Yes ken, FOX = bottom feeders. populist trash will always attract the attention of morons. feel free to count yourself among them.
Anybody that blogs his list of "communists in the white house" as you
did is a fool, who hasn't a clue what a communist even is.
Your side lost, and is in complete disarray. Deal with it, then come back to the grown-up table.
you have it backwards,conservatives are the adults and liberals are the children,always have been and will always be,as far as fox,they are the only news channel that doesn't have a tingle up their leg.a small light in the darkness is what fox is.
You are an ASS Jeff WINDBAG....go worship the Moslem Anti-Christ, then come back and we'll talk about his COMMUNIST pig, 'friends' like Van Jones a CONFIRMED commie, along with all of his other Bolsheviks slimes, you are a DOLT, and a spineless, tiny little prick.
LOL @ "Moslem Hitler". You're the one who is a jerkoff.
And FYI I have changed my tune. I don't love EVERYTHING Obama does anymore. I don't think he's some sort of demigod. As for the swine flu shot, if deluded assholes like yourself and Jethro and Ken refuse to get it and then die, that is natural selection.
you seem to collect the uneducated, arrogant, illiterate and downright moronic, more to the point, Ken. Those who can't think for themselves, yet believe themselves inviolate when it comes to engaging those who disagree with them.
First you tell people you disagree with to basically f*ck off as in the following example, "Are you obsessed with me or something, seems you cannot use my proper screen name and you cannot leave me out of you drivel".
Then in the very next entry, you cry about them not playing with you anymore, "I called Dallasdude a dolt and he went away. Would not converse with me anymore."
Oh my, when I have the time, I will have to go to your blog and become civilized and educated. Guess you would know a troll. As practiced as you are, I will take your word for it. I suppose you should have bothered to know the context before weighing in, but that's ok. Since you have defined yourself, I understand.
jebuff like a lot of short sighted fascist liberals has decided that they would rather just put out thier edicts and not have anyone dissagree with him,so he has blocked me, jebuff i name you coward and fool.
piscesqal,this is a last warning if i see you compare me,or anybody on my page to a racist again i will ''block'' you,and you will be the first person i have ever done that to,if you have something to say ,say it,but racists are not the reason you didn't get a pony,racists are not the reason it didn't rain today and real racists would see your constant use of the phrase as a joke....stop..
as far as jebuff ,he came out swinging with his marxist manifesto,and couldn't back it up.all he knows is that he likes that socailist stuff,not sure why,but he knows he likes it..
sorry pizza girl, but your constant need to hide behind race in everything and anything is just to much,when you came out with the kkk in mcains name i knew you for the racist you are.....grow up.........
first and for most that conservative ''stuff'' is what will keep this country moving forward,second just look at the last three democratic presidents,carter,a complete wash out as a president,reagan was doing stuff behind his back for 6 months and he didn't even know it,then you have clinton who was doing stuff on everyones back,and now you have obama who has sorounded himself with every kind of american malcontent he could find..but what i really don't like about obama is he likes to listen to the vocal minority,carter and clinton didn't do that,when they started to talk about gun control they put their ear to america and then backed off it.because the majority didn't and still don't want it.when carter and clinton started to talk about this universal healthcare they listened to what the majority of americans were saying and backed off it.but not good lord obama,the hell with what the majority want,he's shoving it down america's throat wether they want it or not.thats not a american president,thats some south american dictator.he should be taken out back and shot for treason.....
Endeesea - If you're looking for substance here, you're barking up the wrong tree. But you're not the only one barking... Ken's a bore. He had 7 shots on my post (left them up there, judge for yourself) to say something backed up by fact, and he couldn't get it together. Real debate's not his thing - he hasn't done his homework, he just enjoys his loony soapbox. There are other conservatives, real conservatives on VOX that are smart, interesting, and thought-provoking. Ken's been barred by them too. He's a waste of time.
havn't done my homework,when all you want to do is lie about france how can i argue with that,when you try the truth,you'll get a answer.until then i'll just keep ordering freedom fries
Maybe so, Jebuff, but isn't he a lot of fun to expose? I really get a kick out his inanities and complete lack of informed response. Equally with his complete lack of ability to form a response. Look at the spittle-flecked mirror he held up when responding to my query. He can't even grasp the realities of the Carter and Clinton administrations failing - not backing off - to get their respective brands of universal health care accepted. As if it's only ever been Democrat politics which has tried. As with the Birthers and Palin's death committees, Ken merely represents the gullible conservative minority, with a fair helping of colour-bias thrown in.
all you have to do is google ''broken franch healthcare system'' and you will find all the proof you need,almost the same answers for canada,and they are trying to start americas socailist healthcare the same way,they are lowballing the true price in hopes that they can swing more votes but when it comes down to doing it ,the price will be three fold.
well that a whole lot of questions so i will come over to your some what liberal blog and reply,just so as you know this is the 16th blog,addressed to me,i feel flattered
I've spent several years spreading the word about the Bush/Cheney Cartel as a head of The Beast in St. John's vision. As have many others that noticed the striking similarities.
