Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

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

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Idiotic

There's so little I can add on to this stupidity, other than to say that to say that I'm sure there a certain Conservative poster that will probably LOVE this new law, and spend 57 posts defending it.  Once again, Conservatives have chosen suppression over discussion, ignorance over information, and have gotten Government off your back... but in your pants.


On Thursday, State Rep. Jon Lundberg told NBC station WCYB-TV that a focus on abstinence is needed because Tennessee has the seventh-highest teen birth rate in the nation and the 11th-highest HIV infection rate in the nation.


This is particularly relevant, because Tennessee already HAS Abstinence-only sex education in theirs school system:
 proponents say the new law helps define the existing abstinence-only sex-education policy.

Though, to be fair... the laws "proponents" are mostly rednecks Conservatives from Tennessee.  What the EVIDENCE has shown, as acknowledged by State Rep. Jon Lundberg is that their abstinence only sex education curriculum has been one of the least effective in the country, and has not brought about the desired results.
Liberal solution: DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
Conservative Solution: DO MORE OF THE SAME THING, ON STEROIDS.
I don't know... Maybe having the seventh-highest teen birth rate isn't enough... Maybe they want to be number one.  The only way they rank any higher five years from know would be is Mississippi, Alabama and other States where fear, ignorance and ideology routinely trump common sense also double down on their stupidity, and manage to do more harm to themselves than Tennessee will do.
Hey: Maybe they can just ban contraception altogether. Why not? As EVERYONE KNOWS, if you keep contraception away from teenagers, they'll stop having sex, right?

74 comments:

  1. I am always amazed at the notion that teaching abstinence will someone cool the loins of a teenager. Ram-rodding religious beliefs down the throats of the masses has been unsuccessful in elevating morality, especially what the religious ram-rodders consider moral! Spreading morality using hate, fear, condemnation and sanctimonious finger pointing is like trying to minimize murder by increasing executions....oh wait.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you described, there--"spreading morality using hate, fear, condemnation and sanctimonious finger pointing"--is exactly how abstinence "education" works. It's a concoction of the nut right that uses ludicrous misinformation for purposes of attempting to frighten and guilt-trip students away from sex. That it's so often publicly funded is a scandal, but virtually no one knows about what it does; the public policy "debate," to the extent that it exists, focuses only on the concept of "abstinence," not the substance of the programs (substance which would outrage most people).

      Delete
    2. What you need to do, then, is change the laws against rape. If you're going to denounce teaching birth control as 'immoral, condemning, hateful, fearful, frightening and guilt-tripping' then why do you even have laws against rape. After all, you push the ability to teach kids how to have sex from the age of ... ??? And using the morality of a liberal as guidance, then having sex whenever they want should be a right ... not against the law. Maybe raise the age limit for rapists to a more reasonable age. Perhaps 22 or 23? They are only 'kids' after all. They're just experimenting ... not meaning any harm. It's not like they learn how to tell the difference between right and wrong using the liberal idealogy as guidance facrissakes.

      Just sayin'

      Delete
    3. I thought of another one ... maybe you can teach your version of birth control while you indoctinate children to the homosexual lifestyle. That way you can kill 2 birds with one stone ... homosexuals don't reproduce! Perpetual safe sex. What a dream for the liberal. Since there is no scientific evidence anyone or anything is born homosexual, then you can TEACH both classes at the same time.

      Gotta love that liberal mentality. You want to teach children how to have sex and ignore the consequences by teaching them they are having sex un-naturally. Really?

      You will demand action against radio hosts when they verbally assault people, then be proud of yourselves when you verbally assault people. Really?

      Liberals demand facts and consider false facts to be an evil unto itself, but are quick to use false facts as genuine proof of their claims. Really?

      Are there any bounds to the demands liberals make while they enjoy participating in the activities they are demanding others stop doing?

      Delete
    4. William, what you just said is arguably the stupidest thing I have ever read, and I've read literally every single one of your posts. First of all, for the fucktieth time, stop telling US What Liberals think, or what Liberals want, or what Liberals would do. WE'RE LIBERALS. So we're pretty familiar with what we think, and it sure a hell doesn't resemble the cranial diarreah you stain my blog with every time you turn up. The stupidity you post about comes from you alone. And if you don't like that judgement? Try not to post such stupid shit!

      If you have a BETTER IDEA on how to address some societl iseue? We'd love to hear it. Otherwise, unless you take pride in making Conservtives look bad, stop wasting everybody's time. Becuase you wouldn't know the "Liberal Mentaliy" if it gave you free health care, and you wouldn't know bad Conservative Policy if it killed 100,000 innocent civilians in an unecessary war.

      And sepcifically to the last half of your second post... Insetad of asking pointless rhetorical questions, why don't you try MAKING A POINT, instead of putting your lack of self-awareness and ignorance of Political Philosophy on dispaly for all to see? "False facts?" Like what? Where? What do you disagree with? "Demands liberals make while they enjoy participating in the activities they are demanding others stop doing?" What the fuck are you talking about?!

      Or is that merely more verbal incontinence dedicated to the delusion that being intolerant of intolerance is somehow hypocritical? Whatever man. You don't know your ass from your elbow anyway, so if you're ever in Tennessee, I'd avoid touching either if I were you.

      Delete
    5. William, if people really had to be taught how to have sex, we never would have reproduced in the first place. Teaching responsibility is not the same as approval, it's simply cutting down on the negative effects of what some teenagers are going to do no matter what you tell them.

      Delete
    6. "First of all, for the fucktieth time, stop telling US What Liberals think, or what Liberals want, or what Liberals would do."

      No. I'm right about them, so it's too bad you don't like me saying it. You seem to have no problem directly linking me to republicans and their ideals always knowing their thoughts and intentions. I supposed you wouldn't mind if I do the same for liberals. And, yes, you most certainly are liberals. There ain't no way to confuse that. You think like liberals, you write like liberals and you probably look like a liberal. I'm sorry you don't like it when the kettle is called black. But, being the good liberals you are, I would expect nothing less than some whining about being called a liberal while you name-call others.


      " "False facts?" Like what? Where? "

      Your "EIGHTY PERCENT" statement about loans covered by the CRA in your 'case for Obama' article. That is a lie and a "false fact". I have already questioned that number and you have (conveniently) ignored responding to me after saying you have read all my posts. But, hey, if you feel it is acceptable for a liberal to bring misinformation and lies while you whine about conservatives bringing misinformation and lies then that is your right as a liberal.


