Discussion:
The World's Homosexuals Travel To India To Rape Young Boys
(too old to reply)
W3
2004-08-12 18:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Weekly Exposes Child Sex Tourism Boom in India
Wed Aug 11, 9:14 AM ET Add World - OneWorld.net to My Yahoo!
Frederick Noronha, OneWorld South Asia
PANAJI (Goa), Aug 11 (OneWorld) - A decade after Interpol declared the
western Indian tourist hotspot of Goa a major pedophile hub,
investigations conducted by a national newsweekly using hidden cameras
have revealed that hundreds of Europeans visit the state to seek
sexual gratification through children.
Armed with hours of secret recordings done over five months, the
newsweekly Tehelka, which has in the past unearthed serious corruption
in military deals and match fixing in international cricket, claims
the pedophile trail could be traced all the way to tourists from
Britain, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland and Sweden.
Tehelka's candid shots - which were shown on a national TV channel
last week - have captured the various aspects of pedophile activity on
the island.
It says foreign pedophiles find Goa "easy, and cheap, to sexually
abuse a child here". Following crackdowns on child-sex tourism across
Thailand and Sri Lanka, the "pedophile bus has rolled into Goa," it
charges.
Tehelka also dug-up a 2001 report, commissioned by the UK government
and done by prominent former police investigator Ric Wood, to map the
extent of tourism-related pedophilia in Goa.
Says the weekly, "Over a two-week period, Wood compiled 37 case
histories. The report suggests it is virtually impossible to quantify
how many pedophiles visit Goa every year. It's been almost a decade
since Interpol declared Goa as the upcoming pedophile destination. Yet
the government of India has slipped into deep slumber."
Goa's pedophile links were exposed in the Freddy Peat case. A
septuagenarian of foreign origin, holding an Indian passport, he was
involved in the homosexual abuse of young boys.
Peat ran an "orphanage," where he and other foreign visitors abused
young boys, till one boy complained and the police unearthed a
shocking scam with 2,305 photographs, mostly showing young boys in
various stages of sex abuse.
Sexual abuse of children is an issue which has been raised by
concerned citizens and even the media and nongovernmental
organizations in India. But officials have often played down such
concerns. Now the blurred images of secret-camera recordings came
alive, as people spilled the beans about the goings-on on Indian TV
screens.
***
Homosexual SCUM!
Homosexuals and pedophiles have always traveled to third world countries
to engage in sex with very young children.They seem to take advantage of
poor countries lax laws on protecting the innocent and when those
countries clamp down on the abuse they move on to the next one like a
cancer.It says a lot on these type of deviants.
Brent Norman
2004-08-12 18:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by W3
Weekly Exposes Child Sex Tourism Boom in India
Wed Aug 11, 9:14 AM ET Add World - OneWorld.net to My Yahoo!
Frederick Noronha, OneWorld South Asia
PANAJI (Goa), Aug 11 (OneWorld) - A decade after Interpol declared the
western Indian tourist hotspot of Goa a major pedophile hub,
investigations conducted by a national newsweekly using hidden cameras
have revealed that hundreds of Europeans visit the state to seek
sexual gratification through children.
Armed with hours of secret recordings done over five months, the
newsweekly Tehelka, which has in the past unearthed serious corruption
in military deals and match fixing in international cricket, claims
the pedophile trail could be traced all the way to tourists from
Britain, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland and Sweden.
Tehelka's candid shots - which were shown on a national TV channel
last week - have captured the various aspects of pedophile activity on
the island.
It says foreign pedophiles find Goa "easy, and cheap, to sexually
abuse a child here". Following crackdowns on child-sex tourism across
Thailand and Sri Lanka, the "pedophile bus has rolled into Goa," it
charges.
Tehelka also dug-up a 2001 report, commissioned by the UK government
and done by prominent former police investigator Ric Wood, to map the
extent of tourism-related pedophilia in Goa.
Says the weekly, "Over a two-week period, Wood compiled 37 case
histories. The report suggests it is virtually impossible to quantify
how many pedophiles visit Goa every year. It's been almost a decade
since Interpol declared Goa as the upcoming pedophile destination. Yet
the government of India has slipped into deep slumber."
Goa's pedophile links were exposed in the Freddy Peat case. A
septuagenarian of foreign origin, holding an Indian passport, he was
involved in the homosexual abuse of young boys.
Peat ran an "orphanage," where he and other foreign visitors abused
young boys, till one boy complained and the police unearthed a
shocking scam with 2,305 photographs, mostly showing young boys in
various stages of sex abuse.
Sexual abuse of children is an issue which has been raised by
concerned citizens and even the media and nongovernmental
organizations in India. But officials have often played down such
concerns. Now the blurred images of secret-camera recordings came
alive, as people spilled the beans about the goings-on on Indian TV
screens.
***
Homosexual SCUM!
Homosexuals and pedophiles have always traveled to third world countries
to engage in sex with very young children.They seem to take advantage of
poor countries lax laws on protecting the innocent and when those
countries clamp down on the abuse they move on to the next one like a
cancer.It says a lot on these type of deviants.
You forgot to include heterosexuals in your list of people that have always
traveled to third world countries to engage in sex with very young children.

If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as we
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749894537.html?from=moreStories&oneclick=true

Among pedophiles visiting Thailand are Australians in search of girls as
young as eight, writes Mark Baker.

"...Sarah's friend Aimee is 14 years old. Two years ago an American in his
early 30s called Bill took her on a tour of Thailand, during which she was
repeatedly raped. Bill promised Aimee's parents money, but after two weeks
he dumped her and fled the country without paying...."


http://www.towardfreedom.com/1998/nov98/thailand.htm

"At an age when we still regard them as children, thousands of young girls
from northern Thailand are being lured into prostitution. Girls as young as
10 are sold to the brothels of Bangkok, other Thai cities, and overseas.
Others drift into prostitution when they move to larger towns for
employment. From there, they migrate to cities, where they're likely to end
up in poorly paid factory or restaurant jobs with substandard conditions and
links to the sex industry."
Jeff North
2004-08-13 01:51:36 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality "Brent
| If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
| and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
| you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as we
| start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
Sums up these bigots to a T.
---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
j***@privacy.net
2004-08-13 02:34:15 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:51:36 GMT, Jeff North
Post by Jeff North
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality "Brent
| If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
| and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
| you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as we
| start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
Sums up these bigots to a T.
No, he is just another homosexual lying, denying and making every
effort to suppress the truth about homosexuality.

I direct your attention to this excerpt from the article that the
lying homosexual deleted:

"Goa's pedophile links were exposed in the Freddy Peat case. A
septuagenarian of foreign origin, holding an Indian passport, he was
involved in the homosexual abuse of young boys.

Peat ran an "orphanage," where he and other foreign visitors abused
young boys, till one boy complained and the police unearthed a
shocking scam with 2,305 photographs, mostly showing young boys in
various stages of sex abuse.

Sexual abuse of children is an issue which has been raised by
concerned citizens and even the media and nongovernmental
organizations in India. But officials have often played down such
concerns. Now the blurred images of secret-camera recordings came
alive, as people spilled the beans about the goings-on on Indian TV
screens."

***

Again, all homosexuals are SCUM!


DD-SS
Post by Jeff North
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
How homosexual of you...
wonderer
2004-08-13 02:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:51:36 GMT, Jeff North
Post by Jeff North
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality "Brent
| If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
| and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
| you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as we
| start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
Sums up these bigots to a T.
No, he is just another homosexual lying, denying and making every
effort to suppress the truth about homosexuality.
I direct your attention to this excerpt from the article that the
"Goa's pedophile links were exposed in the Freddy Peat case. A
septuagenarian of foreign origin, holding an Indian passport, he was
involved in the homosexual abuse of young boys.
Peat ran an "orphanage," where he and other foreign visitors abused
young boys, till one boy complained and the police unearthed a
shocking scam with 2,305 photographs, mostly showing young boys in
various stages of sex abuse.
Sexual abuse of children is an issue which has been raised by
concerned citizens and even the media and nongovernmental
organizations in India. But officials have often played down such
concerns. Now the blurred images of secret-camera recordings came
alive, as people spilled the beans about the goings-on on Indian TV
screens."
***
Again, all homosexuals are SCUM!
Say's he looking in the mirror


WONDERER
Post by j***@privacy.net
DD-SS
Post by Jeff North
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
How homosexual of you...
Brent Norman
2004-08-13 06:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:51:36 GMT, Jeff North
Post by Jeff North
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality "Brent
| If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
| and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
| you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as we
| start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
Sums up these bigots to a T.
No, he is just another homosexual lying, denying and making every
effort to suppress the truth about homosexuality.
The "truth" about homosexuality is that homosexuals are not pedophiles, any
more than heterosexuals are pedophiles.
Post by j***@privacy.net
I direct your attention to this excerpt from the article that the
"Goa's pedophile links were exposed in the Freddy Peat case. A
septuagenarian of foreign origin, holding an Indian passport, he was
involved in the homosexual abuse of young boys.
Peat ran an "orphanage," where he and other foreign visitors abused
young boys, till one boy complained and the police unearthed a
shocking scam with 2,305 photographs, mostly showing young boys in
various stages of sex abuse.
Sexual abuse of children is an issue which has been raised by
concerned citizens and even the media and nongovernmental
organizations in India. But officials have often played down such
concerns. Now the blurred images of secret-camera recordings came
alive, as people spilled the beans about the goings-on on Indian TV
screens."
***
Again, all homosexuals are SCUM!
Why, because they ALL have sex with children? They don't. Not even
remotely close.

And you omitted the pair of references I added too:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749894537.html?from=moreStories&oneclick=true

Among pedophiles visiting Thailand are Australians in search of girls as
young as eight, writes Mark Baker.

"...Sarah's friend Aimee is 14 years old. Two years ago an American in his
early 30s called Bill took her on a tour of Thailand, during which she was
repeatedly raped. Bill promised Aimee's parents money, but after two weeks
he dumped her and fled the country without paying...."


http://www.towardfreedom.com/1998/nov98/thailand.htm

"At an age when we still regard them as children, thousands of young girls
from northern Thailand are being lured into prostitution. Girls as young as
10 are sold to the brothels of Bangkok, other Thai cities, and overseas.
Others drift into prostitution when they move to larger towns for
employment. From there, they migrate to cities, where they're likely to end
up in poorly paid factory or restaurant jobs with substandard conditions and
links to the sex industry."

I guess by that standard, I should declare that all heterosexuals are SCUM?
Jeff North
2004-08-14 04:21:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:34:15 -0400, in alt.politics.homosexuality
| On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:51:36 GMT, Jeff North
|
| >On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality "Brent
| >
| >>| If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
| >>| and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
| >>| you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as we
| >>| start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
|
| >Sums up these bigots to a T.
|
| No, he is just another homosexual lying, denying and making every
| effort to suppress the truth about homosexuality.
|
| I direct your attention to this excerpt from the article that the
|
| "Goa's pedophile links were exposed in the Freddy Peat case. A
| septuagenarian of foreign origin, holding an Indian passport, he was
| involved in the homosexual abuse of young boys.
|
| Peat ran an "orphanage," where he and other foreign visitors abused
| young boys, till one boy complained and the police unearthed a
| shocking scam with 2,305 photographs, mostly showing young boys in
| various stages of sex abuse.
|
| Sexual abuse of children is an issue which has been raised by
| concerned citizens and even the media and nongovernmental
| organizations in India. But officials have often played down such
| concerns. Now the blurred images of secret-camera recordings came
| alive, as people spilled the beans about the goings-on on Indian TV
| screens."
|
| ***
|
| Again, all homosexuals are SCUM!
Thank you for proving Brent's observation about bigots.
| >---------------------------------------------------------------
| >---------------------------------------------------------------
|
| How homosexual of you...
Then why did you remove your pants to reply to this thread?
---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
j***@privacy.net
2004-08-14 09:02:04 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as we
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
Brent Norman
2004-08-14 13:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as we
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
Nice evasion. The way the original and subsequent posts are constructed, a
reader is lead to believe that the only people who are guilty of the sexual
exploitation of children are homosexuals. A terribly dishonest assumption.
While I will agree that some persons who are homosexual engage in such
practices, they are hardly representative of the whole, and the title is
hardly representative of reality. It looks to me like someone is trying to
make the old haggard case of homosexuality=pedophilia, which is just plain
wrong in so many ways.

I don't see another thread called "The World's Heterosexuals Travel To India
To Rapy Young Girls", nor is there a political newsgroup aimed at
heterosexuality, since heterosexuality is not a political issue. This is
clearly an attempt to enflame emotions with a loaded sentence.
j***@privacy.net
2004-08-14 20:50:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as
we
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
Nice evasion.
Nice lying , denying and attempted suppression of the truth about
homosexuality and the sexual abuse of young boys.
Brent Norman
2004-08-15 00:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as
we
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
Nice evasion.
Nice lying , denying and attempted suppression of the truth about
homosexuality and the sexual abuse of young boys.
No, you are the one lying, denying, and attempting to suppress the truth
about homosexuality and the sexual abuse of young boys, not me. You are the
one inventing a connection between the openly, happy, gay guy who lives down
the street, and the guy on the news arrested for CSA on a same-gender
victim. CSA is CSA, and has as much to do with homosexuality as it does to
heterosexuality.

