar school social studies class stuff.

Mr. Bush has exercised authority above and beyond the law. Indeed, his
administration argued to the Supreme Court that his detention of
American citizens on American soil for indefinite periods witout
access to a lawyer or the courts is legal on the grounds that the
President is above the law, as is anyone acting on his direct orders.
This is not slander, I am stating simple fact, you can look it up in
the Supreme Court's records. Interestingly, President Nixon had his
attorney general argue exactly the same thing while he was trying to
keep Watergate under wraps. The court didn't buy it that time either.

When you leave out info like that is seems like slander

It can't be slander if it's true, and everything I've said is, to my
knowledge, true.

and tring to get
hold of peoples feelings to get a handle on them so they don't think.

That's a laugh. I'm trying to get people *to* think. It's *not*
thinking that got us into this mess.

What
you wrote and how you wrote it sounds very manipulative.

Guilty as charged. I am quite openly trying to manipulate people to
vote democratic. My weapon to do so with happens to be the truth.

If you look at
Seattle and Boeing where probably more jobs have been lost than anywhere
else in the USA since 9/11 It's not Bush who is the problem it's the fear
factor of getting in a jetliner that cause so many jets not to be built that
would have been built, so many lay offs. Not even Bush is that stupid to
want that!

Oh really? Then how come every time bad news about his administration
comes out, they raise the terror threat level? Every time his
popularity rating sinks a bit more, they raise the terror threat
level?

After 9/11, why didn't he try to reassure everyone, to have a
dignified period of mourning and then tell the nation "for the sake of
the victims, we must move on. We must honor them by living our lives
without fear." ? Why, instead, has he continued to keep the population
whipped to a froth of fear, with constant warnings about threats that
never materialize, and meaningless threat level indications? He tells
us "the threat level has increased, there may be an attack, go about
your normal lives." That's bull. If he really wanted us to go about
our normal lives, he wouldn't say anything.

Mr. Bush seems to be the fearmonger, using the threat of terrorism for
his own political gain, at the cost of our economy.

You talk about Bush trying to prevent 2,000 people in FL from voteing, which
I believe is questionable,

Go back and read what I wrote. It's 20,000, not 2,000, and it's Jeb
Bush, George's brother, the governor of Florida. And it's entirely
unquestionable: the Federal Election Commission ruled, UNDER THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION, that Florida had unlawfully disenfranchised the over
20,000 people. And, Jeb Bush's personal order that it be done, IN
WRITING, is on record. As are the objections of the database company
that did the data processing, who indicated that they thought his
directions violated the law, and Jeb Bush's reply telling them to do
it anyway.

but say nothing about Gore trying to prevent
solders abroad from there votes being counted- and you can listen to Gore
saying there vote shouldn't count.

I didn't like Mr. Gore actually, but I do believe he was (is) the
lawfully elected President of the United States.

It seems to me
the libral media ran down France not Bush.

Actually it was more Congress than Bush doing that, but I don't
believe I directly accused him of that, if you go check my original
post. If I directly said Bush was deriding France, please quote me and
I'll apologize.

And, I don't for a moment believe in the "liberal media". The media
has a distinct conservative bias. Observe how articles with Bush
criticising someone or claiming credit for something run on the front
page, and rarely question how the hell he's going to pay for any of
his grandiose ideas, while articles critical OF Bush tend to run in a
sidebar on page 14 of the B section of the saturday paper.

There are many things I don't like about Bush. But, there are more things I
don't like about Kerry. How do you explain about Kerry voteing to send
people to war, but voteing against those he sends to war not haveing better
personal armour- would you like to be one of those solders with Kerry as
President?

As Senator Kerry points out, he knew the bill would pass anyway, so he
was free to make a token protest vote over the fact that Bush had
insisted that Congress shouldn't be able to specify how the money be
spent, because Bush wanted to spend it however he pleased.

How do you explain that even after the bill passed, soldiers are
*still* complaining there is insufficient personal armor?