      "Insetad of asking pointless rhetorical questions, why don't you try MAKING A POINT,"

      Again ... NO. There seems to be no rule forbidding you liberals from making stupid comments without a point to them, why should I be the only one required to "make a point"? What "point" is conchobhar making in the statement below? (It's fargin Tennessee, facrissakes. Whaddya expect?) Hell, he may as well have said they couldn't get more "gayer". But you seem to have a problem with other people making pointless statements, while you fully support your liberal friends who make pointless statements. Nothing unexpected there.


      "and you wouldn't know bad Conservative Policy if it killed 100,000 innocent civilians in an unecessary war."

      Some more false facts you bring that you think are real?? What 100,000 innocent civilians did a conservative policy kill??? Didn't EVERY liberal vote for that war also? If I remember correctly, only Barbara Lee from Oakland voted against going to war against terrorism. What makes fighting terrorism a "conservative policy" ONLY ?

      Delete
    7. Don't equate my rhetoric with yours, William. When I attack a conservative position, it's one that actually exists, not one that my fevered imagination (or some radio raver) has conjured up. Tennessee, or at least the Tennessee contingent of your beloved Teabaggers, actually is trying to get slavery, Jim Crow, etc. out of their students' curriculum. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/23/408974/tennessee-tea-party-demands-that-references-to-slavery-be-removed-from-history-textbooks/?mobile=nc
      Your rants about what liberals think and want, on the other hand, are pure fantasyland.

      Delete
    8. "Your rants about what liberals think and want, on the other hand, are pure fantasyland."

      No, my rants are based in reality and facts. Unlike the rants of yours that you assign a political party to my beliefs and state they are "beloved" by me. IIs it acceptable for me to whine about how evil liberals are (in a general fashion) since you do the same concerning conservatives?

      Are you going to address the fact that Eddie lied using false facts? Or your "point" to denigrate certain people (just as a bigot would) while you are whining about one person denigrating certain people ? Maybe show how those 100,000 civilians died because of "conservative" policies after ALL the democrats approved that war you liberals whine about so much?
      I kind of figured you'd avoid those actual topics, since you have nothing to defend them with.

      Delete
    9. "Teaching responsibility is not the same as approval,"

      What do liberals know about "responsibility"? You're the same people who wish to allow children to be able to get abortions without parental approval. You demanded (and got) the right to teach children how to have sex, you fought for and got the right to abortion on demand. And you want to lecture me on "responsibility"?


      "And if you don't like that judgement? Try not to post such stupid shit!"

      I'll make a deal with you, Eddie. You stop posting lies and misinformation and I'll stop posting stupid shit. Do you think your hatred of conservatives could allow that?

      Delete
    10. How is teaching about contraception somehow worse than just saying "don't have sex"? There wouldn't be as much demand for abortions if teenagers used more protection during sex. You're not going to be able to wave some magic wand over a teenager and stop them from doing what they want to do, so you're not making it clear how teaching safe sex is irresponsible.

      Do you have anything to address the quote you pasted, besides making a point in MY favor?

      Delete
    11. "No, my rants are based in reality and facts. Unlike the rants of yours that you assign a political party to my beliefs and state they are "beloved" by me." Wrong again. Your rants are based on fantasy, prejudice, bigotry and hatred, as I posted above. Nothing about them is based on reality and fact. On the other hand, my attacks on you and your ilk are fact-based You went onto rants earlier on, attacking OWS and comparing them, unfavorably, to Teabaggers. You think 'beloved,' is over-the-top? Start trying to be honest in your attacks on liberals. Well, that was silly of me. You've shown no ability to be honest, or logical, since you showed up here.

      You want me to defend Eddie's position? He's perfectly capable of doing that himself. If you want to argue with me, argue with me. You don't seem to have the mental discipline to do that. I notice that you don't try to attack the 'fargin' facts I linked to, which would constitute actually arguing with me. Instead you repeat your endless libeling of liberals. That's all you've got, William, and it's pitifully weak.

      Speaking of pitifully weak, I "look like a liberal?" Just what does that look like? I'm surprised you didn't add, "You smell like one, too." There's a 17-year-old posting one your bete noir, MMFA, who's more mature than you.

      Delete
    12. "You want me to defend Eddie's position? He's perfectly capable of doing that himself."

      Obviously, HE cannot. I'm still waiting for a comment on his use of "EIGHTY PERCENT". That number is wrong and he knows it, but he used it to promote his hate of Bush. You have defended his use of that number to further promote your hatred of Bush. I like how liberals stick together in order to defend their use of lies and misinformation. Good for you, that makes you a team player. Make sure you do whatever your leader tells you to do ... say whatever you're told to say and think whatever you're told to think. Don't make me call you a sheeple. (even though all your actions and statements indicate that is true)


      " You went onto rants earlier on, attacking OWS and comparing them, unfavorably, to Teabaggers."

      Typical lie brought by a liberal. When did I compare OWS to the Teabaggers? There is no comparison. OWS is violent, the Teabaggers are peaceful. OWS lie, Teabaggers don't. The Teabaggers have a vision for their peaceful mission, OWS is a group of violent liberals out to steal and destroy as much private property as they can without any remorse.
      When did I compare the OWS to the Teabaggers?
      The best lie is OWS (Oakland) whining about Scott Olsen getting hit by a tear gas canister when the video evidence provided by liberals obviously shows he was not hit by any projectile. Typical lie brought by liberals and the OWS movement.


      "There's a 17-year-old posting one your bete noir, MMFA, who's more mature than you."

      Are you also teaching him/her how to lie/cheat/steal like a good liberal should and does?

      Delete
    13. You say that you haven't compared OWS and the Teabaggers (either early onset Alzheimer's or a lie; read your previous posts), then go on to compare (and lie) them. The police, in numerous cities have both instigated and committed the majority of what violence there has been in OWS demonstrations. I have witnessed, in person, police provocation and brutality at OWS demonstrations in New York, so don't throw your Koch Brothers Propaganda in my face again.

      "Are you also teaching him/her how to lie/cheat/steal like a good liberal should and does?"

      Even for you, that's pathetically weak.

      Delete
    14. " I have witnessed, in person, police provocation and brutality at OWS demonstrations in New York, so don't throw your Koch Brothers Propaganda in my face again."

      You are funny. Bring the proof that I compared Teabaggers to OWS. You made that claim, not me. It is on you to bring that link you think is there.

      I have been to OWS protests in Oakland, and the police (while not the freindliest) were not the ones to instigate violence. They certainly stopped it, though. Arrest all those OWS thugs and send them to jail for several years. That's what I think they should do with those violent thugs. Got any evidence of violence by the Teabaggers on the same scale as those thugs from OWS?
      I'll bet you got one video or article about violence by the Teabaggers and you'll call that eqaul to the continual violence by OWS. THAT would be the expected methodology by you.

