Posts made by flozen

@Frederick:

@USHorizon:

I was hoping he'd announce his resignation…and that he was taking Pence and the other GOP leadership with him.

Oh, by the way, Frederick, you're hilarious!  Best satire I've read in a long time!

What an interesting profile you have there DrHorizon.    It's over 3 years old, yet in all that time you have only posted 9 messages,  and downloaded 5 GB.   I do more than that in ONE DAY. 
I see that you already earned a negative reputation.     :blownose:

I didn't see any important announcement from Trump on the third – at least any that could be attributed to Trump's influence.  He is a marvel of impotence who is coasting on Obama's eight-year economic recovery -- including the stock market.

The change in party affiliation of that WV governor?  Snooze.  It must be sunny in them hills, because the necks get redder in that state with each passing year.

Maybe Trump will announce something important -- like a birdie -- when he embarks on his obscene, self-entitled, 17-day vacation.

And I freely admit that this is an area where Trump is simply crushing Obama -- he will have clocked 53 "leisure" days by his first August, compared to Obama's 15 in the same period:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/04/politics/donald-trump-vacation-obama/index.html

As far as Negative Reputation, it's something to be owned with pride, because the people giving it to you are the greatest purveyors of retrograde, nonsensical content in this Forum.   :cheers:

@TroopK:

Thalidomide has not been available in the UK since 1961

The topic of thalidomide still resonates with me, as I was born only a year after it was taken off the market.  And during college in Florida I had a British classmate who had been a "thalidomide baby," with the ensuing birth defects.

The U.S. was largely spared the drug's devastating effects through the work of Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, who took on the pharmacy giants when she had too many unanswered questions about the brand-name version in a sedative called Kevadon, which reached her desk for review at the FDA in 1960.

Dr. Kelsey passed away only recently (2015) at the age of 101, and her obituary provides a window into that different era, and personal details about a lesser-known hero of modern medicine:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/science/frances-oldham-kelsey-fda-doctor-who-exposed-danger-of-thalidomide-dies-at-101.html

Washington DC was, indeed, built on reclaimed swamp, but it does have the distinction of a city street plan created by the renowned Pierre L'Enfant, and the National Mall in particular, benefits from his vision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Enfant_Plan

Trump certainly appreciates the Mall – so much so, that he imagined it full of a record-setting crowd for his Inauguration!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-inauguration-crowd-size/index.html

The real shame here is that we have a President who is such an unqualified vulgarian, that he would call our country's most revered residence a "dump."

Anyone with discernment who has seen a garish, gold-plated, Trump-designed business property – and I passed the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street for many years getting to work at 72 -- knows the brutal, self-absorbed excess that he considers good taste.

@raphjd:

I've never had an STD/STI.

I'd say that anyone (male or female) willing to take dick behind a dumpster at the back of a chippie is gonna have lots of diseases.

On the first point, cheers and congratulations.

On the second point, I was unaware gay men have faced such a mighty hurdle, running wanton women out of their favorite illicit cruising spots for (often unprotected) anonymous sex, where STDs are common.

Get those lascivious ladies away from my dumpster, out from under my pier, and away from my preferred train station bathroom stalls!  I have no doubt these disruptions are being coordinated (silently, of course) by our sworn enemies, the feminists.

@raphjd:

I did not say that feminists are behind this policy.

I said that feminists are fucking liars when they claim that they are about gender equality.    They are always silent when males are at a disadvantage.  Reverse the genders and feminists would lose their minds.

97% of British dentists and 94% of British doctors say that both should be vaccinated.

So… 94% of British doctors are pro-HPV vax, and I have read that the number of female doctors in the U.K. is approaching 50 percent.

If just half of these women doctors (I'm betting, more) consider themselves feminists, then we already have identified a substantial pool of feminists -- in the most critical work sector -- who believe that boys should get the HPV vaccine.  They are NOT silent; they have voiced an opinion on HPV treatment in that poll, and want to provide for children of both genders equally.

As well, how about British mothers who consider themselves feminists, and want that protection offered to all their children.  These feminists don't want men (boys, here) at a disadvantage for this health care.

Moving away from the specific, HPV vax issue, all the ground rules for proper debate are thrown aside with blanket, unsupported statements like "Feminists are f-cking liars." and "They are always silent when men are at a disadvantage."  If you want to debate, then offer an opinion, and back it up with evidence.  And where is the self-applied cop hat for the uncivil cursing?  Forum rules, not mine.

Honestly, are there any other inhibiting behaviors we can display to keep new voices away from this Politics and Debate Forum, now that the sum total of posting members is hovering in the high single digits?

@Frederick:

One way to greatly reduce STDs is to never have sex with females.  They are incubators for diseases. 
Unless someone wants to have children, they should never have sex with a female.  In fact, they could resort to artificial insemination to avoid sex with women.