So, if you feel like amusing yourself by depicting your guess of how President Obama might decide to masquerade as on Halloween (if he chooses to partake in the traditional practice), then have at it. Enjoy yourself. Maybe some day, we can compare our photo -shopped devilish depictions of public figures.
lil previa,the picture of obama morphing into a devil is there as a joke,for one it shows that the president of change is only changing things to his way ,not for the better,and now that we have voted in so many people and obama has appointed so many people that really hate the american way of life its only a matter of time before they show their true colors,that not only do they hate america but they hate anything thats good and trys to do the most good.but people like ayers,rev.wright,michelle obama,van jones,lloyd,and that child molestor thats now in charge of schools,just hate and will keep hating as long as they see something to tear down,something to destroy,and thats all obama is really all about,he shows it in his personal live and in his public life .so sit back for the next 3 years and watch him hate,watch him turn from that smiling,hand shaking little butt smoocher ,into that evil person that will do everything he can to tear down this country and the world.
Was the cameraman David Icke? As Dick Cheney and Obama are cousins do you have any video of Dick shapeshifting as well, Ken? I'd be interested in seeing that. I'll be sure to check back in the coming days.
as far as wikipedia,i believe the above link says it all,not only has wikipedia been sued mutiable times for false ''facts'' its a proven fact that they were co-opted by the liberal lft to be used to further their agenda,they are not the place to go for facts ,they are the place to go to find out what the latest marxist opinions are.
moving on, i have found a link[[finally]] that shows some of the lies being reported by the mass media on gay adoption,the direct link won't work so you will have to go to this page, look in the center of the page and its the fifth topic down,keep in mind these studys were done by drs. hoping to prove that gay adoption or gay fostering does not effect children,the real number is most likely 3 or 5 times higher.
Hysterical - Narth is a scam. They claim to have a "scientific journal" when in actuality it's a brochure and their experiments did not even involve participants.
And since Box Turtle Bulletin isn't exactly a science source, here's the American Psychiatric Association's statement rejecting NARTH, confirming that they treat homosexuality as a treatable mental illness, even though it's clearly not.
Congrats on finally posting links, "ken". Now you have to practice finding credible sources. Right now it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
cmon ellie,if i knocked down every source of yours just because i didn't like the page its on we would never get anywhere,they looked at every study, took it apart word for word,and came up with the truth,not someones biased report ,but the truth.it never states that they did a study all it says is they looked at all the studys out there.the best one [[for your case] states that gay parents produce gay children 10% of the time,now when you look at the national average of 3 to 4%....not to mention it took me a half hour just to find this little bit of truth ,the net has been so white washed,i wonder who's doing that..
I fail to see how that link addresses any of the questions I was referring to. Only a couple of the points Paul brings up even tangentially addresses homosexuality, and in only one of the related posts was the main focus on homosexuality itself; the others were related to 2) your opinions on Plato and Socrates and b) your view on Obama's sexuality. Therefore your link has next to no merit in this situation.
Also, if you must use that link, please direct me to the specific article you are referring to. Do not send me to the homepage or to Google. If you are making points, it is your responsibility to show the exact sources of your research, not that of the people to whom you are presenting your points.
i am in the process of going backwards up the list of comments he made, the next one up was about gay adoption,as i wrote,if you go to that link look in the middle of the page and its either the fifth or sixth one down,
Now, there are two things you need to take in to mind with you piece of evidence. First, it says "Research by social scientists, although not definitive" meaning it's not a "for sure" thing so stop throwing it around like gospel truth. Second, it speaks of a sample group meaning that there is an unmentioned maragin of error. Also, the population of children raised by homosexual parents is small, meaning this 8-21% of the children who are homosexual could, quite possibly, fit in the 2% of the general population that are homosexual.
You are not even trying. Come on. First, thirty minutes is nothing when looking for an unbiased piece of evidence. This Narth piece of evidence is completely biased. A "scientific" journal that says homosexuality is a mental illness is another viewpoint based publication. I've talked about this already. Let's move on.
If you can't find a credible piece of evidence, just admit it and move on to the next question. You can not make your point on Wikipedia, you can't make your point on homosexual parents. You still have a whole bunch of other things to explain.
