Utopia Talk / Politics / Kennedy Bill Destroys Right to Religious

Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 14 07:00:55 Kennedy Bill Destroys Right to Religious Association. August 30, 2010 New Kennedy Bill Could Remove Religious Hiring Rights Protections Posted by CitizenLink Staff Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., recently sponsored a bill that attempts to amend the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) for the first time in 46 years â?? and remove religious exemptions for faith-based organizations that receive federal funds. According to the bill, it would affect â??licensed professional counselors, marriage and family therapists, pastoral counselors, psychosocial rehabilitation specialists, and any other individual determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.â?? Steve McFarland, chief legal officer for World Vision, said this bill has huge implications for religious organizations across the country. Faith-based groups are worried that when Congress returns in mid-September, the Democrats may attempt to, through a simple budget resolution, implement the dangerous language throughout all levels of government. â??Itâ??s not just the organizations that receive federal money that has something to lose here,â?? McFarland said, â??but every religious citizen and organization, because what would be amended is the statutory protection in federal law for all religious exercise.â?? He also pointed out the problem lawmakers have in suggesting such a change. â??Every member of Congress asks â?? and discriminates against â??job applicants based on their political persuasion. Even Planned Parenthood asks where your politics are with respect to the sanctity of human life,â?? he said. â??Itâ??s about deciding who shares your mission and who you want to be representing your mission. http://www...ous-hiring-rights-protections/
Rugian Member	Tue Sep 14 07:02:30 Why is the federal government giving money to religious organizations? That's not its job.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 14 07:06:56 The federal government gives lots of money to charities that help people with substance abuse, etc. A better question might be, why don't the pay taxes. But, that is another subject.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 14 07:07:32 *-they
Adolf Hitler Member	Tue Sep 14 07:14:23 What an extremely uninteresting article from some local catholic church newsletter somewhere in nowhereland.
asdasdfasdfasdfasdfa Member	Tue Sep 14 09:23:25 "The federal government gives lots of money to charities" WTF?!?!?!?!
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 14 09:29:59 Hell yes, they fund all kinds of crap. Community Centers, The Arts, scientific research, the list goes on and on.
Aeros Member	Tue Sep 14 09:46:17 Once again Hot Rod is arguing against a reduction in Federal Spending. I'm confused.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 14 10:18:05 No, I am arguing for the right to religious association. Let's take a for instance, you are the priest of a Catholic church. Do you think you should be forced to hire a non-catholic, to a decision making position, that hates Catholicism? They could easily undermine your church and cause it serious damage.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Tue Sep 14 10:19:07 That doesn't even make sense Rod, seriously.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 14 10:21:31 That is what the Bill wants to force on organized religion.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Tue Sep 14 10:28:26 How would they be "forced"?
Ninja Member	Tue Sep 14 10:35:52 "Let's take a for instance, you are the priest of a Catholic church. Do you think you should be forced to hire a non-catholic, to a decision making position, that hates Catholicism? " What the fuck are you talking about? The change would make it so religious substance abuse and mental health services don't get federal funds. Where the fuck are you getting your bs about religious association?
KrYpToNiTe Member	Tue Sep 14 10:43:02 What Hot Rod is doing is misinterpreting the "langauge". The bill doesn't want the standard for ANY person hired by a faith based organiziation that is SAMHSA strictly based on their faith or non-belief but will still be a beneficial asset to the organization itself regardless of their religious background. It should be noted that the majority that are against this bill are Christian colleges and other Christian based organizations as they would feel they would lose money. In the end it's all about money. This should not be confused with the notion they must hire someone who is "non-catholic" as Hot Rod used in a ridiculous attempt to show how this bill is wrong. The notion to hiring someone who isn't of that faith would "undermine" or cause "serious damage" is no more of an issue of having a priest who abuses boys. The bottomline, religious preference should not be the sole deciding factor to hiring someone to help those that seek it. And if you still want to get money, stop using that as a standard because you are abusing the privaledge that was GRANTED by the federal government.