Even if it were true that homosexuals had a higher 'chance' of perpetuating
CSA than their hetero counterparts, it does not negate that heterosexuals
also have a risk factor for CSA, and due to the sheer quantity of
heterosexuals vs homosexuals, the ability to inflict a lot more abuse on a
lot more kids than the homosexuals. Should we keep heterosexuals away from
children and look at them with suspicion too, maybe have children cared and
raised by robots to prevent such things from happening.. either way, I doubt
the sincerity of your attempt to convict all homosexuals of CSA. If you
really cared about children, you would be at least equally or more concerned
about the "heterosexual abuse of young girls" since it takes place with much
greater frequency and affects a great deal more children. Especially if you
are of the school of thought that each and every case must be prevented,
you'd be served by minimizing the largest amount of abuse.
j***@privacy.net
2004-08-15 04:12:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:01:59 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both
boys
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can
help
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon
as
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
we
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care
anymore.
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
Nice evasion.
Nice lying , denying and attempted suppression of the truth about
homosexuality and the sexual abuse of young boys.
No, you are the one lying, denying, and attempting to suppress the truth
about homosexuality and the sexual abuse of young boys, not me. You are the
one inventing a connection between the openly, happy, gay guy who lives down
the street, and the guy on the news arrested for CSA on a same-gender
victim. CSA is CSA, and has as much to do with homosexuality as it does to
heterosexuality.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of young boys in the churches and
young men in the seminaries of the Catholics church who for decades
were repeatedly raped by homosexual priest.

One has to wonder if homosexuals will ever accept responsibility for
the harm you cause...
Brent Norman
2004-08-15 08:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:01:59 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both
boys
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can
help
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon
as
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
we
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care
anymore.
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
Nice evasion.
Nice lying , denying and attempted suppression of the truth about
homosexuality and the sexual abuse of young boys.
No, you are the one lying, denying, and attempting to suppress the truth
about homosexuality and the sexual abuse of young boys, not me. You are the
one inventing a connection between the openly, happy, gay guy who lives down
the street, and the guy on the news arrested for CSA on a same-gender
victim. CSA is CSA, and has as much to do with homosexuality as it does to
heterosexuality.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of young boys in the churches and
young men in the seminaries of the Catholics church who for decades
were repeatedly raped by homosexual priest.
Tell that to the TENS of MILLIONS of young girls in churches, families, and
young women in the convents, and other instututions, and outside of them,
around the nation and around the world who for millennia were repeatedly
raped by heterosexual priests, fathers, bosses, husbands, boyfriends and
acquaintances.
Post by j***@privacy.net
One has to wonder if homosexuals will ever accept responsibility for
the harm you cause...
"homosexuals" will never accept responsibility for the misdeeds of an
INDIVIDUAL. "homosexuals" is not a coherent collective. Like
heterosexuals, they don't all live the same lives, they don't follow a
single leader, and they are not responsible for the conduct of individuals
who happen to have ONLY their attraction to the same/opposite gender in
common with them. As I was saying, I would never hold "heterosexuals in
general" responsible for the misdeeds of a heterosexual rapist or child
abuser. How would that be just. Do you have control of other
heterosexuals? How?
w***@privacy.net
2004-08-14 23:59:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as
we
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
Nice evasion. The way the original and subsequent posts are constructed, a
reader is lead to believe that the only people who are guilty of the sexual
exploitation of children are homosexuals. A terribly dishonest assumption.
While I will agree that some persons who are homosexual engage in such
practices, they are hardly representative of the whole, and the title is
hardly representative of reality.
It looks to me like someone is trying to make the old haggard case of
homosexuality=pedophilia, which is just plain wrong in so many ways.
It's a current as any societal shame in America.
The homosexual priest of the Catholic church have engaged in
homosexual abuse of male children for decades and with the victims
being tens of thousands of young men and boys. There is no need
for me to reinvent the homosexual wheel of sexual child abuse.
Post by Brent Norman
I don't see another thread called "The World's Heterosexuals Travel To India
To Rapy Young Girls", nor is there a political newsgroup aimed at
heterosexuality, since heterosexuality is not a political issue.
Homosexuals are constantly and continuously trying to make
the so called "marriage rights" of heterosexuals a political issue
Homosexuals are constantly and continuously trying to make
Adoption a political issue. And the whine goes on...
Brent Norman
2004-08-15 00:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as
we
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
Nice evasion. The way the original and subsequent posts are constructed, a
reader is lead to believe that the only people who are guilty of the sexual
exploitation of children are homosexuals. A terribly dishonest assumption.
While I will agree that some persons who are homosexual engage in such
practices, they are hardly representative of the whole, and the title is
hardly representative of reality.
It looks to me like someone is trying to make the old haggard case of
homosexuality=pedophilia, which is just plain wrong in so many ways.
It's a current as any societal shame in America.
The homosexual priest of the Catholic church have engaged in
homosexual abuse of male children for decades and with the victims
being tens of thousands of young men and boys. There is no need
for me to reinvent the homosexual wheel of sexual child abuse.
A "homosexual priest of the Catholic church" has little in common with any
out gay person. No gay person I've ever known is a Catholic priest, and no
one I know knows a homosexual Catholic priest.

Holding up a Catholic priest as an example of typical homosexual behaviour
is dishonest at best, and vile deception at worst.
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
I don't see another thread called "The World's Heterosexuals Travel To India
To Rapy Young Girls", nor is there a political newsgroup aimed at
heterosexuality, since heterosexuality is not a political issue.
Homosexuals are constantly and continuously trying to make
the so called "marriage rights" of heterosexuals a political issue
The persons that have an aversion to homosexuals are the ones that make it a
political issue. I'm all for it not being a political issue. It should be
a personal matter for the couple involved, just as is with heterosexuals
that feel so inclined to become a married couple.
Post by j***@privacy.net
Homosexuals are constantly and continuously trying to make
Adoption a political issue. And the whine goes on...
Again, it becomes a political issue when other busybodies attempt to make it
so.
w***@privacy.net
2004-08-15 04:16:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:13:59 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both
boys
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can
help
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon
as
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
we
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care
anymore.
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
Nice evasion. The way the original and subsequent posts are constructed,
a
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
reader is lead to believe that the only people who are guilty of the
sexual
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
exploitation of children are homosexuals. A terribly dishonest
assumption.
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
While I will agree that some persons who are homosexual engage in such
practices, they are hardly representative of the whole, and the title is
hardly representative of reality.
It looks to me like someone is trying to make the old haggard case of
homosexuality=pedophilia, which is just plain wrong in so many ways.
It's a current as any societal shame in America.
The homosexual priest of the Catholic church have engaged in
homosexual abuse of male children for decades and with the victims
being tens of thousands of young men and boys. There is no need
for me to reinvent the homosexual wheel of sexual child abuse.
A "homosexual priest of the Catholic church" has little in common with any
out gay person. No gay person I've ever known is a Catholic priest, and no
one I know knows a homosexual Catholic priest.
Holding up a Catholic priest as an example of typical homosexual behaviour
is dishonest at best, and vile deception at worst.
The only dishonesty here is that homosexuals will not accept
responsibility for the harm they cause in our society.
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
I don't see another thread called "The World's Heterosexuals Travel To
India
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
To Rapy Young Girls", nor is there a political newsgroup aimed at
heterosexuality, since heterosexuality is not a political issue.
Homosexuals are constantly and continuously trying to make
the so called "marriage rights" of heterosexuals a political issue
The persons that have an aversion to homosexuals are the ones that make it a
political issue. I'm all for it not being a political issue. It should be
a personal matter for the couple involved, just as is with heterosexuals
that feel so inclined to become a married couple.
What it should be and what homosexuals have made it are quite
different.
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Homosexuals are constantly and continuously trying to make
Adoption a political issue. And the whine goes on...
Again, it becomes a political issue when other busybodies attempt to make it
so.
Homosexuals always attempt to politicize their issues. It a trademark
of their dishonesty.
Brent Norman
2004-08-15 08:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@privacy.net
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:13:59 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both
boys
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can
help
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon
as
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
we
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care
anymore.
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
Nice evasion. The way the original and subsequent posts are constructed,
a
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
reader is lead to believe that the only people who are guilty of the
sexual
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
exploitation of children are homosexuals. A terribly dishonest
assumption.
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
While I will agree that some persons who are homosexual engage in such
practices, they are hardly representative of the whole, and the title is
hardly representative of reality.
It looks to me like someone is trying to make the old haggard case of
homosexuality=pedophilia, which is just plain wrong in so many ways.
It's a current as any societal shame in America.
The homosexual priest of the Catholic church have engaged in
homosexual abuse of male children for decades and with the victims
being tens of thousands of young men and boys. There is no need
for me to reinvent the homosexual wheel of sexual child abuse.
A "homosexual priest of the Catholic church" has little in common with any
out gay person. No gay person I've ever known is a Catholic priest, and no
one I know knows a homosexual Catholic priest.
Holding up a Catholic priest as an example of typical homosexual behaviour
is dishonest at best, and vile deception at worst.
The only dishonesty here is that homosexuals will not accept
responsibility for the harm they cause in our society.
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
I don't see another thread called "The World's Heterosexuals Travel To
India
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
To Rapy Young Girls", nor is there a political newsgroup aimed at
heterosexuality, since heterosexuality is not a political issue.
Homosexuals are constantly and continuously trying to make
the so called "marriage rights" of heterosexuals a political issue
The persons that have an aversion to homosexuals are the ones that make it a
political issue. I'm all for it not being a political issue. It should be
a personal matter for the couple involved, just as is with heterosexuals
that feel so inclined to become a married couple.
What it should be and what homosexuals have made it are quite
different.
LOL, and whose fault is that?
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Homosexuals are constantly and continuously trying to make
Adoption a political issue. And the whine goes on...
Again, it becomes a political issue when other busybodies attempt to make it
so.
Homosexuals always attempt to politicize their issues. It a trademark
of their dishonesty.
It wouldn't be political if SOME folks didn't raise such a huge deal about
it. Look at the vote for the Federal marriage Amendment.. What is more
important: terrorists in the nature and healthcare, or the legal standing of
the relationship between Sue and Jenny who have lived together down the
street for 12 years? I mean, really!?!
W***@privacy.net
2004-08-15 20:17:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 08:29:09 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by w***@privacy.net
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:13:59 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about
both
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
boys
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they
can
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
help
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As
soon
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
as
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
we
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care
anymore.
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading
abuse
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
Nice evasion. The way the original and subsequent posts are
constructed,
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
a
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
reader is lead to believe that the only people who are guilty of the
sexual
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
exploitation of children are homosexuals. A terribly dishonest
assumption.
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
While I will agree that some persons who are homosexual engage in such
practices, they are hardly representative of the whole, and the title
is
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
hardly representative of reality.
It looks to me like someone is trying to make the old haggard case of
homosexuality=pedophilia, which is just plain wrong in so many ways.
It's a current as any societal shame in America.
The homosexual priest of the Catholic church have engaged in
homosexual abuse of male children for decades and with the victims
being tens of thousands of young men and boys. There is no need
for me to reinvent the homosexual wheel of sexual child abuse.
A "homosexual priest of the Catholic church" has little in common with
any
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
out gay person. No gay person I've ever known is a Catholic priest, and
no
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
one I know knows a homosexual Catholic priest.
Holding up a Catholic priest as an example of typical homosexual
behaviour
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
is dishonest at best, and vile deception at worst.
The only dishonesty here is that homosexuals will not accept
responsibility for the harm they cause in our society.
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
I don't see another thread called "The World's Heterosexuals Travel To
India
Post by j***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
To Rapy Young Girls", nor is there a political newsgroup aimed at
heterosexuality, since heterosexuality is not a political issue.
Homosexuals are constantly and continuously trying to make
the so called "marriage rights" of heterosexuals a political issue
The persons that have an aversion to homosexuals are the ones that make
it a
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
political issue. I'm all for it not being a political issue. It should
be
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
a personal matter for the couple involved, just as is with heterosexuals
that feel so inclined to become a married couple.
What it should be and what homosexuals have made it are quite
different.
LOL, and whose fault is that?
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
Homosexuals are constantly and continuously trying to make
Adoption a political issue. And the whine goes on...
Again, it becomes a political issue when other busybodies attempt to make
it
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Brent Norman
so.
Homosexuals always attempt to politicize their issues. It a trademark
of their dishonesty.
It wouldn't be political if SOME folks didn't raise such a huge deal about
it. Look at the vote for the Federal marriage Amendment.. What is more
important: terrorists in the nature and healthcare, or the legal standing of
the relationship between Sue and Jenny who have lived together down the
street for 12 years? I mean, really!?!
That's for the representatives of the American people to decide isn't
it. Such government seems representative government seems strange to
your kind of course.
j***@privacy.net
2004-08-18 16:34:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
I don't see another thread called "The World's Heterosexuals Travel To India
To Rapy Young Girls", nor is there a political newsgroup aimed at
heterosexuality, since heterosexuality is not a political issue.
Homosexuality is a political issue only because homosexuals have
made it such. Most civilized societies see homosexuals and
homosexuality as nothing more than a sexual perversion. One that is
grossly promiscuous, disease ridden, self centered and self serving.
Brent Norman
2004-08-18 17:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
I don't see another thread called "The World's Heterosexuals Travel To India
To Rapy Young Girls", nor is there a political newsgroup aimed at
heterosexuality, since heterosexuality is not a political issue.
Homosexuality is a political issue only because homosexuals have
made it such. Most civilized societies see homosexuals and
homosexuality as nothing more than a sexual perversion.
Actually, it is mostly less-civilized societies that have such views. I
remember that at the time of the swearing in of that gay bishop in the
Episcopal church, several third world nations protested in the extreme,
while most of the "civilized" nations were much less up in arms. Shows the
point of societal evolution they are at. Stay in the past, and you'll be
left behind. We live in one of the most advanced societies in history. It
is inevitable that it will also be the most progressive and
forward-thinking. Of that I have no doubt.
Post by j***@privacy.net
One that is
grossly promiscuous, disease ridden, self centered and self serving.
Well I'm not grossly promiscuous, have no diseases, I wouldn't call myself
self-centered either - I give back to my society whenever I can, whether it
be financial or volunteerism. As for self-serving, isn't everyone
self-serving to some extent? I looks as if you just strung together a
series of negative adjectives in a feeble attempt to paint all homos with
certain negative characteristics that are just as easily found in
heterosexuals, albeit a minority of them, just as in homos.