Oh, Frederick.  On other threads, you have documented your self-described issues with women family members in the earlier part of your life.  It doesn't make these new remarks any less inappropriate, offensive or inaccurate.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2015/std-surveillance-report-press-release.html

_P&S syphilis among men who have sex with men (MSM) has been increasing since at least 2000. In 2014, rates of P&S syphilis increased among MSM, who account for 83 percent of reported cases among men when the sex of the partner is known. Also concerning is that more than half of MSM (51 percent) diagnosed with syphilis in 2014 were also HIV-positive. Infection with syphilis can cause sores on the genitals, which make it easier to transmit and acquire HIV.

Syphilis is currently the only STD for which information on the sex of the sex partner is reported. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that MSM are experiencing similar increases in gonorrhea and chlamydia infections– underscoring the need to further understand what is contributing to the rise._

raphjd, I agree that it's indefensible for the NHS to not offer the HPV vaccine to boys and girls equally, and that the argument "vaccinating girls gives boys a 'herd protection.'" is simply not good enough.

However, I see no evidence to support your claim that feminists – a term you seem to equate to women with strong opinions -- are behind this NHS policy recommendation.

From your own Guardian article:  _"Critics called the decision 'indefensible'. The Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH), a membership body for healthcare professionals who work in sexual and reproductive health, said the decision should be reversed when the JCVI meets again in October.

Asha Kasliwal, the FSRH president, said the interim decision to deny boys the HPV vaccination was a huge missed opportunity for improving long-term sexual and reproductive health outcomes and tackling gender inequality."_

Asha is a woman.  (Sorry, I don't know if she wears plaid shirts in her free time.)

A very quick Google search turns up an article as far back as 2012, authored by the director of research in the Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, UK.  It was published in Nature, an international weekly journal of science.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7413_supp/full/488S10a.html is headlined:

_Perspective: Vaccinate boys too

HPV-associated cancers in men are on the rise. By not vaccinating boys we are failing to gain maximum health benefit, argues Margaret Stanley._

Yes, per her photo, Marge is a apparently a pearl-wearing femi-nazi, so artfully concealed!

And just to see, I Googled "women's groups opposing hpv vaccination boys" and found squat.  Can you provide citations (no YouTube ranters with tin-foil hats, please) to support the assertion that even fringe women's groups are against HPV for boys?  I've already shown two prominent women, of many, who are anything but silent in supporting boys' vaccinations.

Do that, and I can truly say I learned something new.

Not sure if this article would help your father, Frederick, if he's already Medicaid-enrolled.  It certainly could be useful for those Forum members with retirement and potential Medicaid-eligibility on the horizon.

If anything, it's an interesting look at how the Medicaid system can be manipulated by those who employ a specialized lawyer, a strategy, and some specific financial moves.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/the-ethics-of-adjusting-your-assets-to-qualify-for-medicaid/ar-AAoINFG?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=spartanntp

@Frederick:

It is a fact that both Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were not pro black.  It is absurd for people to characterize Jefferson and Lincoln in that way.  They were both extremely racist.  As a lawyer, Lincoln referred to black people as "niggers".  Jefferson had kept thousands of slaves himself.  Neither of them considered black people to be people.  While that may sound outrageous, you need only look at publications from the civil war.  One article that caught my eye was one where a ship sank, and the article said three people, two dogs, and eight niggers were killed.  That is unbelievable in the context of today, but was typical of that time.  The History Channel recently did a documentary about Jefferson.. and despite liking black people enough to bear children with them, he did not consider them to be human.  When he wrote "all men are created equal", he didn't take black people into account.  I would add that he didn't include WOMEN either.. he was referring to white men.  I don't support Jefferson's racism, but it is important to realize that the true meaning of the U.S. Constitution has been twisted severely.  Both Jefferson and Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery.. not to free black people, but to prevent more black people from coming in to the country.  They wanted to send the black people already here back to Africa. 
It isn't healthy to have a distorted view of history.  Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Lincoln were all fairly despicable people by today's standards.  One interesting thing.. George Washington was an extremely clever man, an expert as espionage and deception, and this country would not exist without him, because the US was grossly outnumbered and outpowered by Britain.  I didn't even get into how vice president Aaron Burr murdered Alexander Hamilton. 
Oh, and then there is president Andrew Jackson - who is on the $20 bill.  He called for killing every native American Indian man, woman, and child.  He pretty much did so.  That is the same Andrew Jackson who is the father of the Democratic Party.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2e9ac8

I'm sorry, what are we supposed to interpret from your Early Presidents' Review?

Are you suggesting that since the Founding Fathers held imperfect views on what constituted true equality, and their actions were sometimes in opposition to modern humanitarian goals, that these historical examples provide people, today, with a "bookmark" to validate their own prejudicial views or actions toward minorities and women?