Okay, thank you for pointing me to the exact article. However, my knowing which article you are talking about does not change the fact that the organization that published the article has been discredited by the APA, making it an unreliable and therefore essentially worthless source.
i go to alot of sites that i don't agree with,but their info is sourced and if you don't like the page your on you can just go to the studys themself,if after you go to the page i was referring to you go down about three paragraphs and look to the left,you will see another link that starts out,,a review and analysis of research studies,,,,all his studys are listed and sourced,even if you don't want to trust his ideas,you can see that gay parents produce gay children at least 3 times more then straight parents do.and as i've said before how can gay parenting not produce more gay children.
pauly,pauly,pauly, first and foremost tell me your not a math major,what they were comparing was gay to straight %,if all parents were gay the amount of the american population that would be gay,would stand at about 20 to 30%....but your right the problem with all these studys pro or con is that they are not big enough,but the one study that all pro gay adoption people want to use is just as bad,not only was it done by a gay mag,by gay people for gay people,is was a biased report,they start out claiming that only 5% of children of gay parents would call themselves gay,and as far as most gay people think, thats the end of it ,point proven case closed,but if you go further down in that same report they ask the kids if they see themselves as being straight and they also say no,what they are saying is that they refuse sexual identity labels.so the one case that most people use is also flawed.until they do a large scale study,this is what i have to work with,that you don't like the site i have linked is your problem,they source their info,and accredit it to some of the best schools in this country.
if our just going to hold your breath and turn blue until you get what you want this has no point what so ever.
I'm trying to understand your argument but it kind of hard due to your lack of a grasp on the English language. Please, seriously, write like an adult. This is not an insult or anything of that sort. Call it a bi-partisan pledge if you do.
Carly - The link he's talking about actually takes you away from the NARTH website. If it didn't, this would be way too easy.
"ken" - No, actually I'm an Education major. Something I hope, you are not (that hope includes being a teacher). Also, there's something you should know. In your response to Carly's statement you said, "all his studys are listed and sourced". Spelling aside, the doctor who's research (it's not a study but a overview of some different studies) you're citing is actually a she. A Dr. Trayce Hansen, admitedly that's a new spelling for me.
Now, when I wrote post I was asking for this government report to religious groups that you mentioned in your original post. I've never, ever, heard of something like this happening. The many different government agencies issue reports but none of them should ever be for a religious group. The government doesn't answer to religion and religion doesn't answer to the government.
But, back to the sources you have given me. You've talked about a left wing biased study. I'd like the link to this if you could, please. The fact remains that there has not been enough studies done on this subject to form a true fact-based opinion. I don't mind Dr. Hansen's website because I can fine no bias in it, I'm just saying that we can not take this as fact without more research however, this is not something that is important enough to put millions and billions into. It doesn't matter if a kid is gay or not andI think it would be better spent in research for AIDs, cancer, diabetes, and alzheimers.
The only thing I have a problem with is NARTH. I'm not a big fan of a 1950's, Leave it to Beaver, back water, ego trip of an "science" institute.
the idea in my first post on this subject was,everyone from religion to the goverment,meaning both,have studys that prove that gay parents produce gay children at a higher rate. as far as narth,i know who they are,or who they want to be,it makes no difference they are one of the few who will publish negative studys on gay parenting,most sites are not interested in free speech only getting their own personal agenda across,something that fascist liberals are very good at.but, moving on,i belives keith olbermann was the next one to confuse you,the fact that he supports people like van jones,moore,lloyd and is against the free enterprise system,and was kicked off the elections for awhile for being too biased by the ultra liberal msnbc, doesn't prove to you what karl olbermann really is.????????
Alright, now I'm starting to understand some of this stuff. I'm really curious about these government studies. Do you have any of them? The fact that you know who NARTH is and still use them is not a smart thing to do. When saying something like this, you want to get the most unbiased source. Sometimes it difficult but it's worth it when no one can call your sources into question. I learned this on my college debate team.
I wasn't confused about your stance on Keith Olbermann. My question was why do you believe that he's Marxist? You were asked in the comments of the post and just evaded the question.
Sadly, I don't get MSNBC, FOX, or CNN (I would love to get them, I'm unable to keep up with national news and world news with my local news station) so I don't have a personal opinion of Keith Olbermann. From what I understand, he seems like the liberal Bill O'Reilly. I'd like to have more to go one than last names to look up the people you have problems with (Van Jones, Moore, and Lloyd). Do you have any proof that Keith Olbermann is against Capitalism?
I do remember him being taken off the election night results. If I remember correctly, it was because of some things he said during the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I don't know what he said but I'm sure it was a punishment worthy of the infraction.
most of the studys i referred to are goverment studys,the goverment gives money to a person or college and they do the studys,they are from the clloege of illinnois,northwestern u. and i belive the u. of southern california.to not like the source is like saying you don't like your worst enemy when he tells you that you have just one a million dollars,you might doubt him,but when the million dollars is in your hand the million dollars still feels good.
as far as first names,anthony van jones,mark lloyd,micheal moore,if you need proof of olberman's marxist leanings,go to the interview between moore and olberman,its more then ample truth.i'm assuming your not doing this on a phone and that you have access to a computer,you can get recorded shows of both o'reily and olberman on cnn.com and msnbc.com.