As for homosexuality becoming a political issue, who are the people mounting
massive initiatives to add a definition to marriage restricting it to
opposite-sex couples? Who are the people launching political campaigns on
platforms specifically aimed at homosexuals? Who are the people making a
big deal about two guys or girls holding hands? Not me. Not most gays. To
me it should be irrelevant. It should be a non-issue. We should have the
same opportunities for rights and responsibilities as our straight
counterparts as long as we are civil. If all was right, there wouldn't be
any political discussions. Leave sexuality, hetero or otherwise, in the
bedrooms, and out of the legislatures.
Matty
2004-08-19 01:49:44 UTC
Permalink
On 19/8/04 3:07 AM, in article
Post by Brent Norman
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
I don't see another thread called "The World's Heterosexuals Travel To India
To Rapy Young Girls", nor is there a political newsgroup aimed at
heterosexuality, since heterosexuality is not a political issue.
Homosexuality is a political issue only because homosexuals have
made it such. Most civilized societies see homosexuals and
homosexuality as nothing more than a sexual perversion.
Actually, it is mostly less-civilized societies that have such views. I
remember that at the time of the swearing in of that gay bishop in the
Episcopal church, several third world nations protested in the extreme,
while most of the "civilized" nations were much less up in arms. Shows the
point of societal evolution they are at. Stay in the past, and you'll be
left behind. We live in one of the most advanced societies in history. It
is inevitable that it will also be the most progressive and
forward-thinking. Of that I have no doubt.
It seems to be quit true in the field of science; whilst we have the current
US government rolling religiously inspired laws onto people we have
countries who are civilised, Korea, Japan, and a good part of Europe, making
great advances in the field of stem cell research. These countries just so
happen not to have the same level of hate crimes that occur in the US.

Matty
--
My Blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com

Why would you want to ditch MacOS X for Solaris?

Because having the power of Unix coupled with a pleasing interface and
scores of usable desktop applications is a disgusting perversion of
everything Unix stands for.
w***@privacy.net
2004-08-24 00:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
I don't see another thread called "The World's Heterosexuals Travel To India
To Rapy Young Girls", nor is there a political newsgroup aimed at
heterosexuality, since heterosexuality is not a political issue.
Homosexuality is a political issue only because homosexuals have
made it such. Most civilized societies see homosexuals and
homosexuality as nothing more than a sexual perversion.
Only right wing idiots see it as a pervision, the rest of us just
don't care and have better things to worry about especially how Bush
is screwing up the world.
Post by j***@privacy.net
One that is
grossly promiscuous,
which is bad why?
Post by j***@privacy.net
disease ridden,
the vast majority of aids is heterosexual and the major transmission
method is dirty needles.
Post by j***@privacy.net
self centered and self serving.
so they are all republicans too?
What gets me about you guys is you scream about gays and when they
mess with the opposite sex you scream even louder. You want them to
be Hetro but get upset if they are, its like wanting them to learn to
swim but refuse to put water in the pool.
Make up your mind.
Out of Prozac, huh, boy...
THOM
Scott Hendricks
2004-08-24 00:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:29:35 GMT, "Brent Norman"
Post by Brent Norman
I don't see another thread called "The World's Heterosexuals Travel To India
To Rapy Young Girls", nor is there a political newsgroup aimed at
heterosexuality, since heterosexuality is not a political issue.
Homosexuality is a political issue only because homosexuals have
made it such. Most civilized societies see homosexuals and
homosexuality as nothing more than a sexual perversion.
Only right wing idiots see it as a pervision, the rest of us just
don't care and have better things to worry about especially how Bush
is screwing up the world.
Post by j***@privacy.net
One that is
grossly promiscuous,
which is bad why?
Post by j***@privacy.net
disease ridden,
the vast majority of aids is heterosexual and the major transmission
method is dirty needles.
Ahh, but here in the good ol' U.S. of A homosexuals lead the majority of
hiv infections, and since they are only around 3% of the population then
what the hell is going on and why have they represented the majority for
over two decades??
j***@privacy.net
2004-08-25 01:41:25 UTC
Permalink
The problem needs to be looked at as a public health issue.
Indeed! One in which homosexuals have been the No.1 vector in the US
for more than 20 years. Homosexuals while representing less than 3% of
the population have accounted for almost 50% of all new AIDS cases in
the US every year since 1980.

Bring back the quarantine!
Scott Hendricks
2004-08-25 02:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@privacy.net
The problem needs to be looked at as a public health issue.
Indeed! One in which homosexuals have been the No.1 vector in the US
for more than 20 years. Homosexuals while representing less than 3% of
the population have accounted for almost 50% of all new AIDS cases in
the US every year since 1980.
Bring back the quarantine!
Barring the full blown aids cases reported to the CDC homosexuals have
lead the majority (over 50%) of hiv infections in America for a very
long time (decades).
Whether it be hiv infected or full-blown aids homosexuals still
represent an alarming attendance for both, pretty sad if you ask me
since queers are only around 3% of the total population, the CDC didn't
even adjust for per capita in their findings.

You would think queers would at least try to clean up their act a bit
before demanding special rights and privileges.
Brent Norman
2004-08-25 13:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Hendricks
Post by j***@privacy.net
The problem needs to be looked at as a public health issue.
Indeed! One in which homosexuals have been the No.1 vector in the US
for more than 20 years. Homosexuals while representing less than 3% of
the population have accounted for almost 50% of all new AIDS cases in
the US every year since 1980.
Bring back the quarantine!
Barring the full blown aids cases reported to the CDC homosexuals have
lead the majority (over 50%) of hiv infections in America for a very
long time (decades).
Whether it be hiv infected or full-blown aids homosexuals still
represent an alarming attendance for both, pretty sad if you ask me
since queers are only around 3% of the total population, the CDC didn't
even adjust for per capita in their findings.
Because they are unable to. The only thing they can distinguish is persons
who have been identified conclusively as MSM, who may not identify as "gay".
"MSM" and "gay" do overlap, (think:Venn diagram), but they are different
sets of behaviour patterns. There is not really a similar subgroup among
heterosexuals, since heterosexuals are accepted by all, one would not feel
compelled to hide his/her heterosexual inclinations.

There is undoubtedly a significant swell of homosexual men and women who do
not identify as such for obvious reasons. That is why even the best
estimates of the percentage of the population are inherently lacking.
Post by Scott Hendricks
You would think queers would at least try to clean up their act a bit
before demanding special rights and privileges.
I think it's a two way street here. Queers that identify as such and are
confident in themselves are likely to figure less prominently in those HIV
stats, since they value their lives and want to live, despite the social
strife they may face. Contrast that to the so-called Queers who feel
compelled to hide their same-sex attraction by living a double life.
Double-lives are not good for one's mental health - it means living a lie --
all the time. As such, they value their lives much less.

What "special rights and privileges" are being demanded?
Scott Hendricks
2004-08-25 03:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Hendricks
Ahh, but here in the good ol' U.S. of A homosexuals lead the majority of
hiv infections, and since they are only around 3% of the population then
what the hell is going on and why have they represented the majority for
over two decades??
The US statistics says
3% Homosexual
5% lesbian
19% bisexual practicing or not.
Much of the so called gay HIV is also a needle problem but remember
you can also get the virus (or any virus) by sharing a tooth brush if
you both have bleeding gums.
The virus needs to come in contact with an open source of blood and
could care less how that occurs. The main reason it a problem in
Africa is because anal sex is the main form of birth control. Places
like Australia have less than 100 hetro transmissions a year and even
those are suspect given drug use.
The problem needs to be looked at as a public health issue. Moralists
have no place in the debate
THOM
In the U.S. aids is mostly known as "the gay disease", and for good reason.
Of course so-called "moralists" have a place in whatever debates they
want to take part in, especially in regards to homosexuals.
If it were not for the so-called "moralists" then children would be
taught in school that homosexuality is normal and acceptable even though
the facts clearly show otherwise and in fact that is already happening
in some circles.
If it were not for the so-called "moralists" a child could date a grown
man once the child reaches puberty regardless of whatever age puberty
arrives.

Do you have any morals THOM?
A so-called "moralist" is someone who knows right from wrong and is not
afraid to let you know.
Brent Norman
2004-08-25 14:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Hendricks
Post by Scott Hendricks
Ahh, but here in the good ol' U.S. of A homosexuals lead the majority of
hiv infections, and since they are only around 3% of the population then
what the hell is going on and why have they represented the majority for
over two decades??
The US statistics says
3% Homosexual
5% lesbian
19% bisexual practicing or not.
Much of the so called gay HIV is also a needle problem but remember
you can also get the virus (or any virus) by sharing a tooth brush if
you both have bleeding gums.
The virus needs to come in contact with an open source of blood and
could care less how that occurs. The main reason it a problem in
Africa is because anal sex is the main form of birth control. Places
like Australia have less than 100 hetro transmissions a year and even
those are suspect given drug use.
The problem needs to be looked at as a public health issue. Moralists
have no place in the debate
THOM
In the U.S. aids is mostly known as "the gay disease", and for good reason.
Of course so-called "moralists" have a place in whatever debates they
want to take part in, especially in regards to homosexuals.
If it were not for the so-called "moralists" then children would be
taught in school that homosexuality is normal and acceptable even though
the facts clearly show otherwise and in fact that is already happening
in some circles.
Because of so-called "moralists", children in the past and present are
taught to hate homosexuality. This is fine for the children that are
straight; it doesn't affect them, they are already given positive straight
role models and ideals - they know that they can eventually meet the
girl/guy of their dreams and maybe even get married someday if it goes well.
Gay students don't have those luxuries. They are taught to hate themselves
and their own feelings. They are taught that their relationships are
non-existent, and that they are condemned to a life of AIDS,
one-night-stands and perpetual singleness/loneliness. They are teased and
denigrated by so-called "responsible" adults as well as their own peers. So
it's no surprise that some of these kids grow up hating themselves and not
valuing their lives - taking risks and adopting other dangerous behaviours
and attitudes, seeing no hope in sight for happiness.

The so-called "moralists" have a stake in ensuring that this cycle
continues. If it were to stop, and homosexuals would be accepted by most
and taught that they are just as human as anyone else, with all the same
rights and responsibilities as everyone else, the so-called "moralists"
would have nothing to point at and complain about.

Kind of like locking a child from a very young age in a closet, then
releasing her at adulthood, and then pointing and chastising her for not
being educated!
Post by Scott Hendricks
If it were not for the so-called "moralists" a child could date a grown
man once the child reaches puberty regardless of whatever age puberty
arrives.
Actually in the past, some so-called "moralists" endorsed such notions.
Marrying off children to grown men!
w***@privacy.net
2004-08-24 22:06:28 UTC
Permalink
THOM
Words homos with AIDS hate to hear: "Look Alive! Here come the
buzzards." -Pogo
Frank Provasek
2004-08-14 16:50:08 UTC
Permalink
<***@privacy.net> wrote in news:***@4ax.com:
.
Post by j***@privacy.net
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
By at least a factor of 10X, young girls are abused by heterosexual men.
Add the female genital mutilation of girls and infanticide of baby girls in
countries where it's considered a burden and disgrace to have a daughter.
Yet even then, a headline "World's Heterosexuals travel to (insert 3rd
world country here) to rape young girls" would be unfair. It's obvious
that you don't really care about children, but rather your twisted agenda
to create an atmosphere of hatred toward homosexuals.

Frank Provasek
Board Member
American Civil Liberties Union of Fort Worth
John Goodall
2004-08-14 17:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Provasek
.
Post by j***@privacy.net
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
By at least a factor of 10X, young girls are abused by heterosexual men.
Add the female genital mutilation of girls and infanticide of baby girls in
countries where it's considered a burden and disgrace to have a daughter.
Yet even then, a headline "World's Heterosexuals travel to (insert 3rd
world country here) to rape young girls" would be unfair. It's obvious
that you don't really care about children, but rather your twisted agenda
to create an atmosphere of hatred toward homosexuals.
Frank Provasek
Board Member
American Civil Liberties Union of Fort Worth
Well, I wouldn't have known for certain whether the ongoing rumor that
Provasek is a mincing, boy-hungry perdophile is true, but since he is
admittedly a board member of his local ACLU, I guess that pretty much
confirms it.

JG



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
John Goodall
2004-08-14 17:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Oops...typo: perdophile = pedophile. I hate when that happens.