How do you explain that even as thousands of wounded and/or
psycholigically damaged soldiers are coming back from Iraq and
Afghanistan, Mr. Bush's proposed budget for 2005 cuts the Veterans
Administration staff that processes claims for health care services?
Would you like to be one of those former-soldiers who gave up a limb
(or all four) for his country and now can't get health care with Bush
as President?

I wouldn't! What about Kerry hideing his $800,000 yatch when
voting time comes? After all, doesn't he claim to be for the poor? He is
certainly not up front!

Oh, don't be ridiculous. He makes jokes about his wife's wealth at
campaign stops.

If Kerry only voted on 20% of the things he was
voted in to vote on- Why would you think he could make a good President? If
you did 20% of your job working for a company you would be fired!

Why aren't you complaining about the fact that Bush was on vacation
fully 40% of the time before 9/11, and continues to be the person who
has taken the most vacation in the presidency ever, since? Why aren't
you complaining about the amount of time Bush spends on the campaign
trail when we have TWO wars going on, one of which he started?
(Neither of which has the constitutionally required declaration of war
from congress?)

Mr. Kerry is, in fact, *my* senator, and has been for many years now.
So, I had an opinion of him long before he ran for President. I don't
like him on the personal level. I wouldn't invite him to dinner. But,
I think he does well, more or less.

If you're referring to since the presidential campaign started,
speaking as his constituent, I don't mind one little bit. Since every
time he shows up in DC the republican congressional leadership
postpones all votes until he leaves, to try to keep him off the
campaign trail for the maximum possible time, I don't expect they'll
let him get anything done there anyway. So of course, he's damned if
he does and damned if he doesn't: if he goes to DC to vote, they hold
no votes, and if he doesn't, they accuse him of shirking his duty.

It seems
kind of filthy to me for him to con people to vote for him when he won't
even do what they voted him in to do!

As I'm one of the people who voted him in, I will thank you for not
making false claims about what I voted him in to do.

You haven't explained one reason to vote for Kerry.

You're right. I haven't. I should. Here goes with one:

The next President will quite possibly appoint several Supreme Court
justices. Given the poor caliber of people Bush has appointed to the
federal judiciary, including men who have made open public claims that
rape victims asked for it and that gay people are perverts, I think we
should thank our lucky stars if he never gets to appoint a Supreme
Court justice.

Your only explaination
is to vote against Bush? What if Kerry is worse?

I'm not sure that's technically possible. At this point I'd vote for a
ham and cheese sandwich on rye with a pickle on the side instead of
Bush.

If you bring up the
environment, Remember This-

I'm not an environmentalist. Try not to argue with arguments I haven't
made, it doesn't help your case.

The forrest fires of the last several years, thanks
to Clinton and wacko environmentalist, have destroyed millions of acres of
land killing off thousand of spotted owls, etc.

Did you know that the national firefighters union has been stating its
opposition to Bush, and that fire departments have refused (despite
repeated requests) to pose for photo ops with Bush, since 9/11 because
he has CUT the budget for firefighters equipment since 9/11?

Bush has not taken away
freedom of speech.

No, he's just claimed to the supreme court that he can throw you in
jail indefinitely without charges if you say anything he doesn't like.

Bush hasn't taken away gun rights- anybody who votes
against gun rights is voting for crime. Englands crime rate sky rocketed
when gun rights were taken away and taxed- higher in London than NY City,
nowadays.

Did you know the violent crime rate dropped through the Carter era,
rose through the Reagan and Bush (1) eras, dropped through the Clinton
era, and has risen through the Bush (2) era?

If you believe in law enforcement to protect you - you got more
rocks in your head than you deserve, no doubt law enforcement should be
first reaction if can, but that is not always possible, last reaction would
be a gun- how much is your life worth?

Apparently I value mine more than yours, as someone once tried to kill
me with a gun, and someone did kill my uncle with one.

If Kerry is so interested in helping
the poor and helpless? How can he be taking human life in the name of
abortion?