It sounds like all your puffery about the "true meaning" of the Constitution is to suggest that it was a purer and superior document in its original form, speaking only to white men.

But you see, over the years, the U.S. realized the need to broaden the notions of liberty and fairness in the original Constitution through Amendments.  While I'm sure you're familiar with the Thirteenth Amendment (abolishing slavery), and the Nineteenth Amendment (granting women's suffrage), you don't seem as excited about recalling those landmarks.

And what is up with your thread's name?  Did the 40-second Dave Chappelle clip on those topics make you laugh?  Or are you genuinely concerned about gays in the KKK?  Hiring black people to mow lawns?  More likely, Dave just made you a little angry and threatened via comedy satire.

So, I'm afraid this is another nonsensical thread of yours, with the purpose of venting thinly veiled race- and gender-bias allusions.  (And not like a comedy sketch – we get it, you are serious.)

If I'm wrong, please be more specific about the discussion we should be having, as applied to this modern Politics & Debate forum.

@Frederick:

Do you seriously believe that a multi billionaire goes to mainstream healthcare providers with health insurance?  He has his own personal physicians.  In fact, one reason the Secret Service don't like Trump is that he often uses his own personal security.

Apparently the democrats don't think that the people covered by Obamacare deserve any insurance, because Obamacare is insolvent - a ticking time bomb that is in an irrecoverable death spiral.

At the risk of repeating myself, Frederick, I think your theory of younger people not needing to buy insurance coverage in our U.S health care system is flawed.  Why should they be allowed to not participate, when they will surely want help with medical services somewhere down the road?

I see a false narrative in the opening post that is repeated often here in terms of health care, and I would like to identify it and be done with it.

Too often, the argument here is:  The young, beautiful and virtuous shouldn't have to pay for insurance coverage, since their premiums go to provide care for nasty, old, dissolute people whose need for health care is their "fault," because of bad choices that made them overweight, smokers, etc.

Even in the example at top, the young dancer/hookers are using the money they saved – by avoiding evil insurance -- for college!  How noble!  (Why is that detail even relevant?  I guess they are pole dancing for independent study credits towards a degree as sexy Human Resources.)

Aren't middle-aged, pot-bellied, GED-holding bartenders in that same club deserving of health care, too?  Eye care for an older teacher of special-needs children?   A 40-year old construction worker with skin cancer?  Or is that last guy less worthy for not using more sunscreen?

Where do all these people fit in this game of blame?  And knowing the risks of all that gyrating, did those insurance-avoiding pole dancers have the foresight to put aside $300,000 for that mid-life slipped disc operation?

The current U.S. system can only lurch ahead, with great imperfection, via a CYCLICAL mechanism that compels those young, healthy (and apparently STD-free?) hookers to pay in early, on the front end, for their likelihood of greater utilization in later years.  That is, until the U.S. joins every other developed nation with some form of single-payer plan.

And for those who are in countries with national health care, and think it's so inferior to U.S. insurance companies, that may have been true a decade or two back.  Today, private plans (including my not-for-profit "Blue Shield") are also a living hell of long waits -- same as universal care -- but then magnified by endless haggling for prior authorizations, coupled with higher deductibles, rising copayments, and onward and downward.

@Frederick:

By the way.. in regards to SNL, other than Alec Baldwin (who is not a cast member of SNL) and the incessant attacks on Trump, nobody talks about SNL at all.  They need to pull the plug on that show.  I think they would get better ratings by broadcasting re-runs of 'The Carol Burnett Show" in that time slot.

Now, as for SNL, Frederick, this is when you (again) take your opinions – but declare them as facts -- and the exact opposite is true.

"Why Saturday Night Live’s Ratings This Season Are Unprecedented":
http://www.vulture.com/2017/05/saturday-night-live-ratings-this-season-are-unprecedented.html

TV Ratings: 'SNL' Season Ends With 6-Year Finale High":
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-snl-season-ends-6-year-finale-high-1005995

And as far as SNL and the awards season:

http://www.goldderby.com/article/2017/sean-spicer-resigns-saturday-night-live-snl-2017-emmys-melissa-mccarthy-alec-baldwin-donald-trump-news/

"‘Saturday Night Live could win 4 acting Emmys for ‘SNL’ standouts Melissa McCarthy (Sean Spicer), Alec Baldwin (Donald Trump) and …"

_White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has just resigned from office, making us wish “Saturday Night Live” aired during the summer months so we could see Melissa McCarthy‘s hilarious take on the situation. McCarthy is just one of the nine “SNL” performers recognized at this year’s Emmys, from the show’s overall total of 22 nominations.