      Delete
    15. BTW, your above comparison of OWS to Teabaggers is a reprise of what you wrote a month or two ago. If you don't remember that give that quarter to someone who'll do the background reading for you.

      Not that you'd believe it, even if you saw it. Hell, I've seen you deny what you've written (women were given the vote in response to DNA evidence) within a couple of hours, and attack Brabantio for responding to it.

      Delete
    16. "(women were given the vote in response to DNA evidence)"

      The only problem is that I never said that. So, your belief that I deny what I've written would only work if I actually said that. Bring that statement where I said women got the right to vote from DNA evidence. I told Brabantio I didn't say that, too. He was never able to bring that exact statement either. Good luck finding it.

      Delete
    17. "Exact quote?" Ok, you didn't say "DNA." You said "We once discriminated against women and blacks. But, SCIENTIFIC PROOF was brought that showed they could not choose who they are born as and to discriminate against them based on that issue would be wrong. Now, when you bring that scientific proof then you can claim civil rights."

      And then, when Brab tried to get you to name the "scientific proof" that (according to you) triggered the granting of civil rights, you thrashed around, denied what you had said, and attacked him, just as you're doing to me when I ask you what you mean when you say, "dealing with his gay friends."

      Delete
  2. It's fargin Tennessee, facrissakes. Whaddya expect? These are the cretins who want to erase slavery, Jim Crow and Civil Rights from their classrooms.
    And don't get me started on Scopes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. William, I believe you have gone off the deep end. I have conservative friends and none of them have ever said anything as jaw-droppingly stupid as you have. And for the record I am an unabashed, evangelical Jesus Freak. I love the Lord my God. Of course I know that many right wing "Christians" like to decide who is and is not a "real" Christian. It reminds me of the quest to find out who is a "real" American. Turns out that for the GOP those are usually just people who agree with your narrow minded views. I found some amusement in having right wing views on this blog but frankly, William, you have become rather predictable...boring even. Well, I have to go indoctrinate some of the neighborhood kids to rape and pillage and get their gay on. Ta Ta.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, do you want me to lie and mislead like Eddie does concerning TARP (and who knows what else he has lied about using false facts) ? Maybe I should base all my comments in hate like classicliberal does? Or maybe I'll just state my opinion like all freedom loving Americans do. Yeah, I'll do the last one and let you liberals choose to do the lying and misleading.

      A liberal saying my views are "narrow minded" does NOT make them wrong. It simply means you don't like them. Of course if a liberal thinks my views are wrong, that is more proof they are probably correct and moral. Because we all see what kind of morals the liberal chooses to use (lies, misleads, hateful).


      "Well, I have to go indoctrinate some of the neighborhood kids to rape and pillage and get their gay on. "

      Yes, I would suppose you do.

      Just for fun ... you say you are a "Jesus Freak". What do you mean by that? Do you mean you believe all of what He says? Or just the parts where he isn't bashing your beloved homosexual?

      Delete
    2. I love the Lord my God. What part of that do you not understand? What is the greatest commandment, William? To love the Lord and to love others...please explain to me how the rigid views of the right fit in with that. Oh oh oh...lets hear you explain how it is possible to be pro-life, yet pro-capital punishment. Lets look up the words of Jesus about homosexuals shall we...what? Nothing? Ok, lets see if we can figure out how Jesus would have felt about Wall Street...just that pesky turning over the tables of the money lenders! Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, be kind to widows and orphans, visit prisoners. To the right this reads as create more prisoners, pull the rug out from under the disenfranchised, support the money lenders and preach your own selfish version of personal responsibility.

      Delete
    3. "I love the Lord my God."

      That is good. Let me ask: do you believe that Jesus is God? If (and it should be expected you do) you do, then Jesus (God) has said much about homosexuality. Do you accept the Word of God as truthful?

      Delete
    4. William, you are making me laugh now. You are just one freaked out, paranoid, judgmental man I think. Just my opinion.

      Delete
    5. How am I being "judgmental"? I simply asked a question to find out if you believe in Jesus and God. You can't seriously be having a problem answering that, can you?

      Maybe you're like conchobhar and you're reading things that I didn't write. Are you a liberal? If so, that would offer one explanation for that paranoia you're exhibiting.

      Delete
  4. Let's hear a comment from the bigoted democrats:
    "As I understand it, if you're holding hands walking down the hall, now a teacher gets in trouble if you allow that to happen," said State Rep. Mike Turner, D-Old Hickory. "We're about ready to put the turbans on, I think, and put the women in burkahs here if we keep going at this rate."

    Did he REALLY just say Islam is inappropriate in that state? I would expect that from republicans, but those democrats are supposed to be so much more 'special' than others. Well, Mike Turner sure is "special". The short bus will arrive soon to pick him up.


    " ... Tennessee has the seventh-highest teen birth rate in the nation and the 11th-highest HIV infection rate in the nation. This is particularly relevant, because Tennessee already HAS Abstinence-only sex education in theirs school system:"

    Interesting interpretation, Eddie. What kind of sex education do the 6 states that beat out Tennessee use? How about the other 10 states on that top-11 HIV list you mention? Do you think there might be a problem with those programs, too? Or do you have to climb down the list to find a program you hate and use it as political fodder for your misinformation and lies? Because if I had all the (fake) concern that you exhibit, then I would be more inclined to find out what kind of sex education that the worst 1, 2, 3 ... states use and get those programs corrected. But, no. You ignore the worst states in the nation and jump straight down to #7 and #11 to find a program to whine about.

    BTW, what rank was Tennessee BEFORE they started abstinence only? Not that it would matter in your hateful rant you got going against a viable program.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As one who would never make a statement without backing it up, show us where burkahs are required in the Qu'ran, William.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What does the quran requiring anything have to do with that democrat being a bigot? Are you defending a bigot simply because he supports your stance on abstinence?

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sigh...Either think before you type, or try to remember what you've typed.


    "Did he REALLY just say Islam is inappropriate in that state?" You're implying that his "bigotry" is against Islam. Now it's up to you to, in your own words, "bring proof" that ISLAM requires burkahs and turbans.