Problem one, the is no "clloege of illinnois" or College of Illinois for that matter. Do you have anything from Northwestern or USC? When it comes to the million dollars anology, yeah, I would believe it once it was in my hand. You have not given me any reason to believe you. If you can give me an actual study and the results that give no doubt (I refer you to my comment of October 29th) that homosexual parents "create" more homosexuals then I'll more open. Also, don't cite your last piece of evidence because it was an overview of a bunch of different studies and still said that the actual result of homosexual parents is inconclusive.
Anthony Van Jones: Former Special Advisor for Green Jobs. Was forced to resign because Glenn Beck, WorldNetDaily, and Americans for Prosperity (all three, very biased conservative sources) were not pleased about his membership in a Socialist group and his defence of death-row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal (who's conviction is desputed by many people and organizations like Amnesty International). However, seeing how none of these things are illegal and would not have affected his job as a go-between for businesses and the federal government for green jobs, we'll never know how good or bad of a job he would have done.
Mark Lloyd: Newly created Diversity Czar, appointed Aug.4, 2009 by President Obama. Also Chief Diversity Officer for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Once again, Glenn Beck had a problem with him. One of his problems is a quote from May 2005.
"There's nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions, ... and unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."
There is no problem with this statement, hell, I'm as white as they come and I agree. He's an African-American and the "Diversity Czar" so this would be right up his alley. The other problem was his statement about President Hugo Chavez. Yes, I can understand this but he made another statement about how he was misquoted. So, I can not form an opinion based by this. However, his first statement sounds like something like a "Diversity Czar" sould say.
Michael Moore: Documentary Director. The only film of his that I've seen is Bowling for Columbine which showed many truths that many people ignored in the wake of the Columbine tragedy. The highlight for me was the interview with Marilyn Manson. I think he was also the second unit director for Raiders of the Lost Ark. I did think that his grandstanding at the Acadamy Awards was uncalled for.
These sites you sent me, way right sources. Their countdown by the numbers should take into account what has been going on in the world of politics. Lots with Former Gov. Palin and and healthcare. I am curious as to why he mentioned President Bush though.
Please understand that I'm not defending Olbermann. I just want you to send me one link of him hating Capitalism or being Marxist. I did watch an episode and I didn't get any of this. Can you send me one example please?
Now, I read the transcript that the link "Mad American Warrior" was talking about. I couldn't find a single promise of NEA funding for artists. It was, from what I can tell. a converstaion about how they could help get the President's message out. This is smart because the fact is, the ones who are most likely to be helped or hurt be the choices made by this administration or the ones that these artists will help make aware of the issues. Young people getting involved is bad how?
here is one study done by j.michael bailey at northwestern u. and clearly states that gay parents produce gay children 3 to 4 times as much as straight parents.
Um...the article says the study in question was "sketchy". In fact, the article as a whole seems to be supportive of the rights of gays to marry and adopt or bear children. Also, based on the post date, that information is at least 13 years old, depending on when the "sketchy" study took place.
the only reason they are being called ''sketchy'' is that they don't have any wide scale studys,but of all the ones that have been done gay parents produce gay children at a higher rate,thats a fact not a opinion,but a fact.
the studys that are here now,the studys that are from gay people,the studys that are from doctors, the studys that are from christian groups all point to the fact that gay parents produce gay children,its not my opinion its not a feeling,its a fact.these studys were done by the pro's,how could gay adoption and gay fostering not produce more gay children,what kids don't act like their parents,what kids havn't snuck into their parents room to see what that noise is all about,what kids don't play dress up like to look like their parents,what children will tell you they did because they saw their parents do it.males and females are different,and they need that exposure to make the most of life.....
Please link to examples of all of the above types of studies. Not articles that mention them briefly, not analyses of groups of studies, but the studies themselves, attached to a reputable academic or scientific journal.
i'm not going any further with this,you asked for studys i gave you studys ,you asked for studys from northwestern u. i gave you studys from northwestern u. the facts are there,the common sense idea is there.children want to be like their parents,if you had kids raised by robbie the robot,i'm sure kids would get up in the morning and grease their joints,feral children bark like dogs and scratch at fleas,,,,again, how could they not..........
van jones,is a self avowed communist,not just a socailist but a communist,they have him on tape saying the free enterprise system is wrong,the guy in charge of creating jobs is saying the capitalist system doesn't work.do you see the contradiction there.
mark lloyd,you mean your okay with the diversity czar being a racist,isn't what this in part is all about not judgeing by color or gender,but by ability,the diversity czar has just said that he's going to be a racist.and is going to hire by race or gender not ability.but thats only part of the problem with lloyd,this guy points to chavaz every chance he can,he really believes that american broadcasting needs to be more like what chavaz has,he believes that the way to control talk radio is to tax the ones that are out there now at 100% pay for different point of views.do you not see something wrong with taxing a american enterprise at 100%..
michael moore,go watch his last movie,alot of people started out liking moore,then he got into the medical problem and some people disagreed,now he's after the whole capitalist system,he wants to trash the whole thing,and when pressed about what he wants to replace it with he just smirks and says i don't know.