JG
Post by John Goodall
Post by Frank Provasek
.
Post by j***@privacy.net
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
By at least a factor of 10X, young girls are abused by heterosexual men.
Add the female genital mutilation of girls and infanticide of baby girls
in
Post by Frank Provasek
countries where it's considered a burden and disgrace to have a daughter.
Yet even then, a headline "World's Heterosexuals travel to (insert 3rd
world country here) to rape young girls" would be unfair. It's obvious
that you don't really care about children, but rather your twisted agenda
to create an atmosphere of hatred toward homosexuals.
Frank Provasek
Board Member
American Civil Liberties Union of Fort Worth
Well, I wouldn't have known for certain whether the ongoing rumor that
Provasek is a mincing, boy-hungry perdophile is true, but since he is
admittedly a board member of his local ACLU, I guess that pretty much
confirms it.
JG
____________________________________________________________________________
___
Post by John Goodall
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
Post by John Goodall
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Brent Norman
2004-08-14 17:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Goodall
Oops...typo: perdophile = pedophile. I hate when that happens.
hmm a perdophile would *probably* mean, someone who has an affinity for
losing things ;)
Post by John Goodall
JG
W***@privacy.net
2004-08-14 21:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Provasek
.
Post by j***@privacy.net
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
By at least a factor of 10X, young girls are abused by heterosexual men.
Add the female genital mutilation of girls and infanticide of baby girls in
countries where it's considered a burden and disgrace to have a daughter.
Yet even then, a headline "World's Heterosexuals travel to (insert 3rd
world country here) to rape young girls" would be unfair. It's obvious
that you don't really care about children, but rather your twisted agenda
to create an atmosphere of hatred toward homosexuals.
Frank Provasek
Board Member
American Civil Liberties Union of Fort Worth
The American Civil Liberties Union -- What war on terrorism?

By John Leo

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) has taken yet
another embarrassing position, this one involving an antiterrorism
agreement it made with the federal government and then decided to
ignore. As a condition of receiving donations through the deduction
program for federal employees, the ACLU signed a statement in January
agreeing not to hire people whose names appear on "watch lists" of
those suspected of having terrorist ties. The lists are promulgated by
the U.S. government, the United Nations (news - web sites), and the
European Union (news - web sites). Some 2,000 groups have signed this
certification since it became a requirement last October. Not hiring
people who might want to blow up our cities would seem to be a modest
step if you want the government to help in your fundraising, but
inside the ACLU this was a wildly controversial idea. But the
organization wanted the money, so it made a decision: Make the
agreement, but don't live up to it.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, made this argument:
The agreement said the organization could not "knowingly" hire anyone
on the terrorism watch lists, but if he didn't look at the lists, how
could he know who was on them? "I've printed them out [but] I've never
consulted them," Romero said. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU
board, declared that the "knowingly" gambit was "a very reasonable,
certainly clever interpretation."

The Romero excuse will now take its place alongside "It depends on
what the meaning of the word is is" and "He was never alone in a hotel
with her."

Surely, the lawyers at the ACLU could have figured out that the word
knowingly was inserted not as a handy linguistic sinkhole but as a way
of protecting groups that may have unwittingly hired a terrorism
suspect. But Romero managed to sound both shocked and aggrieved that
anyone would expect him to keep his word. Sharing his amazement on
National Public Radio, he said, "We wake up this morning, and we open
up the newspapers, and we read from the head of that Combined Federal
Campaign that they want us to check those lists." That's the danger of
waking up in the morning. You are often stunned to learn what you
agreed to in January.

ACLU lawyers signed off on the charade of using the word knowingly for
evasive purposes, thus calling a good deal of surprised attention to
the quality of the legal advice the organization seems to be getting.
As board member Wendy Kaminer said, "Any lawyer who tells you that you
can sign an agreement with the federal government and then make no
effort to comply with it is giving you very bad advice indeed."

Unreal associations. Romero sounded as if he thought his group's
duplicity was highly honorable. "No amount of money is worth violating
our principles," he said. "We would never terminate or kick off board
members or staff members because of their associational rights."
Associational rights? Consider the unreality of that term as applied
to terrorism. You would think the government is trying to weed out
people wearing Ralph Nader (news - web sites) buttons.

Oddly, the ACLU board decided by voice vote on July 9 to observe the
agreement, but three weeks later, the day the story of this ACLU
adventure hit the newspapers, Romero terminated the arrangement with
the government (apparently without another vote by the board). With
the word hypocrisy still hovering over the ACLU, Romero decided to go
on the offensive, which, as usual, meant railing against John Ashcroft
(news - web sites) and the Patriot Act. A press release, threatening
to sue, announced that the ACLU would not be intimidated by Ashcroft
and his "black list." Romero said the list threatens many Americans,
particularly those in children's services, religious groups, and
organizations concerned with health and the environment. He predicted
"uproar" among postal workers and other government employees when they
learn about the "knowingly" issue.

This presumes that federal workers and social service groups generally
share the ACLU's reflexive hostility to almost every program dealing
with the threat of terrorism. The ACLU usually puts "war on terrorism"
in quotation marks, apparently to show disdain for antiterrorism
efforts. According to testimony in the Senate, the ACLU is likely to
sue any airline that deviates from "random screening" and questions
more than two passengers from any ethnic or geographic group. (Will
terrorists agree to fly only in groups of two?) The ACLU has raised a
hullabaloo about CAPPS II, the Transportation Security
Administration's new customer screening system. Most Americans
understand that there will have to be trade-offs between individual
liberties and the need to prevent a major catastrophe. But some people
do not believe in trade-offs. For the ACLU it is still 1955, and the
mission is to oppose the government, no matter what.

***

So much for the dishonorable ACLU and its members <SNIGGER>
Frank Provasek
2004-08-15 00:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@privacy.net
The American Civil Liberties Union -- What war on terrorism?
By John Leo
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) has taken yet
another embarrassing position, this one involving an antiterrorism
agreement it made with the federal government and then decided to
ignore. As a condition of receiving donations through the deduction
program for federal employees, the ACLU signed a statement in January
agreeing not to hire people whose names appear on "watch lists" of
those suspected of having terrorist ties. The lists are promulgated by
the U.S. government, the United Nations (news - web sites), and the
European Union (news - web sites). Some 2,000 groups have signed this
certification since it became a requirement last October. Not hiring
people who might want to blow up our cities would seem to be a modest
step if you want the government to help in your fundraising, but
inside the ACLU this was a wildly controversial idea. But the
organization wanted the money, so it made a decision: Make the
agreement, but don't live up to it.
The agreement said the organization could not "knowingly" hire anyone
on the terrorism watch lists, but if he didn't look at the lists, how
could he know who was on them? "I've printed them out [but] I've never
consulted them," Romero said. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU
board, declared that the "knowingly" gambit was "a very reasonable,
certainly clever interpretation."
The Romero excuse will now take its place alongside "It depends on
what the meaning of the word is is" and "He was never alone in a hotel
with her."
Surely, the lawyers at the ACLU could have figured out that the word
knowingly was inserted not as a handy linguistic sinkhole but as a way
of protecting groups that may have unwittingly hired a terrorism
suspect. But Romero managed to sound both shocked and aggrieved that
anyone would expect him to keep his word. Sharing his amazement on
National Public Radio, he said, "We wake up this morning, and we open
up the newspapers, and we read from the head of that Combined Federal
Campaign that they want us to check those lists." That's the danger of
waking up in the morning. You are often stunned to learn what you
agreed to in January.
ACLU lawyers signed off on the charade of using the word knowingly for
evasive purposes, thus calling a good deal of surprised attention to
the quality of the legal advice the organization seems to be getting.
As board member Wendy Kaminer said, "Any lawyer who tells you that you
can sign an agreement with the federal government and then make no
effort to comply with it is giving you very bad advice indeed."
Unreal associations. Romero sounded as if he thought his group's
duplicity was highly honorable. "No amount of money is worth violating
our principles," he said. "We would never terminate or kick off board
members or staff members because of their associational rights."
Associational rights? Consider the unreality of that term as applied
to terrorism. You would think the government is trying to weed out
people wearing Ralph Nader (news - web sites) buttons.
Oddly, the ACLU board decided by voice vote on July 9 to observe the
agreement, but three weeks later, the day the story of this ACLU
adventure hit the newspapers, Romero terminated the arrangement with
the government (apparently without another vote by the board). With
the word hypocrisy still hovering over the ACLU, Romero decided to go
on the offensive, which, as usual, meant railing against John Ashcroft
(news - web sites) and the Patriot Act. A press release, threatening
to sue, announced that the ACLU would not be intimidated by Ashcroft
and his "black list." Romero said the list threatens many Americans,
particularly those in children's services, religious groups, and
organizations concerned with health and the environment. He predicted
"uproar" among postal workers and other government employees when they
learn about the "knowingly" issue.
This presumes that federal workers and social service groups generally
share the ACLU's reflexive hostility to almost every program dealing
with the threat of terrorism. The ACLU usually puts "war on terrorism"
in quotation marks, apparently to show disdain for antiterrorism
efforts. According to testimony in the Senate, the ACLU is likely to
sue any airline that deviates from "random screening" and questions
more than two passengers from any ethnic or geographic group. (Will
terrorists agree to fly only in groups of two?) The ACLU has raised a
hullabaloo about CAPPS II, the Transportation Security
Administration's new customer screening system. Most Americans
understand that there will have to be trade-offs between individual
liberties and the need to prevent a major catastrophe. But some people
do not believe in trade-offs. For the ACLU it is still 1955, and the
mission is to oppose the government, no matter what.
***
So much for the dishonorable ACLU and its members <SNIGGER>
The quote from Romano about not reading the list is fabricated. The
ACLU signed an agreement not to knowingly hire terrorists. When the
ACLU was notified that they must check employees against a blacklist
compiled by the government with no provisions for correcting errors, the
ACLU immediately withdrew from the the Combined Federal Campaign,
forfeiting $1/2 million in contributions.

Frank Provasek
Board Member
American Civil Liberties Union of Fort Worth
W***@privacy.net
2004-08-15 04:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Provasek
Post by W***@privacy.net
The American Civil Liberties Union -- What war on terrorism?
By John Leo
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) has taken yet
another embarrassing position, this one involving an antiterrorism
agreement it made with the federal government and then decided to
ignore. As a condition of receiving donations through the deduction
program for federal employees, the ACLU signed a statement in January
agreeing not to hire people whose names appear on "watch lists" of
those suspected of having terrorist ties. The lists are promulgated by
the U.S. government, the United Nations (news - web sites), and the
European Union (news - web sites). Some 2,000 groups have signed this
certification since it became a requirement last October. Not hiring
people who might want to blow up our cities would seem to be a modest
step if you want the government to help in your fundraising, but
inside the ACLU this was a wildly controversial idea. But the
organization wanted the money, so it made a decision: Make the
agreement, but don't live up to it.
The agreement said the organization could not "knowingly" hire anyone
on the terrorism watch lists, but if he didn't look at the lists, how
could he know who was on them? "I've printed them out [but] I've never
consulted them," Romero said. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU
board, declared that the "knowingly" gambit was "a very reasonable,
certainly clever interpretation."
The Romero excuse will now take its place alongside "It depends on
what the meaning of the word is is" and "He was never alone in a hotel
with her."
Surely, the lawyers at the ACLU could have figured out that the word
knowingly was inserted not as a handy linguistic sinkhole but as a way
of protecting groups that may have unwittingly hired a terrorism
suspect. But Romero managed to sound both shocked and aggrieved that
anyone would expect him to keep his word. Sharing his amazement on
National Public Radio, he said, "We wake up this morning, and we open
up the newspapers, and we read from the head of that Combined Federal
Campaign that they want us to check those lists." That's the danger of
waking up in the morning. You are often stunned to learn what you
agreed to in January.
ACLU lawyers signed off on the charade of using the word knowingly for
evasive purposes, thus calling a good deal of surprised attention to
the quality of the legal advice the organization seems to be getting.
As board member Wendy Kaminer said, "Any lawyer who tells you that you
can sign an agreement with the federal government and then make no
effort to comply with it is giving you very bad advice indeed."
Unreal associations. Romero sounded as if he thought his group's
duplicity was highly honorable. "No amount of money is worth violating
our principles," he said. "We would never terminate or kick off board
members or staff members because of their associational rights."
Associational rights? Consider the unreality of that term as applied
to terrorism. You would think the government is trying to weed out
people wearing Ralph Nader (news - web sites) buttons.
Oddly, the ACLU board decided by voice vote on July 9 to observe the
agreement, but three weeks later, the day the story of this ACLU
adventure hit the newspapers, Romero terminated the arrangement with
the government (apparently without another vote by the board). With
the word hypocrisy still hovering over the ACLU, Romero decided to go
on the offensive, which, as usual, meant railing against John Ashcroft
(news - web sites) and the Patriot Act. A press release, threatening
to sue, announced that the ACLU would not be intimidated by Ashcroft
and his "black list." Romero said the list threatens many Americans,
particularly those in children's services, religious groups, and
organizations concerned with health and the environment. He predicted
"uproar" among postal workers and other government employees when they
learn about the "knowingly" issue.
This presumes that federal workers and social service groups generally
share the ACLU's reflexive hostility to almost every program dealing
with the threat of terrorism. The ACLU usually puts "war on terrorism"
in quotation marks, apparently to show disdain for antiterrorism
efforts. According to testimony in the Senate, the ACLU is likely to
sue any airline that deviates from "random screening" and questions
more than two passengers from any ethnic or geographic group. (Will
terrorists agree to fly only in groups of two?) The ACLU has raised a
hullabaloo about CAPPS II, the Transportation Security
Administration's new customer screening system. Most Americans
understand that there will have to be trade-offs between individual
liberties and the need to prevent a major catastrophe. But some people
do not believe in trade-offs. For the ACLU it is still 1955, and the
mission is to oppose the government, no matter what.
***
So much for the dishonorable ACLU and its members <SNIGGER>
The quote from Romano about not reading the list is fabricated. The
ACLU signed an agreement not to knowingly hire terrorists. When the
ACLU was notified that they must check employees against a blacklist
compiled by the government with no provisions for correcting errors, the
ACLU immediately withdrew from the the Combined Federal Campaign,
forfeiting $1/2 million in contributions.
That's another ACLU LIE! Couple that with the well known fact that
Christopher J. Herrera another ACLU board member and who is also the
PR director for the Tide Foundation, a far left, some say terrorist
supporting organization funded in part by Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady
for the Radical Left, and you have a very interesting little scenario.
One that I'm quite sure we will hear much more about before
November...