    I'm not defending anyone. I'm attacking your weak argument, and using one of your favorite methods, to wit, if ONE WORD in your statement is out-of-place, the WHOLE ARGUMENT fails. Unfair, I know, but you reap what you sow.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That would work if there had been ANY statement that Islam "required" burkahs. Was that said? Hmmm, I see NO. But, what IS true is that Islam is the ONLY religion that has some of it's members wear burkahs. Do you know of another religion whose members wear burkahs? So, it is obvious that bigot is talking about Islam ... and NO other religion. Good to see you support that bigot who thinks Islam is inappropriate. I wonder if you'd support him as much if he had been a republican.

    So, while it's very commendable that you want proof of a "requirement" by Islam, that was never an issue in this discussion. Perhaps you can think of another way of creating a statement I haven't made.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Him: "We're about ready to put the turbans on, I think, and put the women in burkahs here if we keep going at this rate."

    You: "Let's hear a comment from the bigoted democrats:" (Then the above, followed by:) "Did he REALLY just say Islam is inappropriate in that state?"

    I'll type slowly, so you can keep up.

    First fallacy: You've called a single person a group. (You've also used that single person's statement to tar the entire group, which is prima facie evidence of bigotry on your part.)

    Second fallacy: You've assumed that the statement is evidence of bigotry.

    Third fallacy: You've assumed that the assumed-but-not-demonstrated bigotry is aimed at Islam. You've defended that assumption by positing your ignorance. When you've done some research on burkahs, Pashtunwalla, etc., get back to me.

    Fourth fallacy: You've assumed that I approve of this person and his positions. All I've ever heard about him is what you've posted, and I don't give your posts a hell of a lot of credence. So, I'm not defending him, I'm attacking you. More specifically, I'm attacking your woeful lack of logic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not going to type slowly.

      I didn't assume anything. I assigned that statement as evidence of bigotry by a member of the democratic party. He is a democrat and therefore an example of their behavior. Not much (if at all) different than what you do to me and right-wing behavior.

      It is fact that statement is aimed at Islam. I asked you earlier and you provided no alternative for who he may have been talking about. Maybe you would prefer I call him a anti-semite? And that would make you a supporter of anti-semitism. Along with you supporting a bigot by your defense of his actions.

      Delete
    2. Wow, you are a fucking idiot William.

      Delete
    3. What a coincidence. I think liberals who say bigoted things are fucking idiots too. Like the guy I linked to (and also liberals who pre-determine someone's behavior based on whether they are right leaning). I also think liberals who support left-leaning bigots are fucking idiots too. Especially the ones who support those bigots only because they are left-leaning. Do you support Rep Turner's stance about burkah and turban wearers as he stated it?

      Delete
  12. Well, you should have typed more slowly, to match your thinking process. Maybe you would have gotten it right. To wit:

    1)"It is fact that statement is aimed at Islam." That's nothing but an assertion on your part. It's up to you to back it up with evidence and logic.

    2)"I asked you earlier and you provided no alternative for who he may have been talking about." Wrong again I guess I didn't type, "When you've done some research on burkahs, Pashtunwalla, etc., get back to me," slowly enough for you to keep up with it.

    3)"Maybe you would prefer I call him a anti-semite? And that would make you a supporter of anti-semitism." You can call Rep Turner anything you like. Nothing you call him would "make" me anything at all. I have nothing to do with him, and have only your not-so-credible word for his existence.

    4)"Along with you supporting a bigot by your defense of his actions." Congratulations, William! In a four-sentence paragraph you made seven separate errors, three in the collection of words quoted here.
    1)Grammatical: sentence fragment.
    2)Factual/logical: I haven't "supported" Turner at all. I've attacked your statements.
    3)You've referenced no 'actions' by Turner at all; you've quoted or, knowing you, misquoted statements. Talk isn't action.

    And I especially enjoyed this absurdity:
    "He is a democrat and therefore an example of their behavior."

    By that 'logic' Jim K. Adkinsson, who shot up a church in Tennessee, killing two, because of (according to a letter police found in his car) his 'hatred of liberal views,' is an example of right-wing behavior, and your often stated hatred of liberals and our views means you approve and would do the same thing if you only had the 'courage' (and the brains to operate a firearm).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's up to you to back it up with evidence and logic."

      Done that. Can't you read?


      "When you've done some research on burkahs, Pashtunwalla, etc., get back to me,"

      Did that too. Again ... can't you read?


      "and have only your not-so-credible word for his existence."

      Wow, are you really denying that the guy exists? Let alone the FACT he is a member of the democratic party and therefore a spokesman for how democrats think.


      "By that 'logic' ... blah blah blah"

      Well, I don't see you deny that's how you liberals think. What I see is your explanation as to why you agree with what I wrote. Because you DO use that logic when considering the intelligence of any right-winger.

      A good example is the fact that Eddie uses lies and misinformation to promote his left-wing view of a republican presidency. When he is called on using lies and misinformation he simply refuses to post any kind of reply. Even his viral supporters have no explanation for his use of lies and misinformation (you included), only continued support for someone they look up to because he is able to please their crazed hatred of anything NOT liberal.

      But, most of all, I like how you defend a democratic politician who uses bigoted statements to express hatred of others by saying 'he doesn't exist therefore I don't believe you'.


      " if you only had the 'courage' "

      Says the anonymous poster at an obscure blog site.


      Your use of "Jim K. Adkinsson" ... um wasn't he an "expert" with the rifle in the Army too? Just sayin'


      Maybe, after you get done defending a democratic bigot you could actually discuss what this topic is. How about answering a couple questions that Eddie continues to ignore:

      1) what rank was Tennessee BEFORE they started abstinence only?
      2) What kind of sex education do the 6 states that beat out Tennessee (in teen birth rate) use?
      3) How about the other 10 states on that top-11 HIV list, what sex-ed do they use?

      Nah, never mind. You would be too scared to answer questions like those. Just like Eddie and the rest of you liberals are. What I expect to get is more name-calling and veiled anonymous threats by a 5'7" old man who plays hockey on playstation.

      Delete
  13. "By that 'logic' ... blah blah blah" Imitating your beloved Sean Hannity, eh?
    "Blah, blah, blah" is the basic content of your every argument. If it weren't for deflection and dishonesty, you wouldn't have a game at all.

    Speaking of deflection: "Your use of "Jim K. Adkinsson" ... um wasn't he an "expert" with the rifle in the Army too? Just sayin'" Just sayin' what, exactly?

    ""It's up to you to back it up with evidence and logic."

    "Done that. Can't you read?" No you haven't. Assertions are not evidence, and logic is something you avoid like the plague.

    "When you've done some research on burkahs, Pashtunwalla, etc., get back to me,"

    "Did that too. Again ... can't you read?" Certainly can. And have seen no sign that you did that. Show it.