Where to begin. First, like I said, there is no "clloege of illinnois" or College of Illinois. I'm well aware of Illinois College. These would be two different schools, if they both existed.
Moving on, you didn't give me what I asked for. I asked for an actual study and results. That means a link to the actual study, not a link to a story from 1996. You are clearly a supporter of nurture over nature. The problem being that no study has proven one over the other of them either. You can not wave inconclusive studies as fact. We've been saying that more research needs to be done before a informed opinion can be reached and you've been proving our point.
When it comes to Anthony Van Jones, who's "they" and (can you guess what I'm going to ask for) do you have a link to a transcript or audio of this tape?
Mark Lloyd, again, prove it. I'd love for you to show me how he's a racist. That quote was about getting more people in charge of different races, creeds, and sexual orientation. That's diversity. I'm also going to need you to prove to me that he wants a 100% tax on public radio. Mainly since the government gave up control of the airwaves to private companies for free only can control content by saying if something is obscene.
Michael Moore. Sicko (I have yet to see it, this from what I can gather over the internet) was about the problems with the American healthcare system. I do know that there are problems, this is a sure thing. Leaders from both sides of the aisle agree on this. Everyone should be getting into the medical problem but that's not what we're here to discuss (maybe later, once you finish with my list). Capitalism, A Love Story is actually about (again, internet) the finacial crisis we just went through and how Wall Street messed up. Do you have any evidence that he wants to destory Capitalism?
ain't no study there, Ken. Only the word 'sketchy' and it's the same Michael Bailey that you cite, who claims such studies are exactly that. 'Sketchy' Like you.
If you really want to present something factual, where there's supposed to be factual data in support, try looking for peer-reviewed science, not 'sketchy' studies. You really don't have a clue, Ken, do you.
and again you are talking about something you know little or nothing about,go get a education on the world around you then come back with a informed opinion,just say saying you think it's swell is not good enough,that you have been given studys on gay adoption that you choose to ignore,ive asked you to go watch a anti- american movie by a lowlife that is proving to be more and more anti-american with each movie he makes,if your going to try to talk about politics you need to get a informed opinion,''i just like that socailist stuff'' is not good enough,google it make yourself informed,know whats going on in your country,you try to defend people like van jones,moore and lloyd but you have no real idea on who they are or what they stand for ,google it find out,that all three of them hate this country and want to rewrite the rules to fit their marxists ideals,don't stay in the dark,the light is just fine...........
who, or what, is 'they'? Where in that article are the statistics from Bailey's study, which isn't a study on homosexual genetics, but a study on 'sketchy' studies purporting to be about homosexual genetics? When are you going to wake up to the glaringly obvious, Ken, in that your ignorance and desperation are transparent. You have no concept of informed opinion. You make no effort to be informed about any subject, on any level, for fear that you might find out that your belief system is flawed. Do you not feel at all embarrassed at posting links which do not even bear the most passing relation to the topic in question? Sad, Ken, oh so sad. That being the case, I continue to find you amusing, albeit no challenge. It's a light relief to deconstruct the flimsy walls you surround yourself with. The bigotry, the ignorance. It's all out on display like tired, worn goods at a garage sale that no-one but the bored visit, browse but never buy.
i'm not going to keep going down this road,j. michael baileys report is in two of those links,google him,this guy had all his studys reported in the gay publications for years,then he came out with a study that says that gay parents produce a higher level of gay children and they tried to kill this guy,that you liberal fascists don't agree with it,is your problem,that you don't want to see the truth is your problem,i must have gone through a hundred pages of google to find all these studys,when you get past all the emotional storys about gay rights this is what it boils down to,,gay parent produce gay children...again, how could it not.
Ken, bullshit! Pure and utter bullshit. There are no links to any report, study, scientific paper or even blog musings by Michael Bailey in that article you linked to. My refusal to accept your validation stems solely from the fact that you have provided no validation. It has nothing whatever to do with my ideology or political leanings. My disbelief stems entirely from the fact - note that word, ken - that you have failed to provide any validation for your ludicrous claim. Homosexuality is NOT genetic. If it were, my step-daughter would be a lesbian, which she is not. Now come clean with the supporting data, or be labelled yet again as a fraud, bigot and liar.
half of this is on my blog the other half is on paul murphy's blog you'll have to there to get the rest of it,i've linked this thing to death.as far a not being genetic,this started out being more about gay adoption and gay fostering,then natural born children of gay parents.
first of all i did give studys that proved my point ,before that there was no such studys,i did give prove of a study from northwestern u. before that there was no such studys,..there is no backpeddling here,this started out with gay marriage and gay adoption,and thats were it is now.is gay adoption gay indoctranation,and despite all the opinions and the attempts to change the outcome of studys done by just about every major sex study the truth is still out there,most people just like to bend the numbers to fit their needs...when people come out with statments like,,75% of all molesting is done by hetrosexuals,they skip over the fact that only 10% of the population is gay ,which means that gays are more then 3 times as likely to be molestors then straights,now from what i've seen you are some kind of banker,if you played with numbers like most gay advocates are doing, how long would you have spent in jail.these books are being cooked and its more then money thats at stake.