Actually what he says is that he doesn't believe in abortion but that
abortion rights are the law of the land and as such he will enforce
the law.

Is he not suppose to be defending those people? 1,000 solders is
alot lest innocent life being killed than the murder that Kerry has partaken
in!

Of course you're not counting Iraqi casualties. The Pentagon refuses
to release estimates. The estimates I've seen are in the hundreds of
thousands.

By the way, less people have died
per year in Iraqi since America has stepped in than when Sudam was running
it.

Funny that you say that, since as I point out the Pentagon refuses to
release estimates. I think you're flat wrong.

I don't think we should have gone into Iraqi.

You realize that Bush's 120 billion dollar (and oh so rapidly rising)
war, which has diverted the nation from hunting down our real enemies
who attacked our innocent civilian population, is wrong, but you'd
vote for him again? And you're old enough to vote?

When it comes to the
hundreds of things to vote for and against - Bush wins my vote.

Well, your poor reasoning seems to show how...

Tom Farrell
http://www.VastLiberalConspiracy.com/

"small change" wrote in message
...
A wrote:
" ...... having 20 sex partners a night 7 days
a week- John

If you are going to post this stuff I really suggest you substanstiate it
with links, documentation and REAL information, not just the numbers that
came out of some propaganda pamphlet you have laying around. An example
of
documented information might be a link to the actual report or abstract in
a
scientific journal devoted to research.

penny

This was on KomoTV news about the time (I believe) when night vision became
available to the public. The news group went to a park in Seattle and there
were alot of gays out in the park in the dark in about 4X degree weather, so
they ask these guy about what they were doing and the news group came with
20 sex partners a night 7 days a week. One of the guys they interviewed
said he was male prostitute and was haveing 40 partners a night. This is
not a scientific survey and is certainly a small survey. The gays in
Seattle did not oppose this, after they say it on TV. A few months later
(or year later) this the news group went out and did the same interview.
You can write to http://www.komotv.com/ and ask them if they have it and ask
them to send you a video/DVD of it (maybe they still have it).

In a small book store I was looking through back in the 70's (didn't take
long to see most of there books) had a book writen by gays about gay sex and
how to do it. They explained how guys can have sex every 10 minutes and
then they explained how guys can have sex every 5 minutes (actually about a
couple of seconds less than 5 minutes). So having sex with 20 guys would
take 1hr. and 40 minutes. Back then 99.9% of gays were in the closet, so it
was a surprise to see a gay book outside of a gay closet ( I knew gay books
and magazines existed, but I had never seen any before). I think it was
1970 when homosexuality was connected to the word gay, before then gay had
nothing to do homosexuality. Life changes.

Did you look in the shrinks dictionary? Psychology/psychiatry dictionary.
The one I looked in was a 197x's edition. Books written by doctors of
psychology/psychiatry go into a great deal more depth than scientific
journals. If you really want answers- do some reading. There is much
written. You can see lots of arguments about every which way of sex.
Doctors of psychology/psychiatry who wrote books not about sex almost all of
them had something to say about sex- a line, paragrah, some even chapters;
these alone have much to say about sex. These doctors all have opinions.
Opinions are not hate, bashing, nor propaganda. And non of these doctors
can give you all the documentation and REAL information that brings them to
there opinion- some will try at best.

All this means you have the very right to question. I appreciate your
questions. Hope I have answered you questions. Anymore?