Ninja Member	Tue Sep 14 10:55:11 Ah, thanks for something that resembles a real explanation of the bill, it looks like I was wrong. Still, this bill wouldn't prevent religious association, it would just stop federal funds to organizations who ate exclusive. Cry me a river
Ninja Member	Tue Sep 14 10:55:43 Who are* exclusive
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 14 10:58:05 Kryp gives an excellent summary in spite of HR's attempt to lie about the bill in question.
Valishin Member	Tue Sep 14 12:19:33 Stop taking money from the people and distributing to charities of any type. Let the people make that decision for themselves and this issue goes away.
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 14 12:27:15 Then those people will take money from you on their own.
Sstrickland New Member	Tue Sep 14 15:31:04 Ninja Member Tue Sep 14 10:55:11 Ah, thanks for something that resembles a real explanation of the bill, it looks like I was wrong. Still, this bill wouldn't prevent religious association, it would just stop federal funds to organizations who ate exclusive. Cry me a river -- While I have no opinion of this thread, I will say that your response suggests that you are looking for evidence that would support your argument instead of an argument that would support your evidence, the bill, which by your own admission you have no understanding of. "that sounds like what i wanted to hear!"-type thinking is bad for your health.
Madc0w Member	Tue Sep 14 15:38:05 People would still be able to associate with whatever religion they want if the bill is passed, so obviously the thread title is 100% inaccurate.
Ninja Member	Tue Sep 14 16:04:23 " which by your own admission you have no understanding of." How can I have an understanding of the bill when HR posts such retarded articles? My main point still stood, the only thing that was affected was federal funding of organizations and not their legality. The constitution does not provide guarantees for federal funds to advance people's choices on who they associate with. The only thing that is provided that may remotely apply is 'equal protection under the law' which seems supportive of this change, religions shouldn't be given a special pass to discriminate when they're receiving federal funds.
jergul Member	Tue Sep 14 16:34:13 Hot Rod Everyone knows federal funding comes at a price. If you want its money, you play by its rules. You are free not to want its money of course.
Valishin Member	Tue Sep 14 17:31:22 "Then those people will take money from you on their own." How exactly would they legally accomplish that?
chen Member	Tue Sep 14 17:39:02 This should be up to states to decide whether or not to fund religious services.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 14 20:17:45 When they wrote the civil rights bill they protected religion by allowing them to restrict hiring to those who practice their particular religion. The purpose of this Bill is to leverage the churches out of that right to "discriminate" by withholding funds. It is just an assault on the churches freedom of association. It is a privilege that members of Congress has. They interview intensely when hiring for their staff. Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi being forced to hire someone that was as staunch a republican as Rush Limbaugh?
Aeros Member	Tue Sep 14 20:25:17 The Federal Government has zero obligation to give money to anyone. If they don't want to give money to religious groups, that is there right. Keep in mind that Religion is not protected to the same extent that Race is protected. While both have significant rights, Religion does not have the benefit of being able to apply for equality with regards to Federal Money grants, as opposed to say, Black and White farmers receiving farm subsidies equally. This mainly due to the fact that Race has a definite legal definition, and Religion does not. Scientology anyone?
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 14 20:37:52 "How exactly would they legally accomplish that?" I don't understand your logic, Valishin. Is mugging legal? If not, then why is it that it is still occurring?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 14 20:42:29 >-The Federal Government has zero obligation to give money to anyone. No one said they did. But it was a carrot held out years ago to get a hold on the recipient, now they are looking to advance their program by threatening to withhold funds. The goal is to take away all privileges except those of the ruling class.