BTW, how did the ACLU's defense of the homosexual pedophiles of the
North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) turn out?
Post by Frank Provasek
Frank Provasek
Board Member
American Civil Liberties Union of Fort Worth
Matty
2004-08-15 07:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@privacy.net
Post by Frank Provasek
Post by W***@privacy.net
The American Civil Liberties Union -- What war on terrorism?
By John Leo
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) has taken yet
another embarrassing position, this one involving an antiterrorism
agreement it made with the federal government and then decided to
ignore. As a condition of receiving donations through the deduction
program for federal employees, the ACLU signed a statement in January
agreeing not to hire people whose names appear on "watch lists" of
those suspected of having terrorist ties. The lists are promulgated by
the U.S. government, the United Nations (news - web sites), and the
European Union (news - web sites). Some 2,000 groups have signed this
certification since it became a requirement last October. Not hiring
people who might want to blow up our cities would seem to be a modest
step if you want the government to help in your fundraising, but
inside the ACLU this was a wildly controversial idea. But the
organization wanted the money, so it made a decision: Make the
agreement, but don't live up to it.
The agreement said the organization could not "knowingly" hire anyone
on the terrorism watch lists, but if he didn't look at the lists, how
could he know who was on them? "I've printed them out [but] I've never
consulted them," Romero said. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU
board, declared that the "knowingly" gambit was "a very reasonable,
certainly clever interpretation."
The Romero excuse will now take its place alongside "It depends on
what the meaning of the word is is" and "He was never alone in a hotel
with her."
Surely, the lawyers at the ACLU could have figured out that the word
knowingly was inserted not as a handy linguistic sinkhole but as a way
of protecting groups that may have unwittingly hired a terrorism
suspect. But Romero managed to sound both shocked and aggrieved that
anyone would expect him to keep his word. Sharing his amazement on
National Public Radio, he said, "We wake up this morning, and we open
up the newspapers, and we read from the head of that Combined Federal
Campaign that they want us to check those lists." That's the danger of
waking up in the morning. You are often stunned to learn what you
agreed to in January.
ACLU lawyers signed off on the charade of using the word knowingly for
evasive purposes, thus calling a good deal of surprised attention to
the quality of the legal advice the organization seems to be getting.
As board member Wendy Kaminer said, "Any lawyer who tells you that you
can sign an agreement with the federal government and then make no
effort to comply with it is giving you very bad advice indeed."
Unreal associations. Romero sounded as if he thought his group's
duplicity was highly honorable. "No amount of money is worth violating
our principles," he said. "We would never terminate or kick off board
members or staff members because of their associational rights."
Associational rights? Consider the unreality of that term as applied
to terrorism. You would think the government is trying to weed out
people wearing Ralph Nader (news - web sites) buttons.
Oddly, the ACLU board decided by voice vote on July 9 to observe the
agreement, but three weeks later, the day the story of this ACLU
adventure hit the newspapers, Romero terminated the arrangement with
the government (apparently without another vote by the board). With
the word hypocrisy still hovering over the ACLU, Romero decided to go
on the offensive, which, as usual, meant railing against John Ashcroft
(news - web sites) and the Patriot Act. A press release, threatening
to sue, announced that the ACLU would not be intimidated by Ashcroft
and his "black list." Romero said the list threatens many Americans,
particularly those in children's services, religious groups, and
organizations concerned with health and the environment. He predicted
"uproar" among postal workers and other government employees when they
learn about the "knowingly" issue.
This presumes that federal workers and social service groups generally
share the ACLU's reflexive hostility to almost every program dealing
with the threat of terrorism. The ACLU usually puts "war on terrorism"
in quotation marks, apparently to show disdain for antiterrorism
efforts. According to testimony in the Senate, the ACLU is likely to
sue any airline that deviates from "random screening" and questions
more than two passengers from any ethnic or geographic group. (Will
terrorists agree to fly only in groups of two?) The ACLU has raised a
hullabaloo about CAPPS II, the Transportation Security
Administration's new customer screening system. Most Americans
understand that there will have to be trade-offs between individual
liberties and the need to prevent a major catastrophe. But some people
do not believe in trade-offs. For the ACLU it is still 1955, and the
mission is to oppose the government, no matter what.
***
So much for the dishonorable ACLU and its members <SNIGGER>
The quote from Romano about not reading the list is fabricated. The
ACLU signed an agreement not to knowingly hire terrorists. When the
ACLU was notified that they must check employees against a blacklist
compiled by the government with no provisions for correcting errors, the
ACLU immediately withdrew from the the Combined Federal Campaign,
forfeiting $1/2 million in contributions.
That's another ACLU LIE! Couple that with the well known fact that
Christopher J. Herrera another ACLU board member and who is also the
PR director for the Tide Foundation, a far left, some say terrorist
supporting organization funded in part by Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady
for the Radical Left, and you have a very interesting little scenario.
One that I'm quite sure we will hear much more about before
November...
BTW, how did the ACLU's defense of the homosexual pedophiles of the
North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) turn out?
IIRC, they won, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was the stopping of
NAMBLA of exercising its right to free speech. Love them or loath them, they
have the right to speak.

What next? Ban the bible because it speaks about stoning adulterers to
death? If we're going to ban a NAMBLA book claiming it incites people to
commit crimes, why don't we do the same for the Bible and Koran?

Matty
--
My Blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com

Why would you want to ditch MacOS X for Solaris?

Because having the power of Unix coupled with a pleasing interface and
scores of usable desktop applications is a disgusting perversion of
everything Unix stands for.
w***@privacy.net
2004-08-15 20:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matty
Post by W***@privacy.net
Post by Frank Provasek
Post by W***@privacy.net
The American Civil Liberties Union -- What war on terrorism?
By John Leo
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) has taken yet
another embarrassing position, this one involving an antiterrorism
agreement it made with the federal government and then decided to
ignore. As a condition of receiving donations through the deduction
program for federal employees, the ACLU signed a statement in January
agreeing not to hire people whose names appear on "watch lists" of
those suspected of having terrorist ties. The lists are promulgated by
the U.S. government, the United Nations (news - web sites), and the
European Union (news - web sites). Some 2,000 groups have signed this
certification since it became a requirement last October. Not hiring
people who might want to blow up our cities would seem to be a modest
step if you want the government to help in your fundraising, but
inside the ACLU this was a wildly controversial idea. But the
organization wanted the money, so it made a decision: Make the
agreement, but don't live up to it.
The agreement said the organization could not "knowingly" hire anyone
on the terrorism watch lists, but if he didn't look at the lists, how
could he know who was on them? "I've printed them out [but] I've never
consulted them," Romero said. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU
board, declared that the "knowingly" gambit was "a very reasonable,
certainly clever interpretation."
The Romero excuse will now take its place alongside "It depends on
what the meaning of the word is is" and "He was never alone in a hotel
with her."
Surely, the lawyers at the ACLU could have figured out that the word
knowingly was inserted not as a handy linguistic sinkhole but as a way
of protecting groups that may have unwittingly hired a terrorism
suspect. But Romero managed to sound both shocked and aggrieved that
anyone would expect him to keep his word. Sharing his amazement on
National Public Radio, he said, "We wake up this morning, and we open
up the newspapers, and we read from the head of that Combined Federal
Campaign that they want us to check those lists." That's the danger of
waking up in the morning. You are often stunned to learn what you
agreed to in January.
ACLU lawyers signed off on the charade of using the word knowingly for
evasive purposes, thus calling a good deal of surprised attention to
the quality of the legal advice the organization seems to be getting.
As board member Wendy Kaminer said, "Any lawyer who tells you that you
can sign an agreement with the federal government and then make no
effort to comply with it is giving you very bad advice indeed."
Unreal associations. Romero sounded as if he thought his group's
duplicity was highly honorable. "No amount of money is worth violating
our principles," he said. "We would never terminate or kick off board
members or staff members because of their associational rights."
Associational rights? Consider the unreality of that term as applied
to terrorism. You would think the government is trying to weed out
people wearing Ralph Nader (news - web sites) buttons.
Oddly, the ACLU board decided by voice vote on July 9 to observe the
agreement, but three weeks later, the day the story of this ACLU
adventure hit the newspapers, Romero terminated the arrangement with
the government (apparently without another vote by the board). With
the word hypocrisy still hovering over the ACLU, Romero decided to go
on the offensive, which, as usual, meant railing against John Ashcroft
(news - web sites) and the Patriot Act. A press release, threatening
to sue, announced that the ACLU would not be intimidated by Ashcroft
and his "black list." Romero said the list threatens many Americans,
particularly those in children's services, religious groups, and
organizations concerned with health and the environment. He predicted
"uproar" among postal workers and other government employees when they
learn about the "knowingly" issue.
This presumes that federal workers and social service groups generally
share the ACLU's reflexive hostility to almost every program dealing
with the threat of terrorism. The ACLU usually puts "war on terrorism"
in quotation marks, apparently to show disdain for antiterrorism
efforts. According to testimony in the Senate, the ACLU is likely to
sue any airline that deviates from "random screening" and questions
more than two passengers from any ethnic or geographic group. (Will
terrorists agree to fly only in groups of two?) The ACLU has raised a
hullabaloo about CAPPS II, the Transportation Security
Administration's new customer screening system. Most Americans
understand that there will have to be trade-offs between individual
liberties and the need to prevent a major catastrophe. But some people
do not believe in trade-offs. For the ACLU it is still 1955, and the
mission is to oppose the government, no matter what.
***
So much for the dishonorable ACLU and its members <SNIGGER>
The quote from Romano about not reading the list is fabricated. The
ACLU signed an agreement not to knowingly hire terrorists. When the
ACLU was notified that they must check employees against a blacklist
compiled by the government with no provisions for correcting errors, the
ACLU immediately withdrew from the the Combined Federal Campaign,
forfeiting $1/2 million in contributions.
That's another ACLU LIE! Couple that with the well known fact that
Christopher J. Herrera another ACLU board member and who is also the
PR director for the Tide Foundation, a far left, some say terrorist
supporting organization funded in part by Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady
for the Radical Left, and you have a very interesting little scenario.
One that I'm quite sure we will hear much more about before
November...
BTW, how did the ACLU's defense of the homosexual pedophiles of the
North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) turn out?
IIRC, they won, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was the stopping of
NAMBLA of exercising its right to free speech. Love them or loath them, they
have the right to speak.
What next? Ban the bible because it speaks about stoning adulterers to
death? If we're going to ban a NAMBLA book claiming it incites people to
commit crimes, why don't we do the same for the Bible and Koran?
Is that what you are proposing happen in your little 3rd world
dictatorship?
Post by Matty
Matty
Matty
2004-08-16 06:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Matty
Post by W***@privacy.net
Post by Frank Provasek
Post by W***@privacy.net
The American Civil Liberties Union -- What war on terrorism?
By John Leo
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) has taken yet
another embarrassing position, this one involving an antiterrorism
agreement it made with the federal government and then decided to
ignore. As a condition of receiving donations through the deduction
program for federal employees, the ACLU signed a statement in January
agreeing not to hire people whose names appear on "watch lists" of
those suspected of having terrorist ties. The lists are promulgated by
the U.S. government, the United Nations (news - web sites), and the
European Union (news - web sites). Some 2,000 groups have signed this
certification since it became a requirement last October. Not hiring
people who might want to blow up our cities would seem to be a modest
step if you want the government to help in your fundraising, but
inside the ACLU this was a wildly controversial idea. But the
organization wanted the money, so it made a decision: Make the
agreement, but don't live up to it.
The agreement said the organization could not "knowingly" hire anyone
on the terrorism watch lists, but if he didn't look at the lists, how
could he know who was on them? "I've printed them out [but] I've never
consulted them," Romero said. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU
board, declared that the "knowingly" gambit was "a very reasonable,
certainly clever interpretation."
The Romero excuse will now take its place alongside "It depends on
what the meaning of the word is is" and "He was never alone in a hotel
with her."
Surely, the lawyers at the ACLU could have figured out that the word
knowingly was inserted not as a handy linguistic sinkhole but as a way
of protecting groups that may have unwittingly hired a terrorism
suspect. But Romero managed to sound both shocked and aggrieved that
anyone would expect him to keep his word. Sharing his amazement on
National Public Radio, he said, "We wake up this morning, and we open
up the newspapers, and we read from the head of that Combined Federal
Campaign that they want us to check those lists." That's the danger of
waking up in the morning. You are often stunned to learn what you
agreed to in January.
ACLU lawyers signed off on the charade of using the word knowingly for
evasive purposes, thus calling a good deal of surprised attention to
the quality of the legal advice the organization seems to be getting.
As board member Wendy Kaminer said, "Any lawyer who tells you that you
can sign an agreement with the federal government and then make no
effort to comply with it is giving you very bad advice indeed."
Unreal associations. Romero sounded as if he thought his group's
duplicity was highly honorable. "No amount of money is worth violating
our principles," he said. "We would never terminate or kick off board
members or staff members because of their associational rights."
Associational rights? Consider the unreality of that term as applied
to terrorism. You would think the government is trying to weed out
people wearing Ralph Nader (news - web sites) buttons.
Oddly, the ACLU board decided by voice vote on July 9 to observe the
agreement, but three weeks later, the day the story of this ACLU
adventure hit the newspapers, Romero terminated the arrangement with
the government (apparently without another vote by the board). With
the word hypocrisy still hovering over the ACLU, Romero decided to go
on the offensive, which, as usual, meant railing against John Ashcroft
(news - web sites) and the Patriot Act. A press release, threatening
to sue, announced that the ACLU would not be intimidated by Ashcroft
and his "black list." Romero said the list threatens many Americans,
particularly those in children's services, religious groups, and
organizations concerned with health and the environment. He predicted
"uproar" among postal workers and other government employees when they
learn about the "knowingly" issue.
This presumes that federal workers and social service groups generally
share the ACLU's reflexive hostility to almost every program dealing
with the threat of terrorism. The ACLU usually puts "war on terrorism"
in quotation marks, apparently to show disdain for antiterrorism
efforts. According to testimony in the Senate, the ACLU is likely to
sue any airline that deviates from "random screening" and questions
more than two passengers from any ethnic or geographic group. (Will
terrorists agree to fly only in groups of two?) The ACLU has raised a
hullabaloo about CAPPS II, the Transportation Security
Administration's new customer screening system. Most Americans
understand that there will have to be trade-offs between individual
liberties and the need to prevent a major catastrophe. But some people
do not believe in trade-offs. For the ACLU it is still 1955, and the
mission is to oppose the government, no matter what.
***
So much for the dishonorable ACLU and its members <SNIGGER>
The quote from Romano about not reading the list is fabricated. The
ACLU signed an agreement not to knowingly hire terrorists. When the
ACLU was notified that they must check employees against a blacklist
compiled by the government with no provisions for correcting errors, the
ACLU immediately withdrew from the the Combined Federal Campaign,
forfeiting $1/2 million in contributions.
That's another ACLU LIE! Couple that with the well known fact that
Christopher J. Herrera another ACLU board member and who is also the
PR director for the Tide Foundation, a far left, some say terrorist
supporting organization funded in part by Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady
for the Radical Left, and you have a very interesting little scenario.
One that I'm quite sure we will hear much more about before
November...
BTW, how did the ACLU's defense of the homosexual pedophiles of the
North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) turn out?
IIRC, they won, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was the stopping of
NAMBLA of exercising its right to free speech. Love them or loath them, they
have the right to speak.
What next? Ban the bible because it speaks about stoning adulterers to
death? If we're going to ban a NAMBLA book claiming it incites people to
commit crimes, why don't we do the same for the Bible and Koran?
Is that what you are proposing happen in your little 3rd world
dictatorship?
Good lord, is this yet another yank who thinks that the world is split into
the "them against" camp; the grand "everyone is against us" conspiracy
theory in motion.