John

Error- not komotv but Kiro TV http://www.kirotv.com
"A" wrote in message
news:iqJ8d.337648$Fg5.160357@attbi_s53...
"small change" wrote in message
...
A wrote:
" ...... having 20 sex partners a night 7 days
a week- John

If you are going to post this stuff I really suggest you substanstiate it
with links, documentation and REAL information, not just the numbers that
came out of some propaganda pamphlet you have laying around. An example
of
documented information might be a link to the actual report or abstract
in a
scientific journal devoted to research.

penny

This was on KomoTV news about the time (I believe) when night vision
became available to the public. The news group went to a park in Seattle
and there were alot of gays out in the park in the dark in about 4X degree
weather, so they ask these guy about what they were doing and the news
group came with 20 sex partners a night 7 days a week. One of the guys
they interviewed said he was male prostitute and was haveing 40 partners a
night. This is not a scientific survey and is certainly a small survey.
The gays in Seattle did not oppose this, after they say it on TV. A few
months later (or year later) this the news group went out and did the same
interview. You can write to http://www.komotv.com/ and ask them if they
have it and ask them to send you a video/DVD of it (maybe they still have
it).

In a small book store I was looking through back in the 70's (didn't take
long to see most of there books) had a book writen by gays about gay sex
and how to do it. They explained how guys can have sex every 10 minutes
and then they explained how guys can have sex every 5 minutes (actually
about a couple of seconds less than 5 minutes). So having sex with 20
guys would take 1hr. and 40 minutes. Back then 99.9% of gays were in the
closet, so it was a surprise to see a gay book outside of a gay closet ( I
knew gay books and magazines existed, but I had never seen any before). I
think it was 1970 when homosexuality was connected to the word gay, before
then gay had nothing to do homosexuality. Life changes.

Did you look in the shrinks dictionary? Psychology/psychiatry dictionary.
The one I looked in was a 197x's edition. Books written by doctors of
psychology/psychiatry go into a great deal more depth than scientific
journals. If you really want answers- do some reading. There is much
written. You can see lots of arguments about every which way of sex.
Doctors of psychology/psychiatry who wrote books not about sex almost all
of them had something to say about sex- a line, paragrah, some even
chapters; these alone have much to say about sex. These doctors all have
opinions. Opinions are not hate, bashing, nor propaganda. And non of
these doctors can give you all the documentation and REAL information that
brings them to there opinion- some will try at best.

All this means you have the very right to question. I appreciate your
questions. Hope I have answered you questions. Anymore?

John

excuse me?
i thought this ng was about sewing?
i find this info offensive.....

"A" wrote::

This was on KomoTV news about the time (I believe) when night vision became
available to the public.

So, let's see, we're talking early 80's then...

The news group went to a park in Seattle and there
were alot of gays out in the park in the dark in about 4X degree weather, so
they ask these guy about what they were doing and the news group came with
20 sex partners a night 7 days a week.

The findings of one newsgroup in one park with one bunch of randy guys
do not constitute a scientific study, nor are they applicable to all
gay people everywhere, you bigot.

One of the guys they interviewed
said he was male prostitute and was haveing 40 partners a night.

So, you're taking one prostitute and extrapolating that to all gay
people everywhere... and you don't see any problem with your logic?
PROSTITUTES DON'T HAVE NORMAL SEX AND THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TOLL
IT TAKES ON THEIR BODY.

This is
not a scientific survey and is certainly a small survey. The gays in
Seattle did not oppose this, after they say it on TV.

I don't oppose it now, it's their lives they're playing with. But, sex
in parks is, statistically, absurdly rare.

In a small book store I was looking through back in the 70's (didn't take
long to see most of there books) had a book writen by gays about gay sex and
how to do it. They explained how guys can have sex every 10 minutes and
then they explained how guys can have sex every 5 minutes (actually about a
couple of seconds less than 5 minutes).

Produce the book and I won't think you're a liar as well as an idiot.
But, I maintain my point, a man can not climax that frequently. It's
biologically impossible. TRY ASKING A MAN. At best, it's about once
every 20 or 30 minutes, and that's with a LOT of stimulation. After
the second time he'll slow down, and after 3 or 4 times he'll find it
nearly impossible to get interested again, and the average man is
physically unable to climax more than about 6 times in a day.
Regardless, he'll start getting damned SORE after a while. Do you
think women are the only ones who get sore?