Ninja Member	Tue Sep 14 20:48:03 " While both have significant rights, Religion does not have the benefit of being able to apply for equality with regards to Federal Money grants, as opposed to say, Black and White farmers receiving farm subsidies equally. " Wait, if it was a "protected trait", wouldn't that give religious organizations even less ability to discriminate against those of different religions?!?! As race is a protected trait, it's something you aren't allowed to use as the basis for employment. "The purpose of this Bill is to leverage the churches out of that right to "discriminate" by withholding funds." You think that is a bad thing?!?! You think government dollars should be used by organizations that promote discrimination? That's absurd. "It is just an assault on the churches freedom of association. " People shouldn't get to discriminate on the government dime, end of story.
Ninja Member	Tue Sep 14 20:49:55 "now they are looking to advance their program by threatening to withhold funds. " They're welcome to find funds elsewhere. "The goal is to take away all privileges except those of the ruling class." What the fuck are you smoking?
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 14 20:50:33 What privileges do charities provide, molester rod?
Valishin Member	Tue Sep 14 21:06:28 So you are claiming that if the government stopped giving money to charities that the charities would be going around rob people or committing other crimes to obtain funding?
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 14 21:21:48 You serious, Valishin? You really can't get the comment?
Valishin Member	Tue Sep 14 22:36:12 You are the one claiming they are going to take the money on their own. Assuming that private organizations will do what only the government is capable of doing is one of the most significant disconnects in the politics of our time. Such a statement must be challenged to discount anyone assuming it has validity. So unless you are claiming to have been joking which your reply to my comment seems to imply you were not then I must ask, what's to get?
kargen Member	Tue Sep 14 23:20:13 I think miltonfriedman is trying to claim that the people who receive government charity will resort to crime if that charity is no longer available. He completely discounts the idea of private charity replacing government charity.
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 14 23:23:23 "You are the one claiming they are going to take the money on their own. Assuming that private organizations will do what only the government is capable of doing is one of the most significant disconnects in the politics of our time. Such a statement must be challenged to discount anyone assuming it has validity." While kargen's subsequent claim about my belief is untrue, he did accurately capture my earlier comment.
Valishin Member	Tue Sep 14 23:30:25 ah, ok fair enough I was speaking about the charities not the individuals who are serviced by these orgnizations.
garyd Member	Wed Sep 15 00:41:08 Typical so basically the bill removes from substance abuse funding programs that actually have a history of working while continuing to shell shit loads of money to organiztions with a dismal track record.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 00:49:47 Please back that up...
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Sep 15 00:53:47 "Please back that up... "? let me try to be garyd for a sec. -Nonsense Krypto and frankly 90% of the people know it.
garyd Member	Wed Sep 15 00:58:44 Tell me how well the methodone programs work? Oh that right they don't they merely subsitute one addiction for another. Most of the 12 step programs are religion based. They have far better success rates than any other kind of program I am aware of.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 01:17:09 "Tell me how well the methodone programs work? Oh that right they don't they merely subsitute one addiction for another. " Clearly you don't know the effects of opiates then and I suggest you do some research on it. It's not a "subsitution" at all. "Most of the 12 step programs are religion based. They have far better success rates than any other kind of program I am aware of. " You're basing this on?
Adolf Hitler Member	Wed Sep 15 01:33:15 "He completely discounts the idea of private charity replacing government charity." Wow, another neo-con Iraq invasion/banking crisis tragedy waiting to happen. Just how many disasters can you guys actually think up, one wonders.
kargen Member	Wed Sep 15 02:08:16 What the fuck are you babbling about now Adolf? Private charity works very well. They are more effecient than the government programs trying to accomplish the same thing, and if we the people had more to give there is every idication we would do so. KrYpToNiTe garyd is actually correct about faith based charities and programs being very successfull compared to other types of programs. There are of course exceptions but as a group they tend to work well.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Sep 15 02:29:31 "They are more effecient than the government programs trying to accomplish the same thing, " Depends on what the "same thing" is. Can private charities provide unemployment insurance for the country? Specifically during economic downturns, when wealthy people cut their donations?