    'Well, I don't see you deny that's how you liberals think. What I see is your explanation as to why you agree with what I wrote. Because you DO use that logic when considering the intelligence of any right-winger."

    I see the sarcasm of the quotes around "logic" was lost on you. YOUR 'logic' is the one which takes an isolated incident and tars an entire group with it, and that's what I was pointing out. You keep talking about Turner, whoever he is, as representative of me and other liberals. Idiotic. The guy's statement is couched in right-wing terms, and if it were a right-winger saying it, you would excuse the imagery because you would see it as a defense of freedom. In addition to which, coming from Tennessee, it's likely (not certain, of course) that he's a Blue Dog Democrat. They are more likely to side with Republicans on a number of issues, and no liberal that I know of, has anything but disdain for them. You, of course, choose to ignore that nuance, if you are even aware of its existence.

    Around the world, advanced societies which have open, frank sex education have lower rates of unintended pregnancies, and thus abortions, than the more puritanical states here.

    "Behavior research cannot make judgments
    about social values, but it can evaluate the success
    of school-based curricula at producing tangible
    outcomes for young people. The weight of
    the evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals
    clearly shows that some comprehensive
    sex education programs can reduce behavior
    that puts young people at risk of HIV, STIs and
    unintended pregnancy, and that these programs
    do not promote earlier onset of sexual activity or
    an increased number of sexual partners among
    adolescents. By contrast, little if any credible
    research exists to substantiate the claims that
    abstinence-only programming leads to positive
    behavior change among youth."
    That's from http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf

    "Veiled anonymous threats?" Such as? 5'7"? How did you come up with that? Playstation? Don't have one in the house. And that's a pretty silly statement, coming from a guy who spends his time on fantasy football. But, actually, there's a 'logic' there. All of your arguments are fantasy based too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Nah, never mind. You would be too scared to answer questions like those. Just like Eddie and the rest of you liberals are."

      Bingo! I called that one.


      "Just sayin' what, exactly?"

      You claim to be an "expert" just like the guy you use as an example of dangerously psychotic. Do the similarities stop there? No one knows.


      "Certainly can. And have seen no sign that you did that. Show it."

      Umm, what groups of people wear burkahs? Islamic and isolated Jewish sects. Do you know of ANY other groups of people who wear them? Because those are the two groups I mentioned as wearing them (after doing a little research--as you requested).
      Then you go on to defend his statements as being right-wing inspired. Just as I said you would do. Wow!

      Delete
    2. " "Veiled anonymous threats?" Such as? "

      "And THIS liberal shot expert in the Army, and still hits whatever he aims at, with firearm, bow, or hockey stick. And speaking of hockey sticks, shove one...sideways."


      You ready to answer what rank Tennessee was BEFORE they went to abstinence only? I expect you want to avoid the tough questions. So, if you continue to refuse to answer I would understand why; you can't handle the truth ... well, not unless it's your version of the truth. Which is like Eddie's "EIGHTY PERCENT" and/or classicliberal's "every republican said" versions of their "truths". You are a funny one, you demand honesty while defending and supporting liars simply because they are left-wingers.

      Sorry to keep calling you a liar, Eddie. But until you can prove your "EIGHTY PERCENT" statement after it has been shown to be wrong, then you simply are one and all your future statements must be considered to be as honest as that dishonest one. Lack of truthfulness really does affect your credibility. I know you've told that to me before. Too bad that shoe has to fall onto your foot.
      How does it feels to be an equal to a right-winger?

      Delete
    3. "Veiled anonymous threats?" Such as? "

      "And THIS liberal shot expert in the Army, and still hits whatever he aims at, with firearm, bow, or hockey stick. And speaking of hockey sticks, shove one...sideways."

      Take off the Kevlar vest, come out of the bunker and relax, William. Jesus, you are a craven aren't you? Well, calm down and reread the thread you pulled that from. I was responding to your jibe that liberals are too stupid to work a firearm. Think a minute. We've argued about capital punishment. If I'm opposed to that, even for some heinous crimes, I'm certainly not going to shoot you for being stupid.

      Delete
  14. They guy who's not man enough to answer for what he's written, but runs away, throwing this over his shoulder, "What I meant was obvious. If you need someone to explain it to you, then I'll send you a quarter so you can call someone who cares," is calling ME scared? Now, THAT'S funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only problem is that I actually did answer for what I said. You, on the other hand, being the good liberal that you are, ignored the tough questions and go wandering off into some off-topic rants.

      Delete
  15. Uh, no, you didn't.
    What you meant would be obvious only to someone who had undergone the programming that you have, and operates from the same set of prejudices and bigotries. That doesn't include me, or most decent people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sound like Brabantio. He would use the same tactic when he couldn't grasp the simplest of statements while ignoring what is being discussed on-topic. Just because you have a problem with reading comprehension don't expect me to hold your hand while explaining why you can't read. You are a perfect example of a liberal who can't hold the simplest of discussions without taking it off-topic.


      1) what rank was Tennessee BEFORE they started abstinence only?
      2) What kind of sex education do the 6 states that beat out Tennessee (in teen birth rate) use?
      3) How about the other 10 states on that top-11 HIV list, what sex-ed do they use?

      Delete
  16. Yeah, I'm sure I do. You put on your George W. Bush Jr. Aviator Flight Suit and claim victory with him too, after he's slaughtered you. Our argument started with my statement that you misunderstand, willfully or not, our statements. You're the one who's taking it off topic, desperate to avoid responsibility for what you've posted, and I'm not biting.

    You're an online version of this guy's weaseling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJfrvaCl4wA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And my argument started with discussing the topic. Try it, instead of whining about how you are treated. You're just another liberal whiner who can't hold their own against a stupid right-winger.


      1) what rank was Tennessee BEFORE they started abstinence only?
      2) What kind of sex education do the 6 states that beat out Tennessee (in teen birth rate) use?
      3) How about the other 10 states on that top-11 HIV list, what sex-ed do they use?

      Delete
    2. Got your codpiece adjusted right, George Jr?
      Think about this for a minute. Why should I go and do the research to answer your questions to Eddie, when you haven't even got the balls (I guess the codpiece is necessary, eh?) to answer a question about your own statements?

      Delete
    3. "Why should I go and do the research to answer your questions to Eddie, ..."

      Because I have already answered what you wanted, you just don't like the answer.