Bullshit, Kenny! You provided a link to an article which mentioned Michael Bailey once and had no subsequent URL to his supposed study, which from reading said article was a study on 'sketchy' studies to do with gay genetics. What I responded to, and which you're clearly too disingenuous to acknowledge was you referring to "...all point to the fact that gay parents produce gay children" By any rational definition, parents which produce children have to be heterosexual for starters, but let's not let rationality get in the way of a good, solid brain fart.
Now, yet again, I'm calling you out on your complete lack of substantiated evidence to prove your point. Post 'em here, post 'em now.
read these words carefully....what has been questioned and what has been linked to is,do the adopted children of gay parents have a better chance of becoming gay then the population as a whole,and the ''sketchy'' studys say yes,they are 3 to 4 times more likely to become gay.if you want to go a step further then that there are studys done by leading gay publications,the kinsey reports and others that point to the ''fact'' that gay parents produce a higher degree of gay children.that fact that we are now accepting the gay lifestyle is no excuse to dismiss facts or to whitewash them,
Comments
Anybody that blogs his list of "communists in the white house" as you did is a fool, who hasn't a clue what a communist even is.
Your side lost, and is in complete disarray. Deal with it, then come back to the grown-up table.
He ACTS like the anti-CHRIST. Hey pices, are you going to get the Obama-poison? The shot for the MADE UP swine FLU?
You already worship this Moslem Hitler, so, the poison will make you even WORSE.
And you get the pig flu shot and die, that is just deserts, not natural selection, just plain idiocy.
Are you obsessed with me or something, seems you cannot use my proper screen name and you cannot leave me out of you drivel.
You're a sad collective.
So, if you feel like amusing yourself by depicting your guess of how President Obama might decide to masquerade as on Halloween (if he chooses to partake in the traditional practice), then have at it. Enjoy yourself. Maybe some day, we can compare our photo -shopped devilish depictions of public figures.
I'm glad you're flattered. Hey, 16 is my lucky number. Now, if only you'd answer my questions.
Hysterical - Narth is a scam. They claim to have a "scientific journal" when in actuality it's a brochure and their experiments did not even involve participants.
And since Box Turtle Bulletin isn't exactly a science source, here's the American Psychiatric Association's statement rejecting NARTH, confirming that they treat homosexuality as a treatable mental illness, even though it's clearly not.
Congrats on finally posting links, "ken". Now you have to practice finding credible sources. Right now it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
I fail to see how that link addresses any of the questions I was referring to. Only a couple of the points Paul brings up even tangentially addresses homosexuality, and in only one of the related posts was the main focus on homosexuality itself; the others were related to 2) your opinions on Plato and Socrates and b) your view on Obama's sexuality. Therefore your link has next to no merit in this situation.
Also, if you must use that link, please direct me to the specific article you are referring to. Do not send me to the homepage or to Google. If you are making points, it is your responsibility to show the exact sources of your research, not that of the people to whom you are presenting your points.
"ken",
Now, there are two things you need to take in to mind with you piece of evidence. First, it says "Research by social scientists, although not definitive" meaning it's not a "for sure" thing so stop throwing it around like gospel truth. Second, it speaks of a sample group meaning that there is an unmentioned maragin of error. Also, the population of children raised by homosexual parents is small, meaning this 8-21% of the children who are homosexual could, quite possibly, fit in the 2% of the general population that are homosexual.
You are not even trying. Come on. First, thirty minutes is nothing when looking for an unbiased piece of evidence. This Narth piece of evidence is completely biased. A "scientific" journal that says homosexuality is a mental illness is another viewpoint based publication. I've talked about this already. Let's move on.
If you can't find a credible piece of evidence, just admit it and move on to the next question. You can not make your point on Wikipedia, you can't make your point on homosexual parents. You still have a whole bunch of other things to explain.
i go to alot of sites that i don't agree with,but their info is sourced and if you don't like the page your on you can just go to the studys themself,if after you go to the page i was referring to you go down about three paragraphs and look to the left,you will see another link that starts out,,a review and analysis of research studies,,,,all his studys are listed and sourced,even if you don't want to trust his ideas,you can see that gay parents produce gay children at least 3 times more then straight parents do.and as i've said before how can gay parenting not produce more gay children.