Adolf Hitler Member	Wed Sep 15 02:33:13 yeah, theyre probably great at programs like Abstinence before marriage and other Bristol Palin flops. Anything other than that kind of sanctimonious, better than thou, waste of money would be frigging insanity to turn over to your little religious fanatics.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 15 08:46:07 "Most of the 12 step programs are religion based. They have far better success rates than any other kind of program I am aware of." garyd, AA, one of the 12-step programs you alluded to, has been shown to be ineffective. Here is what researchers have found: "Attending conventional AA meetings was worse than no treatment or alternative treatment." Kownacki & Shadish, 1999. Substance use and misuse, 34, 1897-1916. http://inf.../abs/10.3109/10826089909039431
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 09:03:06 "Attending conventional AA meetings was worse than no treatment or alternative treatment..." So remaining a drunk is better than joining AA. Interesting.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 15 09:21:04 I deleted my counter-trolling since I consult for the NIMH. So I figure I should be more serious despite the fact that: 1. such effort will be wasted on such an obvious retarded troll; and 2. I can't believe that I will waste my time on a Forwyn-like weak sauce trolling. What you presented, molester Rod, is a "false dichotomy." There is a myriad of treatment programs possible for alcoholics. There are doctors and psychologists who specialized in treating addiction. Many psychiatrists and psychologists are trained to combat alcoholism. The medical and psychological communities received evidence-based training where treatment programs are statistically proven to be effective. There are cognitive behavior therapies that when combined with appropriate medication, can help someone to manage their drinking problem, in addition, to reduce the chances of relapses. I have no idea why the AA, in your mind, represents the only viable way to treat alcoholism. The NIAAA (The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism) funds evidence-based research with successes. It has funded projects that examine alcoholism from neurological, biological, social, cognitive, and epidemiological perspectives. This should give you an idea about the kinds of treatment solutions that are available and what solutions are the right ones to use and can be supported by evidence. To say that rejection of AA means that people suffering from alcoholism is "better off" by seeking no treatments is false and is in no way representative of my view as well as the views of those who are committed to research on fighting alcoholic abuse.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 15 09:24:29 To prevent semi-retarded trolling that amounts to: "well, you said people who go to AA are worse off than not going, so it must mean it's better to do nothing." No, that's not what the study is trying to convey, nor is that false dichotomy an accurate representation of my view. The results only showed how terrible AA is, not to show doing-nothing is an appropriate course of action. I am sure that people with a semblance of intelligence will recognize this. But trolls won't.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 09:28:13 "KrYpToNiTe garyd is actually correct about faith based charities and programs being very successfull compared to other types of programs. There are of course exceptions but as a group they tend to work well." Actually, I was waiting for him to provide data and I see that you are jumping in as well making this claim, but what are you basing this on? In fact what I was going to provide from sources that I had to demonstrate that in fact programs of are are revolving doors, in fact there is actually no set standard from programs faith based or alternative that has an overwhelming success rate. What is based mainly on is the individual and how they will be able to cope and some have found other unconventional ways of dealing with it and they do not question it, they went with the mode of how they do not care how it helped them with their addictions, it just helped. Some have seen more success with just going to an individual therapist versus some kind of program. Also there is a study from one of my sources that also shows that state programs and faith based programs are virtually the same. Have about the same rate of rehabilitation and being a habitual patient. Now does this call for an end to such programs state or faith based? No not at all, it would be nice if we had more of these to help those with their addictions. But to sit there to declare that one is better than the other where in reality both have about the same rate. This is why I keep asking this repeatedly, what are you basing this on. Then of course what really bothers me is the comment made by garyd that was complete ignorance and it appears that he doesn't fully understand the effects of drugs and how physically and psychology they are to a person. "So remaining a drunk is better than joining AA. Interesting. " No, that isn't what he said. It basically what I just said in my post.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 09:29:30 >-What you presented, molester Rod, is a "false dichotomy." There is a myriad of treatment programs possible for alcoholics. There are doctors and psychologists who specialized in treating addiction. Many psychiatrists and psychologists are trained to combat alcoholism. I never said otherwise. I was addressing the first part of your statement, I said nothing about the treatment programs. >-To say that rejection of AA means that people suffering from alcoholism is "better off" by seeking no treatments is false and is in no way representative of my view... Perhaps not, but that *IS* what you said. "Attending conventional AA meetings was worse than no treatment..." Or perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by "conventional AA meetings..."