      That's ok, though. There are plenty of other left-wingers out there that can answer those questions. Let's see if they avoid them like you do or if they aren't as scared as you are. I just think it is tremendously funny that Eddie brings these articles with all this misinformation, then he runs away when that information is questioned. And, leaves the forum to whiners that take the article off-topic because they are afraid to have an honest discussion with a right-winger.
      I really don't care whether you answer the questions or not. I think it shows what kind of honesty that you left-wingers actually discuss with. Hell, Eddie (or any other left-winger) can't even answer to his own purported fact of "EIGHTY PERCENT" in his dishonest rant against Bush. It's been nearly 3 weeks and NO left-winger has even attempted to address that bit of misinformation and dishonesty. No wonder you people hate it when I post ... you can't stand it when I highlight your misinformation and point out your dishonesty.
      I just monitor Internet media outlets for liberal misinformation - news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the liberal agenda.


      Maybe Eddie should have read this study before he went on his anti-abstinence rant:
      http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=164&issue=2&page=152


      So, for anyone who wants to tackle the tough questions during a rant against Christianity and sex-ed, here are the questions again:

      1) what rank was Tennessee BEFORE they started abstinence only?
      2) What kind of sex education do the 6 states that beat out Tennessee (in teen birth rate) use?
      3) How about the other 10 states on that top-11 HIV list, what sex-ed do they use?

      Delete
  17. "Because I have already answered what you wanted, you just don't like the answer."

    No, you haven't. Or maybe you're right, and I'm just too dense to have recognized the answer. So do your Christian Duty, and enlighten me, by cutting and pasting that answer here. The question, which you keep avoiding, is, "What EXACTLY did you mean by saying my son has "...enough on his plate, dealing with his gay friends...?"

    Did you mean dealing cards, dealing drugs, dealing fairly, etc? What, EXACTLY, did you mean?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is what I actually said: "Even when I mention Eddie's lie about "EIGHTY PERCENT" you complain to ME about how I should be more honest when discussing with you. Of course you give a complete pass to the dishonest statements by Eddie (that's what liberals do for each other). And all that is AFTER you bring your son back into the discussion. As if he doesn't already have enough on his plate dealing with his gay friends and all, you force him into a discussion between left and right wingers."
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/05/right-on-so-many-levels.html?showComment=1337340693697#c6016912497106752334

      Now, what part are you having trouble understanding? Wasn't it you who said he was having confusions about interacting with gay people? Maybe I remember your whine (at that time) wrong. Why don't you revisit that article and repost what you said about your son's problems with gay people. Perhaps you can answer your own question without your continual whining brought about from YOU bringing your son into discussions about gays.

      Or ... you could try another tactic ... Leave your son out of discussions concerning gay people. Then there won't be any confusion about who said what and what you want them to mean. Because you lool like a total idiot for bringing your son into a discussion on homosexuality, in the first place. Why don't you let him defend himself? He does know how to work a computer, doesn't he? He is capable of defending himself, isn't he? Or does he still need daddy to protect him from right-wing statements? Gotta love the liberal who needs others to do the work for them.

      Delete
    2. Stop thrashing around like a fish on a line, Willie. I know what you said, and Eddie and other liberals can answer for themselves. I'm requiring you to answer for yourself, and you're proving you lack the pelotas to do so. "What part" of THIS "are you having trouble understanding?"

      "Or maybe you're right, and I'm just too dense to have recognized the answer. So do your Christian Duty, and enlighten me, by cutting and pasting that answer here. The question, which you keep avoiding, is, "What EXACTLY did you mean by saying my son has "...enough on his plate, dealing with his gay friends...?"


      "Maybe I remember your whine (at that time) wrong."

      No "maybe" about it. You remember it wrong. You also got it wrong at that time.

      "Why don't you revisit that article and repost what you said about your son's problems with gay people."

      You revisit it, and see if you can get it right this time. I never said ANYTHING about my son having "problems with gay people." That's your projection.

      I look like a total idiot to you, eh? That's fair, considering my opinion of you. Speaking of which, you really should have reread before posting this:

      " Why don't you let him defend himself? He does know how to work a computer, doesn't he? He is capable of defending himself, isn't he? Or does he still need daddy to protect him from right-wing statements? Gotta love the liberal who needs others to do the work for them."

      Number one, he's done nothing he needs to defend himself for. But you, on the other hand...seeking to attack a 16-year-old? Well done, Will; worthy of a member of the Phelps cult of 'Christians.' It's a good thing you and I are the only ones left in this thread. To anyone with a shred of decency who might read that, you've gotta look like a total scum bag.

      Delete
    3. Since you have problems of your own, why don't you address a question that's been asked of you several times and you've avoided several times: What rank was Tennessee before they went to 'abstinence only'?



      "But you, on the other hand...seeking to attack a 16-year-old?"

      That's classic. You say I'm attacking a 16-year old with a statement about him having a full plate, but deny you are threatening me with a statement about sticking a hockey stick sideways.


      BTW, my "duty" as a Christian isn't to explain to you the concerns your kid has with gay people as you explained it.

      Delete
  18. "You say I'm attacking a 16-year old with a statement about him having a full plate, but deny you are threatening me with a statement about sticking a hockey stick sideways."
    Stop twisting and mischaracterizing what I say, William. As you well know (and might be deflecting because you have just enough decency to be ashamed) I said you were attacking a sixteen-year-old with the statement of yours that I pasted immediately above, " Why don't you let him defend himself? He does know how to work a computer, doesn't he? He is capable of defending himself, isn't he? Or does he still need daddy to protect him from right-wing statements? Gotta love the liberal who needs others to do the work for them." (And this from the guy who was castigating me for "forcing" him into a disagreement with a right-winger.)
    I'm still trying to get you to explain exactly what you meant by a full plate dealing with his gay friends, and I've never said it was an attack. It looks like vicious and paranoid homophobia, but I'm not claiming that's what it is, and I'm giving you every opportunity to explain it in a reasonable manner. And you keep thrashing around changing the subject, and refusing to do so.

    Explain to me, in logical terms, how telling you to "shove one, sideways," is a threat. (You really are a frightened little deermouse, terrified of shadows, aren't you?) I'd say you've embarrassed yourself with that piece of hysteria, if you hadn't already proved yourself to be beyond embarrassment. You did give me a good laugh, though, so thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still got nothing to say ON-TOPIC?

      You know how you can tell when a liberal has lost an argument? They start name-calling.

      You know why they name-call? Because their positions in the argument are based on lies and misinformation and they won't retract those lies and misinformation so they find another tactic that makes them feel better about themselves.

      You know why liberals use lies and misinformation in an argument? Because they are hypocrites who whine about right-wingers doing the same thing.

      You know why liberals are hypocrites? Because that way they can whine about right-wingers and still feel good about how they act.