And yeah, I suppose a small number of men could take the *receptive*
position in intercourse for that many men in a night, but honey,
there's a word for that: "slut". And it doesn't involve climax on the
part of the person having that many partners. And take my word for it,
heterosexuals have sluts of both genders in abundance. Don't get me
started on that, I have FAR worse stories about heterosexuals than
about gay people.

So having sex with 20 guys would
take 1hr. and 40 minutes.

Yup. You've confirmed it: you're a moron.

Back then 99.9% of gays were in the closet, so it
was a surprise to see a gay book outside of a gay closet ( I knew gay books
and magazines existed, but I had never seen any before).

Has it ever occurred to you that gay men have become increasingly less
promiscuous the more we're allowed to become a functioning part of
society? If you want to talk about wild behavior 30 years ago, sure,
there was more wild behavior among gay men 30 years ago. THATS BECAUSE
IT WAS 30 YEARS AGO. All most of us want is to have a spouse of our
choice, a little house somewhere nice, an honest job, and some
friends. When we would get shot for even holding hands with the person
we loved in public, it was hard to hold down a serious relationship,
so of course guys were going to go get as much sex as they could. Now
that I can hold hands with my boyfriend (when I have one) in the park
(since I do live in Boston - it wouldn't be safe in the South) and not
expect any more horrible reprocussions than that old ladies spit at
us, it's a whole lot easier for me to choose to settle down.

I think it was
1970 when homosexuality was connected to the word gay, before then gay had
nothing to do homosexuality. Life changes.

As the saying goes, we're here, we're queer, get used to it.

Did you look in the shrinks dictionary? Psychology/psychiatry dictionary.

You don't even know what it's called, but you want to insist it proves
your point?

It's called the DSM III.

The one I looked in was a 197x's edition. Books written by doctors of
psychology/psychiatry go into a great deal more depth than scientific
journals. If you really want answers- do some reading. There is much
written. You can see lots of arguments about every which way of sex.
Doctors of psychology/psychiatry who wrote books not about sex almost all of
them had something to say about sex- a line, paragrah, some even chapters;
these alone have much to say about sex. These doctors all have opinions.
Opinions are not hate, bashing, nor propaganda. And non of these doctors
can give you all the documentation and REAL information that brings them to
there opinion- some will try at best.

Yup, doctors have opinions, although you failed entirely to say what
those opinions are, so please allow me to point out what the medical
community's opinions about gay sex actually *are*:

The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric
Association both dropped homosexuality from their list of disorders in
the 70's because extensive investigation on the part of both
organizations determined that the only homosexuality-related mental
illnesses was the anxiety, nosiness, and general bigotry of the people
*around* the homosexual person being examined, and the depression of
the homosexual person caused by the bigotry they suffer. Instead of
looking for early 70's medical textbooks, why not try checking a new
one? Any psychologist or psychiatrist today will tell you that
homosexuality is as healthy and normal as heterosexuality... or
they'll lose the malpractice suit.

All this means you have the very right to question. I appreciate your
questions. Hope I have answered you questions. Anymore?

Yes. How did you get to be such a bigot?

Tom Farrell
http://www.RadicalHomosexualAgenda.com/

"Tom Farrell" wrote in message
om...
"A" wrote in message news:

I'm not a gay hater or basher.

Your statements belie your claim.

You have to do a lot more than writing an opinion to be a hater or a basher.

"Marriage" has 7 different meanings in the bible, actually, ranging
from what we'd see as a common contemporary marriage to polygamous
marriages to forcible rape of slaves who are then upheld as a spouse.
Indeed, one of the forms of marriage recognized in the bible is that
if a man wanted a woman as a wife and she refuses, he could rape her,
and then he could choose to be punished or take her as his wife -
against her will. I don't think the word has as narrow a meaning as
you would like to believe, and I don't think you're for all of the
"traditional" forms of marraige.

Who cares about how many are in the Bible. The only one to do is the one
God says to do. If God hates the others, then your statement is misleading.
Maybe the others are there as a warning- Don't Do Them!!

