The Goat Pen

Dyke for sure.

does Ann Coulter even have any kids?

Ann Coulter doesn't need to actually know jackshit about anything to consider herself an expert on it.

She's got quite the adam's apple...

Who in their right mind would marry that anorexic harpy? She's almost as dumb as IB...

aTm wrote:

does Ann Coulter even have any kids?

Ann Coulter doesn't need to actually know jackshit about anything to consider herself an expert on it.

well shit, we need her to get her ass to the GoatPen then. especially if she has some hot lipstick lesbian friends.

yep, I was right. IB had made up the stats. Thanks for finally looking some up though.

some more. Do with it what you will.

A variety of factors, including increased access to contraception, the legalization of abortion and changed social attitudes about unmarried parenting, have caused the number of white infants placed for adoption in the U.S. to decline dramatically. Between 1989 and 1995, 1.7 percent of children born to never-married white women were placed for adoption, compared to 19.3 percent before 1973. Among never-married black women, relinquishment rates have ranged from .2 percent to 1.5 percent.[4]


"The number of adoptions by unrelated adults -- adoptive parents who are not step-parents or other relatives -- grew to a peak of 89,200 in 1970, but declined significantly to 47,700 in 1975, the last year for which data are available.[5] A reason for the decline may be that fewer U.S.-born white infants were available for adoption."

what do you mean? hispanic-whites, or non-hispanic whites?

Owlman wrote:yep, I was right. IB had made up the stats. Thanks for finally looking some up though.

horseshit. I didn't make up ANY stats. if you are going to say I did, best you identify exactly which stats I provided that are inaccurate

Owlman wrote:some more. Do with it what you will.

A variety of factors, including increased access to contraception, the legalization of abortion and changed social attitudes about unmarried parenting,

you can stop right there. the changed social attitudes about unmarried parenting are a product of government paying money to single moms to raise their children. this affected the "social attitude" on the margins....

...as I said. Your quote is correct, but it only goes to strengthening my argument and the point I was making. I still can't figure out what stats of mine are wrong

Owlman wrote:have caused the number of white infants placed for adoption in the U.S. to decline dramatically. Between 1989 and 1995, 1.7 percent of children born to never-married white women were placed for adoption, compared to 19.3 percent before 1973. Among never-married black women, relinquishment rates have ranged from .2 percent to 1.5 percent.[4]


"The number of adoptions by unrelated adults -- adoptive parents who are not step-parents or other relatives -- grew to a peak of 89,200 in 1970, but declined significantly to 47,700 in 1975, the last year for which data are available.[5] A reason for the decline may be that fewer U.S.-born white infants were available for adoption."

the reason for the decline was money. Before 1965 and LBJ's Great Infernal Society, single moms were not paid money by government to raise their children. After they started getting checks, low and behold, across all racial lines, single moms started refusing to put their kids up for adoption.

does this surprise you? it shouldn't. you pay for something, you get more of it

Good god you are a simpleton...

Freakonomics points out that abortion is responsible for a large number of those adopted baby stats that show they don't end up in prison (or dead) as young adults.

14- 20 years after abortion became legal crime statistics among youth started dropping. Based on their analysis, one could argue that babies being born - in and out of wedlock were for the most part wanted , and even parents ill equipped to raise children did enough to keep those "wanted" kids from becoming the crime stats of the 90's.

It must be quite disconcerting that the act you find so morally wrong serves a valuable purpose in promoting the overall well being of society. Furthermore, it should also be noted that based on the above information, the continued efforts to make abortion illegal contributes to the crime and welfare burden of our nation.

Heard on NPR this morning that Rohm Emmanuel tried to backdoor a public union option for teachers by raising the voting requirements to 75% "yes" vote in approving a strike. Everyone not voting would be considered a no vote.

Word got out that he did this so in a recent vote that I didn't get the particulars of, they virtually had 100% turnout with 90% of the teachers voting against the city's proposal. I think it had to do with extending the school day and school year , while blocking a contractual 4% pay increase.

Talk about your all time backfires.

This is a growing trend that I really don't understand concerning politicians. It is nothing new but the frequency and blatant disregard for the peoples will is so much worse now. Politicians now just seem to pass laws in spite of the public knowing full well that a considerable number of people in the general populace will reject their plan outright. I personally believe its driven by the unsustainable debt they face along with the very sustainable inflow of cash from private entities.

Also what we see here is that union busting or at least attempting to curtail agressive union tactics by legislation isn't just a republican thing. Clearly this economic situation is driving politicians to do whatever they think they have to in order to get their programs back in the black.

"It must be quite disconcerting that the act you find so morally wrong serves a valuable purpose in promoting the overall well being of society."

IB represents the sour ilk of religious folk that are so easy to hate and attack. They're not all like him (thank god), but there are enough of the puckered lip, wrinkled brow, head shaking losers like him that try to make everybody else as miserable as they are. They get very disappointed when they fail, as in the case that eCat mentions above. IB perfectly represents HL Mencken's definition of puritanism: the haunting fear that somebody somewhere is happy. Just look at how many marriages and relationships IB has personally ruined. It's what he does and he no doubt enjoys it. Misery loves company...

hedge wrote:"It must be quite disconcerting that the act you find so morally wrong serves a valuable purpose in promoting the overall well being of society."

IB represents the sour ilk of religious folk that are so easy to hate and attack. They're not all like him (thank god), but there are enough of the puckered lip, wrinkled brow, head shaking losers like him that try to make everybody else as miserable as they are. They get very disappointed when they fail, as in the case that eCat mentions above. IB perfectly represents HL Mencken's definition of puritanism: the haunting fear that somebody somewhere is happy. Just look at how many marriages and relationships IB has personally ruined. It's what he does and he no doubt enjoys it. Misery loves company...

its good to have a point of view that is a bit extreme here (and different than quite frankly, all of ours regardless of where we fall in the political spectrum) so I like to read what he says even if I walk away scratching my head and have no idea how to even respond.

I'll admit there is some comedy value in watching somebody repeatedly prove that they are a fool, and even IB's sanctimoniousness has an absurd tinge that makes it impossible to take too seriously. So I realize he is nothing more than a blubbering, harmless fool. But I still despise him...

Obama invoked executive privilege to keep documents being released on the Fast and Furious operation that Holder is being held responsible for.

So much for transparency.

[youtube]bpwYh9TD6Nc[/youtube]

hedge wrote:"It must be quite disconcerting that the act you find so morally wrong serves a valuable purpose in promoting the overall well being of society."

IB represents the sour ilk of religious folk that are so easy to hate and attack. They're not all like him (thank god), but there are enough of the puckered lip, wrinkled brow, head shaking losers like him that try to make everybody else as miserable as they are. They get very disappointed when they fail, as in the case that eCat mentions above. IB perfectly represents HL Mencken's definition of puritanism: the haunting fear that somebody somewhere is happy. Just look at how many marriages and relationships IB has personally ruined. It's what he does and he no doubt enjoys it. Misery loves company...

Our counseling center is intended to try and help save marriages that may be ending, not to end them. We do that because we believe that marriage is good and makes people happy.

hedge wrote:Good god you are a simpleton...

Human beings are simple people

Perhaps, but you are amoeba-like...

Human beings are simple people

I can only assume that this is ascribing "people" status to some other complex beings other than "human beings"

who sponsors your counseling center IB? the gummint? a church? is it for-profit?

are you a counselor? an admin?