      Once again: What rank was Tennessee before they started the abstinence only programs?

      Delete
  19. I know that whenever you see yourself "losing an argument," such as now, you do exactly what you accuse me of doing. You're absolutely addicted to your foaming at the mouth rants about evil libruls. Look in a mirror.

    Talk to Eddie about Tennessee's rank and answer to me for your own bigotry.

    You haven't got the guts to answer one of the questions above, nor do you have the guts to admit that, to me or to yourself, so you go off on another Limbaugh-like tirade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Talk to Eddie about Tennessee's rank and answer to me for your own bigotry."

      That's right, I should ask someone who actually discusses on-topic. Instead of asking someone who continually whines about his son being dissed in some way while at a discussion on the success/failure of abstinence programs.

      As far as bigotry goes ... you wouldn't know bigotry if it bit you on your nose. You defend a democrat who makes bigoted statements then call others bigots based on their political leanings. I think you just use the word because you've seen others use and really don't even know the meaning of it.

      Delete
  20. I see the guy who thought there were 57 states (during his initial campaign for the presidency) now thinks there were "Polish death camps". How can someone who is the head of the greatest nation in the world be so stupid? You'd think he is trying to out-do the Bush's. Is there no end to the mental blunders this guy makes? Maybe he's still using cocaine or pot. Perhaps he was drunk again.
    Oh well, what do you expect from a former "community organizer"? After all that drug use there can only be so many brain cells left that actually work. No wonder right-wingers would have preferred an old man and ditzy broad instead of Obama as president.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You're getting weaker and weaker, William, and more boring by the minute. Go back to the Gingrich thread, look at your arguments there, and then fight with yourself over Turner. You're on both sides of the argument. And you manage to be idiotic on each side. Well done.

    Let's face it; a guy who jumps around, foaming at the mouth about whatever comes into his fevered brain at the moment ("DEMON LIBRULS!!!") has as much standing to accuse others of going off topic as does a fantasy football fanatic to prattle on about "playstations."

    Which reminds me: we know you don't have the balls to answer for your "...enough on his plate, dealing with his gay friends..." statement, so maybe this is safe enough for you. When you were making up what I suppose you thought were insults, what made you pick 5'7"?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "...enough on his plate, dealing with his gay friends..."

    Look, I provided the entire quote. Why do you want to continue taking it out of context and then whine about how YOU bring your son into political discussions? Either stop whining about how YOU bring your son into these discussions or at least provide the entire quote (as I did). Which is self-explanatory.


    " what made you pick 5'7"? "

    Well, the average hockey player is 5'10". As old as you insinuate you are, you've probably shrunk a couple inches by now. So, you do the math. How far off am I (if at all)?

    ReplyDelete
  23. WE both know the context, William, so it's not "out of context." And I want to know EXACTLY what you meant BY THOSE PARTICULAR PHRASES. Re-pasting the sentence itself won't serve. The closest you've come to answering the question is a deflection, claiming the answer is obvious. It's not, obvious, it's not self-explanatory. So, one more time, what did you mean by "...enough on his plate, dealing with his gay friends..."? How is "dealing with" a gay friend different from "dealing with" a straight one, in your opinion?

    "Well, the average hockey player is 5'10".

    WHOOPEE! You CAN answer a question about something you've written. Now try and answer the important one.

    Three inches would be an inordinate amount of shrinkage, I think, so your reasoning is somewhat faulty. And I can't remember the last time I was measured, but my inseams still fit and my jackets don't hang lower than they used to, so I don't think I've shrunk much, if at all. You're not far off, though. I'm 5'8".
    I also found it interesting that you came to that number (was it supposed to be an insult?) by accepting the fact that I play the sport, but then were led by your hatred into throwing out an insult (playstation) that you knew was probably untrue. Now if I did that to you, how would you describe it? Let me guess: as a "typical liberal lie." But I guess IOKIYARW. It's all good, though. I'm used to seeing you contradict yourself from thread to thread, or even in consecutive posts. This is the first time I've seen you do it in a three-sentence paragraph, though.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "How is "dealing with" a gay friend different from "dealing with" a straight one, in your opinion?"

    There's no difference. So why are you so hung up on the statement? Does he have some issues with gay people that you don't approve of and you feel insulted because you bring your son into political discussions that others take advantage of? Well, that sure seems like the case. The real question is; why are you upset that you bring your son into a discussion about gay people then get all bent out of shape what someone comments on YOUR topic? I think you should just shut the hell up. Because YOU are the one who unwisely brings your family into discussions about gay people then get upset because someone else comments on it.


    "(was it supposed to be an insult?) "

    No. Simple deductive reasoning. Yes, because you play the sport. Tall hockey players are rare. Ones that do it into their 60's are almost non-existent.

    Now, let's get back to the insults ... you seem to have the 'short man complex' and that is why you're so hung up on comments made about your son WHO YOU BROUGHT INTO THE DISCUSSION. If you don't want your family discussed on internet blog sites then stop mentioning them. If you mention them, they are open game for any comment anyone wants to make. And NO EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED. So stop your damn whining about that. YOU BROUGHT HIM INTO THE DISCUSSION ... NOT ME. In fact, I think you owe your son an apology for doing just that. I know I sure wouldn't be dumb enough to do what you did. But, I'm just a stupid right-winger, not no brilliant left-winger ... like you.

    BTW, you want to guess personal information about me? Feel free to do so. I don't think you're smart enough to achieve anything other than guess's though. But, feel free to do as you want.
    From this statement: "typical liberal lie." I'm guessing you're extremely pissed off that I was able to figure out almost exactly who you are. The good thing for you is that I'm not an anonymous poster like you are. I have pictures at my web site showing who I am. I figured you out (correctly) from one simple comment. Try doing that, liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Replies
    1. That would be a preemptive response to, "Thanks for nothing," I guess.

      Let's try again: How is "dealing with" a gay friend different from "dealing with" a straight one, in your opinion?

      Delete
    2. That was really nice. Thank you, anon. Here's a quote from one of the many articles that his inginuity brought us (I think it was the 5th or 6th one down, I can recheck for you if you need confirmation): "Tennessee was one of 22 states where the rate "decreased significantly," but it was not among the 10 cited for having made the most progress since 2007."

      So, the 'abstinence only' program provided much success in Tennessee. Yet, the article as Eddie is expressing it insinuates that abstinence only does not work. Well, thanks to anon the factual data shows that it DOES work.

      Ooops, I bet you didn't mean to do that, huh?