pauly,pauly,pauly, first and foremost tell me your not a math major,what they were comparing was gay to straight %,if all parents were gay the amount of the american population that would be gay,would stand at about 20 to 30%....but your right the problem with all these studys pro or con is that they are not big enough,but the one study that all pro gay adoption people want to use is just as bad,not only was it done by a gay mag,by gay people for gay people,is was a biased report,they start out claiming that only 5% of children of gay parents would call themselves gay,and as far as most gay people think, thats the end of it ,point proven case closed,but if you go further down in that same report they ask the kids if they see themselves as being straight and they also say no,what they are saying is that they refuse sexual identity labels.so the one case that most people use is also flawed.until they do a large scale study,this is what i have to work with,that you don't like the site i have linked is your problem,they source their info,and accredit it to some of the best schools in this country.
if our just going to hold your breath and turn blue until you get what you want this has no point what so ever.
"ken",
I'm trying to understand your argument but it kind of hard due to your lack of a grasp on the English language. Please, seriously, write like an adult. This is not an insult or anything of that sort. Call it a bi-partisan pledge if you do.
Carly - The link he's talking about actually takes you away from the NARTH website. If it didn't, this would be way too easy.
"ken" - No, actually I'm an Education major. Something I hope, you are not (that hope includes being a teacher). Also, there's something you should know. In your response to Carly's statement you said, "all his studys are listed and sourced". Spelling aside, the doctor who's research (it's not a study but a overview of some different studies) you're citing is actually a she. A Dr. Trayce Hansen, admitedly that's a new spelling for me.
Now, when I wrote post I was asking for this government report to religious groups that you mentioned in your original post. I've never, ever, heard of something like this happening. The many different government agencies issue reports but none of them should ever be for a religious group. The government doesn't answer to religion and religion doesn't answer to the government.
But, back to the sources you have given me. You've talked about a left wing biased study. I'd like the link to this if you could, please. The fact remains that there has not been enough studies done on this subject to form a true fact-based opinion. I don't mind Dr. Hansen's website because I can fine no bias in it, I'm just saying that we can not take this as fact without more research however, this is not something that is important enough to put millions and billions into. It doesn't matter if a kid is gay or not andI think it would be better spent in research for AIDs, cancer, diabetes, and alzheimers.
The only thing I have a problem with is NARTH. I'm not a big fan of a 1950's, Leave it to Beaver, back water, ego trip of an "science" institute.
What do you want to talk about next?
Alright, now I'm starting to understand some of this stuff. I'm really curious about these government studies. Do you have any of them? The fact that you know who NARTH is and still use them is not a smart thing to do. When saying something like this, you want to get the most unbiased source. Sometimes it difficult but it's worth it when no one can call your sources into question. I learned this on my college debate team.
I wasn't confused about your stance on Keith Olbermann. My question was why do you believe that he's Marxist? You were asked in the comments of the post and just evaded the question.
Sadly, I don't get MSNBC, FOX, or CNN (I would love to get them, I'm unable to keep up with national news and world news with my local news station) so I don't have a personal opinion of Keith Olbermann. From what I understand, he seems like the liberal Bill O'Reilly. I'd like to have more to go one than last names to look up the people you have problems with (Van Jones, Moore, and Lloyd). Do you have any proof that Keith Olbermann is against Capitalism?
I do remember him being taken off the election night results. If I remember correctly, it was because of some things he said during the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I don't know what he said but I'm sure it was a punishment worthy of the infraction.
most of the studys i referred to are goverment studys,the goverment gives money to a person or college and they do the studys,they are from the clloege of illinnois,northwestern u. and i belive the u. of southern california.to not like the source is like saying you don't like your worst enemy when he tells you that you have just one a million dollars,you might doubt him,but when the million dollars is in your hand the million dollars still feels good.
as far as first names,anthony van jones,mark lloyd,micheal moore,if you need proof of olberman's marxist leanings,go to the interview between moore and olberman,its more then ample truth.i'm assuming your not doing this on a phone and that you have access to a computer,you can get recorded shows of both o'reily and olberman on cnn.com and msnbc.com.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114438
Obama wants 'artists' so did Stalin and Hitler
Sorry for my delay in responding but I'm back.
Problem one, the is no "clloege of illinnois" or College of Illinois for that matter. Do you have anything from Northwestern or USC? When it comes to the million dollars anology, yeah, I would believe it once it was in my hand. You have not given me any reason to believe you. If you can give me an actual study and the results that give no doubt (I refer you to my comment of October 29th) that homosexual parents "create" more homosexuals then I'll more open. Also, don't cite your last piece of evidence because it was an overview of a bunch of different studies and still said that the actual result of homosexual parents is inconclusive.
Anthony Van Jones: Former Special Advisor for Green Jobs. Was forced to resign because Glenn Beck, WorldNetDaily, and Americans for Prosperity (all three, very biased conservative sources) were not pleased about his membership in a Socialist group and his defence of death-row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal (who's conviction is desputed by many people and organizations like Amnesty International). However, seeing how none of these things are illegal and would not have affected his job as a go-between for businesses and the federal government for green jobs, we'll never know how good or bad of a job he would have done.