Adolf Hitler Member	Wed Sep 15 09:32:32 Hey everyone, Rod found a sentence that can be construed in 2 ways, one in the way it obviously was intended and another in a stupid way which it obviously did not intend, and guess what? Rod chose the stupid way which it obviously does not intend! Well, Im just in shock!
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 09:32:58 You misinterpreted what he said Rod, or you don't understand the sentence.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 09:39:05 What is to misunderstand? "Attending conventional AA meetings was worse than no treatment..."
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 15 09:40:15 Molester Rod, You are one lying piece of shit, aren't you? ============== "Attending conventional AA meetings was worse than no treatment..." Or perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by "conventional AA meetings..." ============== You just deleted the latter half of the sentence to make it look as if I said no treatment is better than AA. When in fact, my entire sentence goes like this: ""Attending conventional AA meetings was worse than no treatment OR ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT." You deleted the phrase "or alternative treatment" to make it as if I only compared AA to no treatment. Fucking-A. But I was expecting lies and trolling from you, so I am not all that disappointed that a good post was wasted on you. I was doing it out of my duty as a consultant for NIMH to disseminate better information on psychological and mental cares anyway. Although it did caught me off guard for a moment that you would actually just deleted part of my quote to make it look like something that it is not. But then I remembered this stunt you pulled: "I am Hot Rod's brother. Hot Rod passed away last night." -HR faking his own death on UP
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 09:43:45 "What is to misunderstand? " When you cut off the sentence and do not get the full context of what was said, then yeah, it could come off that way. But since there is a full complete sentence and compared that sentence to what I said. Basically, what milton and myself are saying is this, that both programs are basically the same, no more, no less.
Adolf Hitler Member	Wed Sep 15 10:01:04 My favorite Hot Bastard sentence delete is first saying: "I think the ones that should be killed are those that believe that Islam is the one true religion and that all infidels should be exterminated. Along with the fanatics that believe an insult to the prophet should be punishable by death, or those that murder their family members for leaving Islam. There you are approaching the one billion mark I believe." And then when called out on it: Hot Rod Member Mon Dec 07 08:50:49 "I think the ones that should be killed are those that believe that Islam is the one true religion and that all infidels should be exterminated. Along with the fanatics that believe an insult to the prophet should be punishable by death, or those that murder their family members for leaving Islam." Where does it say, "killing 1 billion people?" http://www...hread=27752&time=1260197843710
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 10:08:23 mf, go away and come back when and if you are capable of acting like an adult. Kryp - When you cut off the sentence and do not get the full context of what was said... Let's examine just what it was that I cropped. ""Attending conventional AA meetings was worse than no treatment or alternative treatment..." That sentence includes *TWO* choices. 1) "worse than no treatment..." 2) "alternative treatment..." held together by the conjunction, 'or.' While 'or' can be used as you are trying to suggest, "(used to connect alternative terms for the same thing): the Hawaiian, or Sandwich, Islands." That really does not work in this case. "No treatment" and "alternative treatment" cannot be interpreted as the same thing. If that is what the author intended, he failed miserably. Therefore we use the 1st definition of the conjunction, "(used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be." The alternatives being, no treatment *or* alternative treatment. Unless you guys have another way of spinning it.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 10:16:33 It was correlative. Use that in your definition, I understand what he meant. You're too busy focusing on a trivial matter. I ask you to refer to my post to get a better understanding as both he and I were saying basically the same thing. You have refused to do that and continue to attack him for that sentence that you continuously misunderstood. If you want to discuss this topic at hand, great. Though if you persist and want to act like a child due to something that was misunderstood and was point out as to why and how it was misunderstood, you have fun doing that. I don't have time for childish games. Or if you could in the future put a disclaimer that you are here solely to troll so I can make a note of ignoring your posts.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 15 11:49:51 Do you feel good about yourself after you wrote that shit, child molester Rod?