I guess you're part of that 90% who don't have a passport.

Matty
--
My Blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com

Why would you want to ditch MacOS X for Solaris?

Because having the power of Unix coupled with a pleasing interface and
scores of usable desktop applications is a disgusting perversion of
everything Unix stands for.
W***@privacy.net
2004-08-16 14:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matty
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Matty
Post by W***@privacy.net
Post by Frank Provasek
Post by W***@privacy.net
The American Civil Liberties Union -- What war on terrorism?
By John Leo
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) has taken yet
another embarrassing position, this one involving an antiterrorism
agreement it made with the federal government and then decided to
ignore. As a condition of receiving donations through the deduction
program for federal employees, the ACLU signed a statement in January
agreeing not to hire people whose names appear on "watch lists" of
those suspected of having terrorist ties. The lists are promulgated by
the U.S. government, the United Nations (news - web sites), and the
European Union (news - web sites). Some 2,000 groups have signed this
certification since it became a requirement last October. Not hiring
people who might want to blow up our cities would seem to be a modest
step if you want the government to help in your fundraising, but
inside the ACLU this was a wildly controversial idea. But the
organization wanted the money, so it made a decision: Make the
agreement, but don't live up to it.
The agreement said the organization could not "knowingly" hire anyone
on the terrorism watch lists, but if he didn't look at the lists, how
could he know who was on them? "I've printed them out [but] I've never
consulted them," Romero said. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU
board, declared that the "knowingly" gambit was "a very reasonable,
certainly clever interpretation."
The Romero excuse will now take its place alongside "It depends on
what the meaning of the word is is" and "He was never alone in a hotel
with her."
Surely, the lawyers at the ACLU could have figured out that the word
knowingly was inserted not as a handy linguistic sinkhole but as a way
of protecting groups that may have unwittingly hired a terrorism
suspect. But Romero managed to sound both shocked and aggrieved that
anyone would expect him to keep his word. Sharing his amazement on
National Public Radio, he said, "We wake up this morning, and we open
up the newspapers, and we read from the head of that Combined Federal
Campaign that they want us to check those lists." That's the danger of
waking up in the morning. You are often stunned to learn what you
agreed to in January.
ACLU lawyers signed off on the charade of using the word knowingly for
evasive purposes, thus calling a good deal of surprised attention to
the quality of the legal advice the organization seems to be getting.
As board member Wendy Kaminer said, "Any lawyer who tells you that you
can sign an agreement with the federal government and then make no
effort to comply with it is giving you very bad advice indeed."
Unreal associations. Romero sounded as if he thought his group's
duplicity was highly honorable. "No amount of money is worth violating
our principles," he said. "We would never terminate or kick off board
members or staff members because of their associational rights."
Associational rights? Consider the unreality of that term as applied
to terrorism. You would think the government is trying to weed out
people wearing Ralph Nader (news - web sites) buttons.
Oddly, the ACLU board decided by voice vote on July 9 to observe the
agreement, but three weeks later, the day the story of this ACLU
adventure hit the newspapers, Romero terminated the arrangement with
the government (apparently without another vote by the board). With
the word hypocrisy still hovering over the ACLU, Romero decided to go
on the offensive, which, as usual, meant railing against John Ashcroft
(news - web sites) and the Patriot Act. A press release, threatening
to sue, announced that the ACLU would not be intimidated by Ashcroft
and his "black list." Romero said the list threatens many Americans,
particularly those in children's services, religious groups, and
organizations concerned with health and the environment. He predicted
"uproar" among postal workers and other government employees when they
learn about the "knowingly" issue.
This presumes that federal workers and social service groups generally
share the ACLU's reflexive hostility to almost every program dealing
with the threat of terrorism. The ACLU usually puts "war on terrorism"
in quotation marks, apparently to show disdain for antiterrorism
efforts. According to testimony in the Senate, the ACLU is likely to
sue any airline that deviates from "random screening" and questions
more than two passengers from any ethnic or geographic group. (Will
terrorists agree to fly only in groups of two?) The ACLU has raised a
hullabaloo about CAPPS II, the Transportation Security
Administration's new customer screening system. Most Americans
understand that there will have to be trade-offs between individual
liberties and the need to prevent a major catastrophe. But some people
do not believe in trade-offs. For the ACLU it is still 1955, and the
mission is to oppose the government, no matter what.
***
So much for the dishonorable ACLU and its members <SNIGGER>
The quote from Romano about not reading the list is fabricated. The
ACLU signed an agreement not to knowingly hire terrorists. When the
ACLU was notified that they must check employees against a blacklist
compiled by the government with no provisions for correcting errors, the
ACLU immediately withdrew from the the Combined Federal Campaign,
forfeiting $1/2 million in contributions.
That's another ACLU LIE! Couple that with the well known fact that
Christopher J. Herrera another ACLU board member and who is also the
PR director for the Tide Foundation, a far left, some say terrorist
supporting organization funded in part by Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady
for the Radical Left, and you have a very interesting little scenario.
One that I'm quite sure we will hear much more about before
November...
BTW, how did the ACLU's defense of the homosexual pedophiles of the
North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) turn out?
IIRC, they won, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was the stopping of
NAMBLA of exercising its right to free speech. Love them or loath them, they
have the right to speak.
What next? Ban the bible because it speaks about stoning adulterers to
death? If we're going to ban a NAMBLA book claiming it incites people to
commit crimes, why don't we do the same for the Bible and Koran?
Is that what you are proposing happen in your little 3rd world
dictatorship?
Good lord, is this yet another yank who thinks that the world is split into
the "them against" camp; the grand "everyone is against us" conspiracy
theory in motion.
I guess you're part of that 90% who don't have a passport.
No, that 90% all reside in New Zealand. Everyone in the US has a
Passport. They're issued to us at birth so that we may spread the
goodwill of the nation about the rest of the world. See how that
works, boy?
Post by Matty
Matty
and that just his hair
Matty
2004-08-17 05:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@privacy.net
Post by Matty
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by Matty
Post by W***@privacy.net
Post by Frank Provasek
Post by W***@privacy.net
The American Civil Liberties Union -- What war on terrorism?
By John Leo
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) has taken yet
another embarrassing position, this one involving an antiterrorism
agreement it made with the federal government and then decided to
ignore. As a condition of receiving donations through the deduction
program for federal employees, the ACLU signed a statement in January
agreeing not to hire people whose names appear on "watch lists" of
those suspected of having terrorist ties. The lists are promulgated by
the U.S. government, the United Nations (news - web sites), and the
European Union (news - web sites). Some 2,000 groups have signed this
certification since it became a requirement last October. Not hiring
people who might want to blow up our cities would seem to be a modest
step if you want the government to help in your fundraising, but
inside the ACLU this was a wildly controversial idea. But the
organization wanted the money, so it made a decision: Make the
agreement, but don't live up to it.
The agreement said the organization could not "knowingly" hire anyone
on the terrorism watch lists, but if he didn't look at the lists, how
could he know who was on them? "I've printed them out [but] I've never
consulted them," Romero said. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU
board, declared that the "knowingly" gambit was "a very reasonable,
certainly clever interpretation."
The Romero excuse will now take its place alongside "It depends on
what the meaning of the word is is" and "He was never alone in a hotel
with her."
Surely, the lawyers at the ACLU could have figured out that the word
knowingly was inserted not as a handy linguistic sinkhole but as a way
of protecting groups that may have unwittingly hired a terrorism
suspect. But Romero managed to sound both shocked and aggrieved that
anyone would expect him to keep his word. Sharing his amazement on
National Public Radio, he said, "We wake up this morning, and we open
up the newspapers, and we read from the head of that Combined Federal
Campaign that they want us to check those lists." That's the danger of
waking up in the morning. You are often stunned to learn what you
agreed to in January.
ACLU lawyers signed off on the charade of using the word knowingly for
evasive purposes, thus calling a good deal of surprised attention to
the quality of the legal advice the organization seems to be getting.
As board member Wendy Kaminer said, "Any lawyer who tells you that you
can sign an agreement with the federal government and then make no
effort to comply with it is giving you very bad advice indeed."
Unreal associations. Romero sounded as if he thought his group's
duplicity was highly honorable. "No amount of money is worth violating
our principles," he said. "We would never terminate or kick off board
members or staff members because of their associational rights."
Associational rights? Consider the unreality of that term as applied
to terrorism. You would think the government is trying to weed out
people wearing Ralph Nader (news - web sites) buttons.
Oddly, the ACLU board decided by voice vote on July 9 to observe the
agreement, but three weeks later, the day the story of this ACLU
adventure hit the newspapers, Romero terminated the arrangement with
the government (apparently without another vote by the board). With
the word hypocrisy still hovering over the ACLU, Romero decided to go
on the offensive, which, as usual, meant railing against John Ashcroft
(news - web sites) and the Patriot Act. A press release, threatening
to sue, announced that the ACLU would not be intimidated by Ashcroft
and his "black list." Romero said the list threatens many Americans,
particularly those in children's services, religious groups, and
organizations concerned with health and the environment. He predicted
"uproar" among postal workers and other government employees when they
learn about the "knowingly" issue.
This presumes that federal workers and social service groups generally
share the ACLU's reflexive hostility to almost every program dealing
with the threat of terrorism. The ACLU usually puts "war on terrorism"
in quotation marks, apparently to show disdain for antiterrorism
efforts. According to testimony in the Senate, the ACLU is likely to
sue any airline that deviates from "random screening" and questions
more than two passengers from any ethnic or geographic group. (Will
terrorists agree to fly only in groups of two?) The ACLU has raised a
hullabaloo about CAPPS II, the Transportation Security
Administration's new customer screening system. Most Americans
understand that there will have to be trade-offs between individual
liberties and the need to prevent a major catastrophe. But some people
do not believe in trade-offs. For the ACLU it is still 1955, and the
mission is to oppose the government, no matter what.
***
So much for the dishonorable ACLU and its members <SNIGGER>
The quote from Romano about not reading the list is fabricated. The
ACLU signed an agreement not to knowingly hire terrorists. When the
ACLU was notified that they must check employees against a blacklist
compiled by the government with no provisions for correcting errors, the
ACLU immediately withdrew from the the Combined Federal Campaign,
forfeiting $1/2 million in contributions.
That's another ACLU LIE! Couple that with the well known fact that
Christopher J. Herrera another ACLU board member and who is also the
PR director for the Tide Foundation, a far left, some say terrorist
supporting organization funded in part by Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady
for the Radical Left, and you have a very interesting little scenario.
One that I'm quite sure we will hear much more about before
November...
BTW, how did the ACLU's defense of the homosexual pedophiles of the
North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) turn out?
IIRC, they won, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was the stopping of
NAMBLA of exercising its right to free speech. Love them or loath them, they
have the right to speak.
What next? Ban the bible because it speaks about stoning adulterers to
death? If we're going to ban a NAMBLA book claiming it incites people to
commit crimes, why don't we do the same for the Bible and Koran?
Is that what you are proposing happen in your little 3rd world
dictatorship?
Good lord, is this yet another yank who thinks that the world is split into
the "them against" camp; the grand "everyone is against us" conspiracy
theory in motion.
I guess you're part of that 90% who don't have a passport.
No, that 90% all reside in New Zealand. Everyone in the US has a
Passport. They're issued to us at birth so that we may spread the
goodwill of the nation about the rest of the world. See how that
works, boy?
LOL, sorry, that's called and IRD number. Sorry, no one is "born with a
passport", if they were, we wouldn't see no many insulated US citizens
unable to fathom the idea that the cold war has ended, the Berlin wall has
fallen and god for bid, there is actually democracies outside the US!

