Philly Sucks

On Nov 4, 11:31*am, "Robert" wrote:

In Indiana I saw an article that 80 percent of babies were born out of
wedlock to black unwed mothers. So the stats vary greatly in some areas
compared to others.

Dear Innumerate Person,

That's impossible.

Think about it. First of all, the black population fraction
of Indiana is 8.9%.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18000.html

Second, if that continued for say 10 years, of order 80%
of the 0-10 yr old population of Indiana would be
children of black unwed mothers. OMG white people
are dying out !!1!!!

Third ... aww, forget it.

If you are saying there is a connection concerning the
possibilty of/or a link between unwed babies and growing up to be gay, I
don't know. That's a new on me. Post those articles! However, I did find an
interesting article, short as it might be by someone who is a gay liberal
democrat who says why he thinks gay marriage will hurt society. Its
intesting because it comes from someone who is solidly gay.


So basically, this has nothing to do with anything -
you're just assuming that if you put two
disconnected irrational prejudices together, you'll
get a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup instead of a
**** sandwich. Good luck with that.

Ben

" wrote in message
...

So basically, this has nothing to do with anything -
you're just assuming that if you put two
disconnected irrational prejudices together, you'll
get a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup instead of a
**** sandwich. Good luck with that.

Ben

You're an asshole deluxe. All you do is wonder around these threads and bark
out some **** at people without offering much of anything interesting. That
seems to be a trend with you.

Good luck with that!

Robert

On Nov 4, 4:44*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Paul G. wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:19 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:03 pm, Fred Fredburger

wrote:
Primaries and caucuses are a different game. I will admit to a good deal
of confusion about how this plays out there. The best I can do with this
is to suggest that the primary/caucus system is not optimized for
selecting electable presidents. I know, it sounds like a cop out, but
there's no way McCain looks right to be president.
What states have caucuses for republicans?

Try this link:
http://www.google.com/

With just a little effort you can find the knowledge you seek,
grasshopper. *Oh wait, if you knew how to use a search engine you
wouldn't ask a stupid question like that. Here, I'll spoon feed it to
you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Results_of_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_ primaries

Oh, sorry, you're probably too dumb to figure out how to use a link.
OK, here's a list:

# 3.1 Iowa caucuses

# 3.5 Nevada caucuses

# 3.7 Louisiana caucuses
# 3.8 Hawaii caucuses

# 3.10 Maine caucuses

# 3.12 Alaska caucuses

# 3.16 Colorado caucuses

# 3.22 Minnesota caucuses

# 3.24 Montana caucuses

# 3.27 North Dakota caucuses

# 3.31 West Virginia caucuses
# 3.32 Kansas caucuses

# 3.34 Washington caucuses

# 3.41 American Samoa caucuses
# 3.42 Northern Mariana Islands caucuses
# 3.43 Puerto Rico caucuses

# 3.48 Guam caucuses

# 3.51 United States Virgin Islands caucuses

No, Republicans are in favor of Democracy, caucuses are undemocratic,
therefore Republicans don't do them. Only Democrats do caucuses. You and
your facts can just go to hell!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses#Controversy

"There is a debate over the effectiveness and usefulness of caucuses
in Iowa [or anywhere, for that matter]. One criticism is that the
caucuses, especially the Democratic caucus, are a step backwards from
the right to a secret ballot.[citation needed]

Democratic caucus participants (though not Republicans, whose caucuses
vote by secret ballot) must publicly state their opinion and vote,
leading to natural problems such as peer pressure from fellow
neighbors and embarrassment over who his/her real pick might be.
Another criticism involves the sheer amount of participants' time
these events consume.

An Iowa caucus can last up around two hours, preventing people who
must work, who are sick, or must take care of their children from
casting their vote. Absentee voting is also barred, so soldiers who
come from Iowa, but must serve in the military, lose their vote. The
final criticism is the complexity of the rules in terms of how one's
vote counts, as it is not a simple popular vote.

Arguments in favor of caucuses include the belief that they favor more
motivated participants than simple ballots, and that supporters of non-
viable candidates are able to realign with a more popular candidate
and still make their vote "count".

Each precinct's vote may be weighed differently due to its past voting
record. Ties can be solved by picking a name out of a hat or a simple
coin toss, leading to anger over the true democratic nature of these
caucuses.[17] Additionally, the representation of the caucus has had a
traditionally low turnout.[18] Others question the permanent feature
of having caucuses in certain states, while perpetually ignoring the
rest of the country.[19]"

"ronaldo_jeremiah" wrote in message
...
On Nov 4, 5:56 pm, "Robert" wrote:
homophobic nonsense snipped

Bobby -

Some of us theorize that your obsession with manly biker chicks is
actually a transformation of your own latent man-loving tendencies.

Just thought you oughta know.

-rj, LCVP

RJ,

Biker chicks make it sound like moto club chicks, which lots of those guys
and chicks tour through all the time on holidays. Cycling chicks, not biker
chicks.



I are not attracted to overly muscular women, but road cycling doesn't have
much of that. Road cycling has mostly lean, fit women who come in all shapes
and sizes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as far as looks goes. I
watch and cover the races because simply I enjoy our yearly spring classics,
the action, the tactics, the winners, its all good fun, and good for the
community, good for our local communities, towns and cities.



I am simply another link in the chain who enjoy and participate in these
events. There are 6 billion people on this planet for crying out loud. There
are millions of people all over the world who participate in the races.
There are probably thousands if not millions of races all over the world.
You guys like to hack away at Lance and every other rider under the sun in
this very tiny newsgroup which as you say, is barely a cycling newsgroup. It
doesn't really have much bearing on the real cycling world at large.