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 15 12:23:21 "My favorite Hot Bastard sentence delete is first saying:" I don't know, AH. Deleting a sentence and then justify it by pulling some irrelevant grammatical rules is right up there.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 16:55:26 Kryp - 1. so related that each implies or complements the other. 2. being in correlation; mutually related. If you insist that *ZERO* treatment complements *ALTERNATIVE* treatment then there is no sense talking to you. I just proved they are not. None does not complement some. I understand what you think the author said, but he failed,
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 17:08:31 For others to understand what the poster inferred and for one to argue about semantics, shows that the person arguing about semantics had nothing to offer to the subject at hand in the first place. Disclaimer next time please.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 17:23:25 I had a great deal to offer. Precise language.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 17:26:52 Then you have no deduction skills.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 17:40:34 And like all liberals, you do nopt have the ability to admit you are wrong.
Ninja Member	Wed Sep 15 17:41:22 ... said Hot Rod. Oh, the irony.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 17:43:25 Before you start accusing me of my politics, perhaps you should ask that person their political views and not assume. As I said before if you want to discuss this seriously stop playing this childish game and discuss the subject. If you are wanting to troll, please provide a disclaimer. So do you want to discuss this or not?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 17:43:43 BS and you either know it or you are brain dead.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 17:47:49 I'll make a mental not to avoid threads by you as you do not have the capacity to civilly discuss and resort only to insults and that all you want to do is troll. Thank you for demonstrating that you do not have the ability to be civil.
Trolly McCool Member	Wed Sep 15 17:51:12 "A better question might be, why don't the pay taxes. But, that is another subject. " Why, are you suggesting that non-profit groups should have to pay taxes on the government grants they receive? Really, Ass Rod? Really?
Trolly McCool Member	Wed Sep 15 17:54:36 "I'll make a mental not to avoid threads by you " I'lL mAkE a MeNtAl NoTe To CaLl ThE pOpOs On YoUr GrAsS lOvInG aSs, fUcKfAcE
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Sep 15 18:07:41 FYI, this is hot rod, this is how he debates. You use logic, you are asking for him to act like a bitch. All of us had our turn to try to have a "civil discussion" with rod, even when others intervene and flame, he does not have the will to ignore them and then lumps everyone in the same group. Your result is.... Hot Fake My Death Come Back And Troll Rod.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Sep 15 18:18:41 And please don't be upset with me Rod, I know that I insulted you and now you just cant takes no more. Please don't grab your spinach...
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 18:23:56 You insult me when you say I have no deductive skills, after I have just deduced that the article, if it indeed is supposed to mean what you thought, does not say what you think it means. I showed empircally it has a totally different meaning than what you presume. Then I point out that you. like all liberals, don't have the ability to admit when you are wrong. Then you come back with this BS, "I'll make a mental not to avoid threads by you as you do not have the capacity to civilly discuss and resort only to insults and that all you want to do is troll. Thank you for demonstrating that you do not have the ability to be civil." This a typical liberal tactic. Lose a debate, trash your opponent. Sorry, all I am saying is the author of the article plainly stated, staying a drunk is better than joining AA.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 18:26:33 TM - Why, are you suggesting that non-profit groups should have to pay taxes on the government grants they receive? Really, Ass Rod? Really? Sorry, didn't I make myself clear? They should *NOT* receive government grants. They should pay taxes.