Matty
--
My Blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com

Why would you want to ditch MacOS X for Solaris?

Because having the power of Unix coupled with a pleasing interface and
scores of usable desktop applications is a disgusting perversion of
everything Unix stands for.
Frank Provasek
2004-08-15 07:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@privacy.net
Post by Frank Provasek
ACLU immediately withdrew from the the Combined Federal Campaign,
forfeiting $1/2 million in contributions.
That's another ACLU LIE! Couple that with the well known fact that
Christopher J. Herrera another ACLU board member and who is also the
PR director for the Tide Foundation, a far left, some say terrorist
supporting organization funded in part by Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady
for the Radical Left, and you have a very interesting little scenario.
One that I'm quite sure we will hear much more about before
November...
No, YOU are the one spreading lies...

see http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=224

Christopher Herrera is not an ACLU board member.
Post by W***@privacy.net
BTW, how did the ACLU's defense of the homosexual pedophiles of the
North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) turn out?
see http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86


Frank Provasek
Board Member
American Civil Liberties Union of Fort Worth
W***@privacy.net
2004-08-15 20:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Provasek
Post by W***@privacy.net
Post by Frank Provasek
ACLU immediately withdrew from the the Combined Federal Campaign,
forfeiting $1/2 million in contributions.
That's another ACLU LIE! Couple that with the well known fact that
Christopher J. Herrera another ACLU board member and who is also the
PR director for the Tide Foundation, a far left, some say terrorist
supporting organization funded in part by Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady
for the Radical Left, and you have a very interesting little scenario.
One that I'm quite sure we will hear much more about before
November...
No, YOU are the one spreading lies...
see http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=224
Christopher Herrera is not an ACLU board member.
Certainly he is, just as you are. Why do you feel it necessary to lie
about that?
Post by Frank Provasek
Post by W***@privacy.net
BTW, how did the ACLU's defense of the homosexual pedophiles of the
North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) turn out?
see http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86
Frank Provasek
Board Member
American Civil Liberties Union of Fort Worth
Matty
2004-08-15 05:53:05 UTC
Permalink
On 15/8/04 2:50 AM, in article
Post by Frank Provasek
.
Post by j***@privacy.net
The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
group?
By at least a factor of 10X, young girls are abused by heterosexual men.
Add the female genital mutilation of girls and infanticide of baby girls in
countries where it's considered a burden and disgrace to have a daughter.
Yet even then, a headline "World's Heterosexuals travel to (insert 3rd
world country here) to rape young girls" would be unfair. It's obvious
that you don't really care about children, but rather your twisted agenda
to create an atmosphere of hatred toward homosexuals.
Frank Provasek
Board Member
American Civil Liberties Union of Fort Worth
Well, I think the thing is, society has become so blasé about the whole
issue of little girls being fucked since it appears to be such a common
thing occurring these days - just listen to the excuses made up by these
dirty old men, but of course the brother hood of randy men(tm) all rally
around the pervert claiming that as a heterosexual male, he has the right to
fuck anything that walks as so long as it has a pussy.

Just flick onto the commercial networks, guess which will get a greater
coverage, the guy who fondled a boy or Peter the pervert who fucked half a
dozen girls whilst in his care as a foster parent?

Matt
--
My Blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com

Why would you want to ditch MacOS X for Solaris?

Because having the power of Unix coupled with a pleasing interface and
scores of usable desktop applications is a disgusting perversion of
everything Unix stands for.
Jeff North
2004-08-14 17:03:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 05:02:04 -0400, in alt.politics.homosexuality
| On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
|
| >If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
| >and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
| >you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as we
| >start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
|
| The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
| homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
| of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
| group?
Are you telling us that alt.politics.bush, alt.flame.faggots,
alt.flame.fucking.faggots are all homosexual newsgroups?
---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
w***@privacy.net
2004-08-14 21:02:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:03:02 GMT, Jeff North
Post by Jeff North
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 05:02:04 -0400, in alt.politics.homosexuality
| On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:33:10 GMT, "Brent Norman"
|
| >If you really cared about the children, you'd be worrying about both boys
| >and girls. But you only care about them to the extent that they can help
| >you try and make a case connecting homosexuals to pedophiles. As soon as we
| >start talking about female sexual exploitation, you don't care anymore.
|
| The subject is homosexual abuse of young boys. It is posted in a
| homosexual news group. Don't you think that your post regrading abuse
| of young girls should be posted in a comparable heterosexual news
| group?
Are you telling us that alt.politics.bush, alt.flame.faggots,
alt.flame.fucking.faggots are all homosexual newsgroups?
The original post was made to alt.politics.homosexuality ONLY!
Post by Jeff North
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
RamRod Sword of Baal
2004-08-12 20:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by W3
Weekly Exposes Child Sex Tourism Boom in India
Wed Aug 11, 9:14 AM ET Add World - OneWorld.net to My Yahoo!
Frederick Noronha, OneWorld South Asia
PANAJI (Goa), Aug 11 (OneWorld) - A decade after Interpol declared the
western Indian tourist hotspot of Goa a major pedophile hub,
investigations conducted by a national newsweekly using hidden cameras
have revealed that hundreds of Europeans visit the state to seek
sexual gratification through children.
Armed with hours of secret recordings done over five months, the
newsweekly Tehelka, which has in the past unearthed serious corruption
in military deals and match fixing in international cricket, claims
the pedophile trail could be traced all the way to tourists from
Britain, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland and Sweden.
Tehelka's candid shots - which were shown on a national TV channel
last week - have captured the various aspects of pedophile activity on
the island.
It says foreign pedophiles find Goa "easy, and cheap, to sexually
abuse a child here". Following crackdowns on child-sex tourism across
Thailand and Sri Lanka, the "pedophile bus has rolled into Goa," it
charges.
Tehelka also dug-up a 2001 report, commissioned by the UK government
and done by prominent former police investigator Ric Wood, to map the
extent of tourism-related pedophilia in Goa.
Says the weekly, "Over a two-week period, Wood compiled 37 case
histories. The report suggests it is virtually impossible to quantify
how many pedophiles visit Goa every year. It's been almost a decade
since Interpol declared Goa as the upcoming pedophile destination. Yet
the government of India has slipped into deep slumber."
Goa's pedophile links were exposed in the Freddy Peat case. A
septuagenarian of foreign origin, holding an Indian passport, he was
involved in the homosexual abuse of young boys.
Peat ran an "orphanage," where he and other foreign visitors abused
young boys, till one boy complained and the police unearthed a
shocking scam with 2,305 photographs, mostly showing young boys in
various stages of sex abuse.
Sexual abuse of children is an issue which has been raised by
concerned citizens and even the media and nongovernmental
organizations in India. But officials have often played down such
concerns. Now the blurred images of secret-camera recordings came
alive, as people spilled the beans about the goings-on on Indian TV
screens.
***
Homosexual SCUM!
Homosexuals and pedophiles have always traveled to third world countries
to engage in sex with very young children.They seem to take advantage of
poor countries lax laws on protecting the innocent and when those
countries clamp down on the abuse they move on to the next one like a
cancer.It says a lot on these type of deviants.
Again you lump in paedophiles with gays, are you going to lump in the
heterosexuals with the paedophiles that go to these places in search of you
female children, as they say, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Radioactive Man
2004-08-13 02:57:32 UTC
Permalink
If homosexual males account for only 2% or 10% or whatever of the male
population, then it stands to reason that boys should account for
roughly 2 - 10% of all underage victims molested by males, keeping in
mind that actual numbers may be skewed by the fact that more
opportunity exists for men to molest boys than girls. From watching
the news, reading the paper, etc., we can tell that is certainly not
the case. Who do pedophile priests molest most of the time - young
boys, seldom girls.


On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 06:07:52 +1000, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by W3
Weekly Exposes Child Sex Tourism Boom in India
Wed Aug 11, 9:14 AM ET Add World - OneWorld.net to My Yahoo!
Frederick Noronha, OneWorld South Asia
PANAJI (Goa), Aug 11 (OneWorld) - A decade after Interpol declared the
western Indian tourist hotspot of Goa a major pedophile hub,
investigations conducted by a national newsweekly using hidden cameras
have revealed that hundreds of Europeans visit the state to seek
sexual gratification through children.
Armed with hours of secret recordings done over five months, the
newsweekly Tehelka, which has in the past unearthed serious corruption
in military deals and match fixing in international cricket, claims
the pedophile trail could be traced all the way to tourists from
Britain, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland and Sweden.
Tehelka's candid shots - which were shown on a national TV channel
last week - have captured the various aspects of pedophile activity on
the island.
It says foreign pedophiles find Goa "easy, and cheap, to sexually
abuse a child here". Following crackdowns on child-sex tourism across
Thailand and Sri Lanka, the "pedophile bus has rolled into Goa," it
charges.
Tehelka also dug-up a 2001 report, commissioned by the UK government
and done by prominent former police investigator Ric Wood, to map the
extent of tourism-related pedophilia in Goa.
Says the weekly, "Over a two-week period, Wood compiled 37 case
histories. The report suggests it is virtually impossible to quantify
how many pedophiles visit Goa every year. It's been almost a decade
since Interpol declared Goa as the upcoming pedophile destination. Yet
the government of India has slipped into deep slumber."
Goa's pedophile links were exposed in the Freddy Peat case. A
septuagenarian of foreign origin, holding an Indian passport, he was
involved in the homosexual abuse of young boys.
Peat ran an "orphanage," where he and other foreign visitors abused
young boys, till one boy complained and the police unearthed a
shocking scam with 2,305 photographs, mostly showing young boys in
various stages of sex abuse.
Sexual abuse of children is an issue which has been raised by
concerned citizens and even the media and nongovernmental
organizations in India. But officials have often played down such
concerns. Now the blurred images of secret-camera recordings came
alive, as people spilled the beans about the goings-on on Indian TV
screens.
***
Homosexual SCUM!
Homosexuals and pedophiles have always traveled to third world countries
to engage in sex with very young children.They seem to take advantage of
poor countries lax laws on protecting the innocent and when those
countries clamp down on the abuse they move on to the next one like a
cancer.It says a lot on these type of deviants.
Again you lump in paedophiles with gays, are you going to lump in the
heterosexuals with the paedophiles that go to these places in search of you
female children, as they say, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Brent Norman
2004-08-13 06:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Radioactive Man
If homosexual males account for only 2% or 10% or whatever of the male
population, then it stands to reason that boys should account for
roughly 2 - 10% of all underage victims molested by males, keeping in
mind that actual numbers may be skewed by the fact that more
opportunity exists for men to molest boys than girls. From watching
the news, reading the paper, etc., we can tell that is certainly not
the case. Who do pedophile priests molest most of the time - young
boys, seldom girls.
That may very well be a reasonable assumption, if the ratio of victims to
perpetrators were 1:1. It is not, especially when you factor in the
opportunity factor.
Post by Radioactive Man
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 06:07:52 +1000, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by W3
Weekly Exposes Child Sex Tourism Boom in India
Wed Aug 11, 9:14 AM ET Add World - OneWorld.net to My Yahoo!
Frederick Noronha, OneWorld South Asia
PANAJI (Goa), Aug 11 (OneWorld) - A decade after Interpol declared the
western Indian tourist hotspot of Goa a major pedophile hub,
investigations conducted by a national newsweekly using hidden cameras
have revealed that hundreds of Europeans visit the state to seek
sexual gratification through children.
Armed with hours of secret recordings done over five months, the
newsweekly Tehelka, which has in the past unearthed serious corruption
in military deals and match fixing in international cricket, claims
the pedophile trail could be traced all the way to tourists from
Britain, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland and Sweden.
Tehelka's candid shots - which were shown on a national TV channel
last week - have captured the various aspects of pedophile activity on
the island.
It says foreign pedophiles find Goa "easy, and cheap, to sexually
abuse a child here". Following crackdowns on child-sex tourism across
Thailand and Sri Lanka, the "pedophile bus has rolled into Goa," it
charges.
Tehelka also dug-up a 2001 report, commissioned by the UK government
and done by prominent former police investigator Ric Wood, to map the
extent of tourism-related pedophilia in Goa.
Says the weekly, "Over a two-week period, Wood compiled 37 case
histories. The report suggests it is virtually impossible to quantify
how many pedophiles visit Goa every year. It's been almost a decade
since Interpol declared Goa as the upcoming pedophile destination. Yet
the government of India has slipped into deep slumber."
Goa's pedophile links were exposed in the Freddy Peat case. A
septuagenarian of foreign origin, holding an Indian passport, he was
involved in the homosexual abuse of young boys.
Peat ran an "orphanage," where he and other foreign visitors abused
young boys, till one boy complained and the police unearthed a
shocking scam with 2,305 photographs, mostly showing young boys in
various stages of sex abuse.
Sexual abuse of children is an issue which has been raised by
concerned citizens and even the media and nongovernmental
organizations in India. But officials have often played down such
concerns. Now the blurred images of secret-camera recordings came
alive, as people spilled the beans about the goings-on on Indian TV
screens.
***
Homosexual SCUM!
Homosexuals and pedophiles have always traveled to third world countries
to engage in sex with very young children.They seem to take advantage of
poor countries lax laws on protecting the innocent and when those
countries clamp down on the abuse they move on to the next one like a
cancer.It says a lot on these type of deviants.
Again you lump in paedophiles with gays, are you going to lump in the
heterosexuals with the paedophiles that go to these places in search of you
female children, as they say, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
RamRod Sword of Baal
2004-08-13 16:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Radioactive Man
If homosexual males account for only 2% or 10% or whatever of the male
population, then it stands to reason that boys should account for
roughly 2 - 10% of all underage victims molested by males, keeping in
mind that actual numbers may be skewed by the fact that more
opportunity exists for men to molest boys than girls. From watching
the news, reading the paper, etc., we can tell that is certainly not
the case. Who do pedophile priests molest most of the time - young
boys, seldom girls.
Oh you people love to generalize don't you, molestation, would you like to
define it? What are the age limits etc, it is just too convenient to lump
all the ages together, so if you are going to do that, and point out the
failings in the Catholic Church's priests, let us also look at teen
unmarried mothers pregnancies, after all they MUST result in molestation,
and they are the ones who get 'caught'.