Mark Lloyd: Newly created Diversity Czar, appointed Aug.4, 2009 by President Obama. Also Chief Diversity Officer for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Once again, Glenn Beck had a problem with him. One of his problems is a quote from May 2005.
"There's nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions, ... and unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."
There is no problem with this statement, hell, I'm as white as they come and I agree. He's an African-American and the "Diversity Czar" so this would be right up his alley. The other problem was his statement about President Hugo Chavez. Yes, I can understand this but he made another statement about how he was misquoted. So, I can not form an opinion based by this. However, his first statement sounds like something like a "Diversity Czar" sould say.
Michael Moore: Documentary Director. The only film of his that I've seen is Bowling for Columbine which showed many truths that many people ignored in the wake of the Columbine tragedy. The highlight for me was the interview with Marilyn Manson. I think he was also the second unit director for Raiders of the Lost Ark. I did think that his grandstanding at the Acadamy Awards was uncalled for.
These sites you sent me, way right sources. Their countdown by the numbers should take into account what has been going on in the world of politics. Lots with Former Gov. Palin and and healthcare. I am curious as to why he mentioned President Bush though.
Please understand that I'm not defending Olbermann. I just want you to send me one link of him hating Capitalism or being Marxist. I did watch an episode and I didn't get any of this. Can you send me one example please?
Now, I read the transcript that the link "Mad American Warrior" was talking about. I couldn't find a single promise of NEA funding for artists. It was, from what I can tell. a converstaion about how they could help get the President's message out. This is smart because the fact is, the ones who are most likely to be helped or hurt be the choices made by this administration or the ones that these artists will help make aware of the issues. Young people getting involved is bad how?
If there are no wide-scale studies, then you can't refer to the nonexistent wide-scale studies.
the studys that are here now,the studys that are from gay people,the studys that are from doctors, the studys that are from christian groups all point to the fact that gay parents produce gay children,its not my opinion its not a feeling,its a fact.these studys were done by the pro's,how could gay adoption and gay fostering not produce more gay children,what kids don't act like their parents,what kids havn't snuck into their parents room to see what that noise is all about,what kids don't play dress up like to look like their parents,what children will tell you they did because they saw their parents do it.males and females are different,and they need that exposure to make the most of life.....
van jones,is a self avowed communist,not just a socailist but a communist,they have him on tape saying the free enterprise system is wrong,the guy in charge of creating jobs is saying the capitalist system doesn't work.do you see the contradiction there.
mark lloyd,you mean your okay with the diversity czar being a racist,isn't what this in part is all about not judgeing by color or gender,but by ability,the diversity czar has just said that he's going to be a racist.and is going to hire by race or gender not ability.but thats only part of the problem with lloyd,this guy points to chavaz every chance he can,he really believes that american broadcasting needs to be more like what chavaz has,he believes that the way to control talk radio is to tax the ones that are out there now at 100% pay for different point of views.do you not see something wrong with taxing a american enterprise at 100%..
Where to begin. First, like I said, there is no "clloege of illinnois" or College of Illinois. I'm well aware of Illinois College. These would be two different schools, if they both existed.
Moving on, you didn't give me what I asked for. I asked for an actual study and results. That means a link to the actual study, not a link to a story from 1996. You are clearly a supporter of nurture over nature. The problem being that no study has proven one over the other of them either. You can not wave inconclusive studies as fact. We've been saying that more research needs to be done before a informed opinion can be reached and you've been proving our point.
When it comes to Anthony Van Jones, who's "they" and (can you guess what I'm going to ask for) do you have a link to a transcript or audio of this tape?
Mark Lloyd, again, prove it. I'd love for you to show me how he's a racist. That quote was about getting more people in charge of different races, creeds, and sexual orientation. That's diversity. I'm also going to need you to prove to me that he wants a 100% tax on public radio. Mainly since the government gave up control of the airwaves to private companies for free only can control content by saying if something is obscene.
Michael Moore. Sicko (I have yet to see it, this from what I can gather over the internet) was about the problems with the American healthcare system. I do know that there are problems, this is a sure thing. Leaders from both sides of the aisle agree on this. Everyone should be getting into the medical problem but that's not what we're here to discuss (maybe later, once you finish with my list). Capitalism, A Love Story is actually about (again, internet) the finacial crisis we just went through and how Wall Street messed up. Do you have any evidence that he wants to destory Capitalism?
If you really want to present something factual, where there's supposed to be factual data in support, try looking for peer-reviewed science, not 'sketchy' studies. You really don't have a clue, Ken, do you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wvvYEFLMmo
Michelle Backman-Molly Pitcher
Ken, if you don't mind, I'm going to respond on my blog and hopefully, that will prevent any confusion like what happened above.