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 18:32:51 "You insult me when you say I have no deductive skills, after I have just deduced that the article, if it indeed is supposed to mean what you thought, does not say what you think it means. I showed empircally it has a totally different meaning than what you presume." What article? It was a statement made by an individual that others understand exactly what he meant. Even as he was writing that statement I was already in the process of responding to this thread in which case coincidentally show that we were on the same thought from whatever sources versus mine details that statistics concerning the success rates of idividuals on various programs really are not any different. That was the point that he was making and that is the I was in the process of making in response to others. Then you chimed in to solely focus on what miltonfriend had wrote and just like this OP you misinterpreted and took out of context of what he said. I even requested that you look at what I wrote for more clarification. Obviously you did not as you went on for a number of posts stuck on a semantical issue of a sentence. You can feel all insulted all you want. But from my perspective I have been more than patient and willing to discuss this or in fact try to correct you because you were getting what that poster was inferring wrong. But your bias got the best of you and this is the result of this thread. You trolling. We are still stuck on this and the majority of this thread started by you is nothing but trolling from you and still the subject presently remains untouched. Regardless if this is your thread or not, but I do ask of you to SHUT THE FUCK UP and let garyd and kargen respond to my questions or make comments to what I have said. Thank you.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 18:42:26 Kryp - What article? It was a statement made by an individual... If you can't keep up with the conversation you are wasting my time. http://inf.../abs/10.3109/10826089909039431 Posted by miltonfriedman, Wed Sep 15 08:46:07.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 18:46:43 I'll presume you forgot to put this; Disclaimer: I, Hot Rod affirm that these states are purely for trolling purposes. Apology accepted. I see, I thought it was milton who had made the comment regarding the source of what he wrote. It doesn't matter it can still be easily understood what that person was meaning. Unfortunately for you, you can not grasp such simple notions.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 18:47:39 *Disclaimer: I, Hot Rod affirm that these statements are purely for trolling purposes.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 18:50:49 You lost due to your negligence. Get over yourself.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Wed Sep 15 18:52:32 What did I lose? There is nothing to lose here except my time. I guess you forgot to put this again; Disclaimer: I, Hot Rod affirm that these statements are purely for trolling purposes. Anyways, as I requested before, STFU so kargen and garyd can response so there something worth discussing about this specific topic that you refuse to do.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 15 21:02:05 "What did I lose? There is nothing to lose here except my time." Didn't you just lose a little bit of confidence in the humanity after you talked to HR? Believe me, we all did. Being trolled by HR before you learn his MO is a rite of passage when you join this forum.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 21:11:19 I just love how you people call your defeats, my trolls.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 15 21:14:45 The only thing you have defeated is the abortion pills your mom popped after her 10th fuck of the night.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 15 21:17:27 ^-LOL - Empirical proof of defeat.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 15 21:23:44 "I am Hot Rod's brother. Hot Rod passed away last night." ^ultimate defeat.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Sep 15 22:43:41 HR moves automatically to stage 5.
Adolf Hitler Member	Thu Sep 16 01:29:42 What a strange world Roddy lives in. He gets destroyed publicly in every thread. He knows he gets destroyed publicly in every thread. Everyone knows he knows he gets destroyed publicly in every thread. But he says he wins. He knows he didnt win. He knows everyone knows he didnt win. He knows he's barefaced lying. He knows everyone knows he's lying. But he just doesnt care.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 16 04:49:09 LOL Kryp - What article? The one posted by miltonfriedman, Wed Sep 15 08:46:07. AH, You people are so pathetic you have no idea what you are even discussing.
Adolf Hitler Member	Thu Sep 16 05:16:08 ^ See what I mean?
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 16 06:18:26 And you Sir, are the worst of the worst. :)
Adolf Hitler Member	Thu Sep 16 06:33:20 ^ You see? What a weirdo.
miltonfriedman Member	Thu Sep 16 07:49:18 Who could do worse than this: "I am Hot Rod's brother. Hot Rod passed away last night."
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 16 07:50:53 LOL, you still going to parrot that nine years from now? :)
miltonfriedman Member	Thu Sep 16 07:53:31 LOL, you still going to fake your death nine years from now?
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 16 07:55:37 LOL, nine years from now I doubt if I will have to fake it. :)
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 16 07:57:52 -30-
	show deleted posts