Just how many boys were molested by these priests, 1,000, let us push up the
numbers to a big high and say 10,000. this pales to insignificance when you
see the numbers of girls molested, it runs into as high as a million, much
more one would guess when one looks at the numbers....


http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/TEEN-PREGNANCY/teenpreg_fact.html

a.. Each year approximately one million U.S. teenagers become pregnant - 11
percent of all women aged 15-19 and 20 percent of those who are sexually
active (AGI, 1998).

Among sexually experienced teens, approximately eight percent of
14-year-olds, 18 percent of 15-17-year-olds, and 22 percent of
18-19-year-olds become pregnant each year (AGI, 1998).




Did you see that, 8% of 14 year old girls get pregnant, how many more are
having sex, and do not get pregnant, and having sex with a 14 year old in my
book is sexual molestation.

Now that number does not count those UNDER 14 who are having sex, or being
played around with.


.......or do you think it is OK for boys to play around with these young
girls, and it is only boys who get molested?
jaonajames
2004-08-13 22:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Radioactive Man
If homosexual males account for only 2% or 10% or whatever of the male
population, then it stands to reason that boys should account for
roughly 2 - 10% of all underage victims molested by males, keeping in
mind that actual numbers may be skewed by the fact that more
opportunity exists for men to molest boys than girls. From watching
the news, reading the paper, etc., we can tell that is certainly not
the case. Who do pedophile priests molest most of the time - young
boys, seldom girls.
Oh you people love to generalize don't you, molestation, would you like to
define it? What are the age limits etc, it is just too convenient to lump
all the ages together, so if you are going to do that, and point out the
failings in the Catholic Church's priests, let us also look at teen
unmarried mothers pregnancies, after all they MUST result in molestation,
and they are the ones who get 'caught'.
Just how many boys were molested by these priests, 1,000, let us push up the
numbers to a big high and say 10,000. this pales to insignificance when you
see the numbers of girls molested, it runs into as high as a million, much
more one would guess when one looks at the numbers....
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/TEEN-PREGNANCY/teenpreg_fact.html
a.. Each year approximately one million U.S. teenagers become pregnant - 11
percent of all women aged 15-19 and 20 percent of those who are sexually
active (AGI, 1998).
Among sexually experienced teens, approximately eight percent of
14-year-olds, 18 percent of 15-17-year-olds, and 22 percent of
18-19-year-olds become pregnant each year (AGI, 1998).
Did you see that, 8% of 14 year old girls get pregnant, how many more are
having sex, and do not get pregnant, and having sex with a 14 year old in my
book is sexual molestation.
Now that number does not count those UNDER 14 who are having sex, or being
played around with.
.......or do you think it is OK for boys to play around with these young
girls, and it is only boys who get molested?
Alas softly she speaks it is the east and she is the...... oh crap it's just
Ramtard the E-tard again with another convoluted point
RamRod Sword of Baal
2004-08-14 01:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by jaonajames
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Radioactive Man
If homosexual males account for only 2% or 10% or whatever of the male
population, then it stands to reason that boys should account for
roughly 2 - 10% of all underage victims molested by males, keeping in
mind that actual numbers may be skewed by the fact that more
opportunity exists for men to molest boys than girls. From watching
the news, reading the paper, etc., we can tell that is certainly not
the case. Who do pedophile priests molest most of the time - young
boys, seldom girls.
Oh you people love to generalize don't you, molestation, would you like to
define it? What are the age limits etc, it is just too convenient to lump
all the ages together, so if you are going to do that, and point out the
failings in the Catholic Church's priests, let us also look at teen
unmarried mothers pregnancies, after all they MUST result in
molestation,
Post by jaonajames
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
and they are the ones who get 'caught'.
Just how many boys were molested by these priests, 1,000, let us push up
the
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
numbers to a big high and say 10,000. this pales to insignificance when
you
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
see the numbers of girls molested, it runs into as high as a million, much
more one would guess when one looks at the numbers....
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/TEEN-PREGNANCY/teenpreg_fact.html
Post by jaonajames
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
a.. Each year approximately one million U.S. teenagers become pregnant -
11
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
percent of all women aged 15-19 and 20 percent of those who are sexually
active (AGI, 1998).
Among sexually experienced teens, approximately eight percent of
14-year-olds, 18 percent of 15-17-year-olds, and 22 percent of
18-19-year-olds become pregnant each year (AGI, 1998).
Did you see that, 8% of 14 year old girls get pregnant, how many more are
having sex, and do not get pregnant, and having sex with a 14 year old
in
Post by jaonajames
my
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
book is sexual molestation.
Now that number does not count those UNDER 14 who are having sex, or being
played around with.
.......or do you think it is OK for boys to play around with these young
girls, and it is only boys who get molested?
Alas softly she speaks it is the east and she is the...... oh crap it's just
Ramtard the E-tard again with another convoluted point
Translation

Ramrod has again posted facts and figures I cannot refute, nor do I
understand simple numbers, and he also has again shot down the my bigoted
ideas.
w***@privacy.net
2004-08-19 06:20:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:49:13 +1000, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Oh you people love to generalize don't you, molestation, would you like to
define it?
It's a place where one boards a mole for a trip across country. Along
the lines of a railwaystation or maybe in your case a busstation.
Homos like you do prefer bus stations. I've read that the reason why
is because it's easier to punch a glory hole in the walls of the men's
restroom stalls.
RamRod Sword of Baal
2004-08-19 10:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:49:13 +1000, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Oh you people love to generalize don't you, molestation, would you like to
define it?
It's a place where one boards a mole for a trip across country. Along
the lines of a railwaystation or maybe in your case a busstation.
Homos like you do prefer bus stations. I've read that the reason why
is because it's easier to punch a glory hole in the walls of the men's
restroom stalls.
The answer when the dipstick that replies does not have any answers.........
W***@privacy.net
2004-08-21 01:23:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:20:32 +1000, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by w***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:49:13 +1000, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Oh you people love to generalize don't you, molestation, would you like
to
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
define it?
It's a place where one boards a mole for a trip across country. Along
the lines of a railwaystation or maybe in your case a busstation.
Homos like you do prefer bus stations. I've read that the reason why
is because it's easier to punch a glory hole in the walls of the men's
restroom stalls.
The answer when the dipstick that replies does not have any answers.........
What's that, Dipshit? You're the one who invented the "molestation",
fuckwit. I have noticed that such screw ups are common among the AIDS
addled homosexual scum.
RamRod Sword of Baal
2004-08-21 05:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@privacy.net
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:20:32 +1000, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by w***@privacy.net
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:49:13 +1000, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Oh you people love to generalize don't you, molestation, would you like
to
Post by w***@privacy.net
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
define it?
It's a place where one boards a mole for a trip across country. Along
the lines of a railwaystation or maybe in your case a busstation.
Homos like you do prefer bus stations. I've read that the reason why
is because it's easier to punch a glory hole in the walls of the men's
restroom stalls.
The answer when the dipstick that replies does not have any
answers.........
Post by W***@privacy.net
What's that, Dipshit? You're the one who invented the "molestation",
fuckwit. I have noticed that such screw ups are common among the AIDS
addled homosexual scum.
So that is who you hang out with is it.........
Anonymous Remailer
2009-03-27 17:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by W3
Weekly Exposes Child Sex Tourism Boom in India
Wed Aug 11, 9:14 AM ET Add World - OneWorld.net to My Yahoo!
Frederick Noronha, OneWorld South Asia
PANAJI (Goa), Aug 11 (OneWorld) - A decade after Interpol declared the
western Indian tourist hotspot of Goa a major pedophile hub,
investigations conducted by a national newsweekly using hidden cameras
have revealed that hundreds of Europeans visit the state to seek
sexual gratification through children.
Armed with hours of secret recordings done over five months, the
newsweekly Tehelka, which has in the past unearthed serious corruption
in military deals and match fixing in international cricket, claims
the pedophile trail could be traced all the way to tourists from
Britain, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland and Sweden.
Tehelka's candid shots - which were shown on a national TV channel
last week - have captured the various aspects of pedophile activity on
the island.
It says foreign pedophiles find Goa "easy, and cheap, to sexually
abuse a child here". Following crackdowns on child-sex tourism across
Thailand and Sri Lanka, the "pedophile bus has rolled into Goa," it
charges.
Tehelka also dug-up a 2001 report, commissioned by the UK government
and done by prominent former police investigator Ric Wood, to map the
extent of tourism-related pedophilia in Goa.
Says the weekly, "Over a two-week period, Wood compiled 37 case
histories. The report suggests it is virtually impossible to quantify
how many pedophiles visit Goa every year. It's been almost a decade
since Interpol declared Goa as the upcoming pedophile destination. Yet
the government of India has slipped into deep slumber."
Goa's pedophile links were exposed in the Freddy Peat case. A
septuagenarian of foreign origin, holding an Indian passport, he was
involved in the homosexual abuse of young boys.
Peat ran an "orphanage," where he and other foreign visitors abused
young boys, till one boy complained and the police unearthed a
shocking scam with 2,305 photographs, mostly showing young boys in
various stages of sex abuse.
Sexual abuse of children is an issue which has been raised by
concerned citizens and even the media and nongovernmental
organizations in India. But officials have often played down such
concerns. Now the blurred images of secret-camera recordings came
alive, as people spilled the beans about the goings-on on Indian TV
screens.
***
Homosexual SCUM!
Homosexuals and pedophiles have always traveled to third world countries
to engage in sex with very young children.They seem to take advantage of
poor countries lax laws on protecting the innocent and when those
countries clamp down on the abuse they move on to the next one like a
cancer.It says a lot on these type of deviants.
In every homosexual there is a pedophile waiting to molest.
A. Hermaphrodite
2009-03-28 00:49:41 UTC
Permalink
You lying assed dirty mother fucker. I don't even know one gay man who
like little boys and I am 61 year old.

Sure I know pedos exist but they exist far more among hetero men than
gay men.

You constanstly hear of "child brides" but I still have NOT heard of a
child groom....

Gay men I know like big dicks not little ones.
Dean Turner
2009-04-03 10:10:53 UTC
Permalink
I bet right-winged bigots project their own twisted sexual perversions
on others.
ProfQ
2009-04-07 19:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Of course they do! Don't you know? It's a classic case of "Guilt
Transference". Transfer their own guilt onto innocent others that makes
them feel better about themselves and they move on.
Post by Dean Turner
I bet right-winged bigots project their own twisted sexual perversions
on others.
K***@webtv.net
2009-03-29 23:48:42 UTC
Permalink
hey asshole....everyone knows,its a fact , most child molesters are
straight men,,, Mature men fucking with baby pussy, get real you
fucking disgusting pigs,,,
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...