Goddamm, Cheney's got his head up his ass

[Tom Kunich]

"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Moore is not anti-America in any way, shape or form.

More accurancy in Kvecking I see:

In Farenheit 911 Michael Moore made the statement that Saddan Hussein never
threatened or harmed any Americans.

That's sort of you typical Liberal statement. It avoids the fact that Saddam
provided safe haven and financing for Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu
Musab al Zarqawia, and Abu Abbas.

Why don't you just read "Dude, Where's My Country?" and judge Michael Moore
for yourself? Anyone with an ounce of integrity would be disgusted by this
fat assed wannabee. He's one of the few people in the universe that can make
Howard seem almost human.

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > There WAS an autoptsy.
> >>
> >> Got a link?

More Kunich:
> It is a requirement in EVERY STATE OF THE UNION that an autoptsy be
> performed in any case where there wasn't an attending physician or where a
> physician won't sign off on cause of death (such as when old people die
> while the doctor is out of the room).
>
> But then I wouldn't expect someone with a room temperature IQ to know
> something that archane.
>
> http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0402.htm

> Of course if you have anything contrary you could have noted it. But then
> you're all mouth and very little else.

Your own link's contents showed: no autopsy.

a-u-t-o-p-s-y

a-r-c-a-n-e

Fifty times each, block letters, on the blackboard before you go home.
--D-y

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > There WAS an autoptsy.
> >>
> >> Got a link?
>
> It is a requirement in EVERY STATE OF THE UNION that an autoptsy be
> performed in any case where there wasn't an attending physician or where a
> physician won't sign off on cause of death (such as when old people die
> while the doctor is out of the room).
>
> But then I wouldn't expect someone with a room temperature IQ to know
> something that archane.

I guess it's a little too "archane" for an intellectual giant such as
yourself that most of the statutes regarding autopsies "give discretion on
whether an autopsy is necessary to the medical examiner."

> http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0402.htm
>
> "By law, autopsy results are not available for public inspection in
> Massachusetts. They are available only to those legally entitled to receive
> them (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 38 § 2)."
>
> Of course if you have anything contrary you could have noted it. But then
> you're all mouth and very little else.

Tom, it's nice that you found that. But it still doesn't prove that there was
an autopsy. Whether or not autopsy reports are available for public inspection
is moot, as you don't have to see a report to find out if one was performed or
not. The ME's office will surely state the answer to that question. Do yourself
a favor and google "Kennedy""Kopechne""autopsy" and see what you come up with.
There is no mention of her getting one. Her parents "filed a petition barring an
autopsy." Kind of an important point, no? Of course, the only places that says
there was one are Free Republic and other equally rabid wingnut sites known for
their accuracy. Surprise.

"All mouth..." heh.

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[geminiwalker]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Fear/hate of gays exploited to the max. See above.
>
> Gays compose some 2% of the population. Yet they compose 40% of
> pedophiliacs, something like half of all serial murderers, 100% of prison
> rapists and on and on. I have no idea whether this is because of the disgust
> that society addresses to homosexuality or what and it really doesn't
> matter.

Gays comprise 20% of any given population and always have -- to the
best of our knowledge. 98% of pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL, and many of
them are married -- HETEROSEXUALLY.

> And in case you aren't aware of it, though it's seldom shown in public,
> lesbians hate homosexuals (and vice versa) a GREAT deal more than heteros do
> either. The fact is that the vast majority of heterosexuals couldn't care
> less about the sexual preferences of someone as long as it isn't pushed in
> their faces.

And you are aware of this how? What makes you such an expert on
lesbians? (By the way, lesbians ARE homosexuals -- and most of them
don't hate anyone except hypocrites, sexists and liars).

> Moreover, in my experience there is a basic difference in lesbians and
> homosexual men - Men are homosexual usually because they love other men.
> Women are usually lesbian because they hate men and haven't any other sexual
> outlet. This has a certain effect on these relationships. For instance, I
> read a report that said that the average length of a homosexual relationship
> is 4 months for men and 2 years for women.

Yes, tell us about your experience. Men are homosexual by nature
because they love sex and can get more of it with no pregnancy
consequences, especially blow jobs, from other men. Lesbians are
lesbians because they fall in love with women. That's why they tend to
be more romantic, tend to settle down more, buy homes and go into
business together.

> This makes for extremely complicated psychological conditions in homosexuals
> that show up as far higher rates of suicide, criminality and general
> psychological problems completely outside of their relationships with
> heterosexuals.

Higher rates of suicide for gay teens is caused by societal homophobia.
Kids hate themselves when they begin to think they are gay because of
how they know gays are treated at school, and how they are afraid their
parents will treat them. Many of them get thrown out of their homes
because their parents think like you do.


> To imply that normal people don't have good reasons to fear/hate homosexuals
> is stupid on the face of it.

Stupid is as stupid does.

....geminiwalker

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 22 Feb 2006 09:02:48 -0800, "geminiwalker"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Gays comprise 20% of any given population and always have -- to the
>best of our knowledge.

"The most comprehensive studies of male homosexuals in the United
States (such as the 1994 University of Chicago/National Opinion
Research Center study) put the percentage between 2 percent and 4
percent for the general population."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but that 20% figure is absurd.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:04:34 -0500, Jack Hollis <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>Gays comprise 20% of any given population and always have -- to the
>>best of our knowledge.
>
>"The most comprehensive studies of male homosexuals in the United
>States (such as the 1994 University of Chicago/National Opinion
>Research Center study) put the percentage between 2 percent and 4
>percent for the general population."
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Sorry, but that 20% figure is absurd.


Another research study from Holland

"The Sandfort research is particularly significant because it surveyed
a large sample of the Dutch population (about 7,000 individuals),
avoiding convenience samples and the potential for bias that such
samples can introduce. Of those individuals surveyed, 2.8% of the men
and 1.4% of the women were classified as homosexual."

http://www.narth.com/docs/studyconfirms.html

 

[[email protected]]

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:04:34 -0500, Jack Hollis <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >>Gays comprise 20% of any given population and always have -- to the
> >>best of our knowledge.
> >
> >"The most comprehensive studies of male homosexuals in the United
> >States (such as the 1994 University of Chicago/National Opinion
> >Research Center study) put the percentage between 2 percent and 4
> >percent for the general population."
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Sorry, but that 20% figure is absurd.
>
>
> Another research study from Holland
>
> "The Sandfort research is particularly significant because it surveyed
> a large sample of the Dutch population (about 7,000 individuals),
> avoiding convenience samples and the potential for bias that such
> samples can introduce. Of those individuals surveyed, 2.8% of the men
> and 1.4% of the women were classified as homosexual."
>
> http://www.narth.com/docs/studyconfirms.html

What difference does the size of the population make? Whatever freaking
methodology some biased study uses to please the buyers of the study?

BTW, your study shows wonderful support for granting gays the right to
join in state-recognized unions. Even in Holland, where the authors
admit that social stigma is much less in evidence, because, for all the
churches you see, the society is a good deal more secular than in the
USA. Don't forget, they kicked the Puritans out. Smart people.

Okay, off to attack the family elsewhere. Ciao! --D-y

 

[geminiwalker]

Not in my world it's not absurd. But then, I know what to look for. Not
that it matters. The number of decent heterosexual men is even less.
And yet, here we are again, counting men, as if homosexual women don't
exist. Talk about bias!

And again, "of those individuals surveyed" -- where did they get those
individuals? I suppose they were cruising the gay bars -- NOT!

....geminiwalker, the absurd one