My recent research provided results about Denmark, which has
been at it a lot longer. Their heterosexual divorce rate is 46%.
Their lesbian divorce rate is 21%. Their gay male divorce rate
is 19%. (Or was it 17%? I'm not sure, I'd have to look it up.)

Something about demographics; If a 100 years ago few marriages ended in
divorce and few people shacked up, then 70 years ago a few more people did
both (divorce and shackup), then 30 years ago lots did and are doing both
(divorce and shackup), and todays marrying are fewer yet, because more are
shacking up- in 200 years by now will there be anybody getting married?


Gays socity is very powerful and persuaive-

We do so enjoy our Special Rights, like parking in the special Gay
Parking spaces at the mall, or using the Pink Triangle Line at the
supermarket...

Hmm. How old are you? If homosexuals have been called gay your whole life
I can see why your ridiculing. For how long the word gay has been around
the attachment of homosexual to the word gay is very new. That's about the
time homosexuals started to came out of the closet. To get from where they
were then (1970 and before) to now that takes a lot of power and persuasion.
Your ridicule shows your age or forgetfulness.


I've known couples - straight couples - who swing. If it's by
agreement, it's totally their business. If it's not by agreement, they
can divorce... and that's totally their business. Didn't your mother
ever teach you to mind your own business?

Probably 5% or less of the married population does that (no secrete). But
the general population doing that would be a huge erosion of marriage
(something like the days of Noah).

A small research in Seattle showed gays having
20 sex partners a night 7 days a week- how much sex do you have with your
husbands a night 7 days a week?

Seriously, that's just ridiculous. Okay, let's assume I sleep 8 hours
a day, that leaves 16 hours. It takes me an hour each way to and from
work, that leaves 14 hours. Then 8 hours for work, that leaves 6
hours. Then let's estimate I take half an hour each for breakfast and
dinner (those are low estimates, I like at least an hour for dinner)
leaving 5 hours, and assume I have a working lunch. That means I have
to meet, seduce, and have sex with a new person every 15 minutes for
every waking moment that I'm not going about one or another of life's
basic requirements. Grow up! That's just stupid. No man can have an
orgasm every 15 minutes for 5 hours.

Not what I read in a gay book about how to have sex written by gays. A
couple seconds short of 5 minutes is all it takes - so 20 guys in 1 hour and
40 minutes. This small research by a kiroTV news (actually 2 of them) was
shown on kirotv news and I never heard any gay disagreement afterwards
(surely some of the gays saw it).

So vote for Kerry and Edwards. A medical business here in town fired
within
the last month or two 40 some doctors because of liability insurance got
to
high (now there is one doctor with that business). Edwards made his
millions sueing doctors which buy liability insurance to pay the sue
price.
So, now, why is health insurance premiums going up? Even though the
Republicans run both House's and the White House the Democrates have
blocked
everything to put caps on how much Lawyers can sue. In Europe there are
stick laws about sueing and practicly none in the USA. Recent, one
research
found that on average the client make off with 27% of the sue job; 40+%
went
to the sue lawyer, and the rest went to fees. Some cases belong in
crimial
court not sue court, at least it should go through crimal court first.

When you break up a paragraph you change the overal meaning. Read it over
again. There is room for sueing, but the sky is not the limit, therefore
caps. It also seperate criminals from non criminals, therefore cutting the
cost for liability insurance; this has worked for other business, such as
small plane manufactorers (for about 10-15 years they stopped making small
planes- that put people out of work). Back in the mid 70's you could buy a
brand new small plane for about $5,000 more than a brand new Cadillac about
$15,000, so plane about $20,000. Kerry/Edwards fix is more taxes- do you
want your taxes paying off sue lawyers? Have you ever looked at what Bills
the Republican have made for putting caps on sueing, or are you a sucker to
whatever the Democrates tell you. I know people who used to be Democrates
until they started looking- maybe you ought to look to. " Only a fool
believes one side telling "both sides" ".

John