You guys should stick with cycling, stop attacking people, and let people
believe, participate, and post whatever they want relevant to cycling. The
majority are lurkers and they don't care. They just read, and they, everyone
out there will read or enjoy whatever their particular interests are,
regardless of how much you guys bark, harass, assault, antagonize,
intimidate, or otherwise try to slander people into whatever you are trying
to gain out of the equation. The reality is, the newsgroup is free to anyone
who wants to post and share anything about cycling, men or women, and it
shouldn't intimidated or ruled by a narrow gauntlet of a handful of cynical
old men, who would love to think they run this group like some type of
seniority clause from a corporate company.



The reality is, this group should be first and foremost, open to all new men
and women who want to post anything about cycling and be free to share their
views in a reasonably civil and tolerant newsgroup. If you want to speak of
prejudice, this group is often prejudice and degrade women pro cyclists on a
regular basis, I guess because they don't really have anything meaningful to
add, so they take the low road. There is still a lot of prejudice out there
against women in cycling, and in general in the USA in many areas. I'm not
trying to change that. I just post and discuss things that seem interesting
in women's cycling. If you don't like it, then stay out of that thread. I
don't engage in your threads about doping in men's cycling and traipse about
causing havoc and/or try to sabotage or hijack threads for kicks or whatever
reasons, and you guys dissect men's doping as if it was cancer research.
That's a double standard.



You guys need to get over that my turf mentality. The older crowd, Lemon
Club or whoever, needs to be more tolerant of new posters, men and women,
both young and old, whatever or whoever wants to engage in reasonable
cycling discussions, and shouldn't be tormented or abused by a handful of
thugs, who like warlords, want to continue to try to run this group
according to their whims.



This group needs more Dan Connellys, Ryans, or Benjos. They are the role
models, and as they have said in the past, just engage what people or
threads you find civil and interesting, and leave the rest alone. Assholes
are not role models for this group, but above three are the most reasonably
civil I have ever encountered in this group. Some others are not so bad, but
many often have the acid touch. Then you have the bottom of the barrel, and
perhaps kill files might be a good idea for them, I don't know. Neither
should this group be intimidated by people who think they are so ****ing
smart about everything and run around barking out **** all over the place
using the acid touch, that's not civil behavior. OT threads have no place
here either, and I have only posted once this year, after the NRC and UCI
season was over.



In the end, all you can do is wade through the static the best you can, and
decide if its worth it or fun enough to participate in some of these
discussions. If not, try some other forum, read a book or go watch the news.
Like I said, this group is like reaching into a garbage can to retrieve a
shiny gold nugget, or maybe like walking through a mine field. Sometimes
there are some good threads, but often unlike Euro forums its heavily laden
with boorish types and personal attacks. That's the way it is, but I do wish
the Lemon Club would lighten up and allow new posters, both men and women,
young and old alike, to feel free to chime in without being in fear of the
acid test. I know this group could do so much better, if it was not for a
small group of old hucksters who feel they have the right to rule this group
by oppression, and by pile on pack mentality.



Let Freedom reign!



BTW, I am not a supporter of gay rights, queer nation, or the like. I
tolerate them in society, but I don't believe in their agendas or gay
marriage. That's why I voted for prop 8. Its not perfect proposition, but I
had to vote my conscious. I won't stick my finger in the air, and just vote
anyway the political winds are blowing. Its a divided nation on this issue,
and I am sure, always will be. There will always be issues we take to heart,
solid core values, and will never waiver on. That's just the way it is. We
are a melting pot of opinions, beliefs, cultures and religions, and America
will always be a divided democracy.



I do cringe that someday straight be considered gay, and gay will be
considered straight, or some kind of twisted logic, where gay will become
normal, and straight will become square. Thankfully we are not there yet! I
still consider America a reasonably nice place to live in many states.



Robert

Robert wrote:
The reality is, this group should be first and foremost, open to all new men
and women who want to post anything about cycling and be free to share their
views in a reasonably civil and tolerant newsgroup.

Except gays. We do not like gays.

On Nov 5, 1:53*pm, "Robert" wrote:

Let Freedom reign!

BTW, I am not a supporter of gay rights, queer nation, or the like.



No contradiction there.

-rj

On Nov 5, 11:57*am, Ted van de Weteringe
wrote:
Robert wrote:
The reality is, this group should be first and foremost, open to all new men
and women who want to post anything about cycling and be free to share their
views in a reasonably civil and tolerant newsgroup.

Except gays. We do not like gays.




Dumbass -


Someone like Bruce will never understand his own hypocrisy.

Too much rationalizing.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Nov 5, 2:57*pm, Ted van de Weteringe
wrote:
Robert wrote:
The reality is, this group should be first and foremost, open to all new men
and women who want to post anything about cycling and be free to share their
views in a reasonably civil and tolerant newsgroup.

Except gays. We do not like gays.

Or humor.

On Nov 5, 2:53*pm, "Robert" wrote:

*I do cringe that someday straight be considered gay, and gay will be
considered straight, or some kind of twisted logic, where gay will become
normal, and straight will become square.

Gay is the new Black! (or is it Black is the new gay? Or Black is
the new straight? Too many to keep track of)

On Nov 5, 2:53*pm, "Robert" wrote:

I am simply another link in the chain who enjoy and participate in these
events. There are 6 billion people on this planet for crying out loud.

That is disgusting!!!!!!!!

That is truly perverted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!