      BTW conchobhar, I did answer that, but when I got to work and checked, for any replies you may have made, the post was not present. So, I'll answer again. There is no difference between the two parameters you expressed.

      Delete
    3. I have no idea what you're talking about. You did answer what, and a reply to what post was not present?

      Does your last sentence mean there's no difference between dealing with a straight friend and a gay one? If so, why did you make the distinction in the first place?

      Delete
    4. I don't expect you to understand. I don't know how much more clear I could have stated it, but you not understanding it was not a surprise.


      "Does your last sentence mean there's no difference between dealing with a straight friend and a gay one?"

      Umm, isn't that what I just said?


      "If so, why did you make the distinction in the first place?"

      I didn't make any "distinction" between the two. I mentioned one because that was what YOU said he was talking with ... his gay friends. If I hadn't used "gay friends" then my statement would not have made any sense. Remember, it was YOU who brought your son into the conversation by mentioning he had concerns with his gay friends.
      Perhaps you should stop bringing your family into political discussions. Knowing how rude and insensitive liberals are, I would never mention any of my family members on a blog site, ESPECIALLY a liberal blog site. I'm not so dumb as to think they wouldn't be verbally attacked as you liberals usually do to any other person who doesn't agree with your tweaked moral standards.
      Now, stop your whining about something you caused and go apologize to your son for making him a pawn to your faux offense to statements made about him after you idiotically brought him into a discussion on homosexuality.

      Delete
    5. Don't mention it.

      "Ooops, I bet you didn't mean to do that, huh?"

      What I meant to do was to infer that one can use the internet to find the answers to such questions. Reading them over and over and over here was getting to be rather tedious, don't you think? (Of course, cutting & pasting really simplifies the actual posting and reposting process.)
      =============================

      "...a certain Conservative poster that will probably LOVE this new law, and spend 57 posts defending it..."

      "...I see the guy who thought there were 57 states (during his initial campaign for the presidency)..."

      "...veiled anonymous threats by a 5'7" old man who plays hockey on playstation..."

      " what made you pick 5'7"? "

      Is it just me, or is there some sort of crypto-numeric theme to this particular post?

      Does Eddie now have sponsorship from the Heinz Company, I wonder..?

      Delete
    6. William:
      "I didn't make any "distinction" between the two. I mentioned one because that was what YOU said he was talking with ... his gay friends. If I hadn't used "gay friends" then my statement would not have made any sense. Remember, it was YOU who brought your son into the conversation by mentioning he had concerns with his gay friends."

      Actually, this encounter between you and me started when I recounted a conversation between my son and me, having nothing to do with his friends, but having to do with your willful misconstruing an earlier conversation about the fact that he was wondering about the significance, if any, of the fact that it made no difference to him whether his friends were gay or not. You'd reacted hysterically and, to the amusement-cum-horror of some here, had taken my response to be 'giving him permission' to experiment with homosexuality. When I told him of your reaction he was astounded, having properly gotten just the opposite message. He then opined that anyone misunderstanding my clear message so badly must be a jerk, which clearly put some sand in your shorts, because you then attacked him, even stooping to prurient innuendo.

      William:
      " Knowing how rude and insensitive liberals are, I would never mention any of my family members on a blog site, ESPECIALLY a liberal blog site. I'm not so dumb as to think they wouldn't be verbally attacked as you liberals usually do to any other person who doesn't agree with your tweaked moral standards."

      In case you hadn't noticed, the only person who's attacked a member of my family is a 'good Christian' right winger. You sound like your beloved Rush Limbaugh, excusing his execrable treatment of Sandra Fluke as "acting like a liberal."
      Get this straight: Whether I used a conversation with my son as a point of discussion or not, it was ENTIRELY YOUR CHOICE TO ATTACK A 16-YEAR OLD BOY who had done you no ill. You could have confined yourself to decent argument, but you didn't. That is entirely ON YOU, and your snivelling attempt to shift the blame for it on to me reminds me of a pederastic priest, Geoghan I think his name was, who blamed his predatory practices on his victims.

      Delete
    7. Correction:
      The 'prurient innuendo' was in the first thread on this subject, not in your response to his comment. I don't have time to delete and rewrite the post. You will, of course, call this mistake a 'lie', but that's a word you throw around so promiscuously it's lost all meaning.

      Delete
  26. Now, maybe we can get a comment from Eddie about his misinformation brought concerning the Tennessee abstinence programs. Anon supplied evidence (proof) that the Tennessee abstinence program was "significantly" successful.
    It's really too bad that Eddie has to use lies during his rants against right-wing ideals. Kind of like his lie about "EIGHTY PERCENT" that he still refuses to answer to. I guess when you don't have truth on your side then lying is the only other recourse you have available.

    I suppose Eddie's stance that the liberal solution is to do something different means he wants a successful program removed and the previously unsuccessful program brought back to the Tennessee educational system? That seems IDIOTIC. But, according to Eddie, the preferred method.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Where'd you go, Eddie? Cat got your tongue? Perhaps you want to revisit those "facts" you seem to be whining about concerning abstinence programs? All that misinformation and lying that you've brought, maybe you don't even know what the truth is.

    Things like this statement: "The rates dropped across all racial and ethnic groups, and nearly all states. Experts suggested that the numbers may mean more teens are delaying sex or using contraception, representing gains for both abstinence-only and contraceptive education programs." (http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/10/u-s-teen-birth-rate-drops-to-a-record-low/ ) That means nothing to you because you are on an anti-religion rant that only misinformation and lies can get you the results you want. You blame abstinence-only programs for increasing teen birth rates in the nations most back-woods states while ignoring that FACTS show abstinence works.
    When you pick and choose which data to use and promote while purposely ignoring evidence to the contrary it shows that you are being as dishonest as those who you whine about the most (conservatives).

    But, that's ok, I fully expect you to continue to ignore when I point out your lies and misinformation because that's the way you have shown to do things. Maybe the true translation of "In My Humble Opinion" is "In My Misinformed Opinion".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pooof ... and he's gone. Along with the other ones who make the argument against abstinence. I guess all it takes are actual FACTS to be mentioned and the left-wingers disappear without even a whimper.

      Every article that I've brought actual (and real) facts, the left-wingers who whine about me posting, here, have stopped posting. ??? Without hearing any reasoning, I would have to imagine it is because they can no longer back up their misinformation and lies. Each of them are studious members of Mediamatters and each of them claim to have a deep hatred of misinformation and lies (right-wing only I'm guessing), yet what we get from them are lies and misinformation. I guess birds of a feather do, in fact, flock together ... at Mediamatters.

      Delete