"The others are recurring player Alec Baldwin for Best Comedy Supporting Actor, regulars Kate McKinnon, Vanessa Bayer and Leslie Jones for Best Comedy Supporting Actress, and hosts Kristen Wiig, Dave Chappelle, Tom Hanks and Lin-Manuel Miranda as Best Comedy Guest performers. Can the show actually do the unthinkable and win four acting Emmys this year?"_
You could have attacked SNL with your tired old canards re: liberal media (not that we'd care to hear that again).  Instead, you wanted us to believe your alternative facts – which in the end, were not facts at all.

And as a return to this topic's thread, I can hardly wait to see the inevitable SNL sketch of sketchy Anthony Scaramucci.

@Frederick:

I find it disturbing that Sutieday celebrates the attacks on government officials by the media.

Oh – THAT's rich, F, for you to pontificate on attacking government officials, when earlier this week, on the day Senator John McCain was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, you started the thread:

Rosie is at it again.. and McCain OFFICIALLY has a dysfunctional brain:
https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=51456.0

Disassociate much?

Yes, I feel you in the first-line cross-out.  How much of Spicer's departure was fired, and how much of it resigned?  He must have known the axe was inevitable.

Honestly, between Spicer in the a.m., and the afternoon of (take your pick):

Sessions/more Russia campaign contacts;
or
Kushner/more late financial revelations;

…it may very well be the saddest day of the Trumpidency.

So far.

@aadam101:

I wonder why he would need to pardon himself?  Any guesses?  Frederick? Mhorndisk? Anyone?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343059-trump-lawyers-discussing-presidential-pardon-powers-possible-mueller

I couldn't find any crickets in my back yard, let alone ones that could type, so I will just quote my favorite passage from your link:

_"Trump himself has talked to advisers about his ability to pardon his aides, family members and himself in the investigations, according to the Post, though one adviser cautioned that the president's inquiries were made in curiosity rather than in connection to the Russia probes.

“'This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,' the adviser said."_

Whatever that adviser is paid, it's not enough.  :crazy2:

@Frederick:

@flozen:

@Frederick:

Rosie O'Donnell didn't get the memo on Kathy Griffin.. but then again, Rosie's personal and professional lives couldn't get any worse, so suggesting that people throw Trump off a cliff can't hurt her.

As for crazy John McCain, he has been officially diagnosed with brain cancer.   I'm not sure about a senator, but if a president was diagnosed with brain cancer, he would be replaced.

Rotten apples and oranges, topical mish-mash.

Why are you creating a "hate dumpster," when you could open two separate threads, and hate these people in a more individualized manner?

Because unlike you, I try to avoid spam while you try to create as much as possible.

I think a celebrity suggesting that the president be thrown off a cliff, and one of the 100 senators - who has been a senator for several decades - departing the Senate due to brain cancer.. are both significant news stories.

I know you hate REAL news… which is one reason your reputation keeps dropping...

Why even try to mop-up your words at this point?  Starting a thread about Senator McCain having a "dysfunctional brain," and calling him "crazy," on the same day he is diagnosed with brain cancer, is grotesque and inexcusable.

Add that to your Reputation score.

@Frederick:

Rosie O'Donnell didn't get the memo on Kathy Griffin.. but then again, Rosie's personal and professional lives couldn't get any worse, so suggesting that people throw Trump off a cliff can't hurt her.

As for crazy John McCain, he has been officially diagnosed with brain cancer.   I'm not sure about a senator, but if a president was diagnosed with brain cancer, he would be replaced.

Rotten apples and oranges, topical mish-mash.

Why are you creating a "hate dumpster," when you could open two separate threads, and hate these people in a more individualized manner?

@Frederick:

I would suggest dropping this Trump / Russia garbage.   It is just a distraction and irrelevant.

(edited for brevity, angels weep with joy…)

Can't you find something better to debate other than lick the sweat from Don Lemon's vagina and Rachel Maddow's balls?

If we have no knowledge of what Trump discussed for that long hour with Putin, and given Donnie's loose lips in the past, this is most certainly not an irrelevant distraction.

(I do, however, like your sexy newscaster talk at the end, which is distracting in the best way, and completely relevant.)   :hug:

When you look at Trump's agenda… including his crazed efforts to leave 32 million (more) uninsured...

...accomplishing next-to-nothing IS the best accomplishment one might hope for!

Video:  "Trump Very Disappointed with Health Bill's Failure"

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/economy/senate-repeal-bill-cbo/index.html

Allow me to add just a wee (wee wee?) bit more to the topic.

"President Donald Trump's just-disclosed hourlong meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin during the G-20 summit — using a Kremlin translator, with no national security staff present — may have damaged U.S. interests, according to some national security experts."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-putin-meeting-raises-red-flags-national-security-experts-n784601

"With no other witness or note-taker of the sort normally present on the American side, there's no guarantee that Trump or Putin's words were translated correctly — or that Trump didn't give away more classified information, as he did when top Russian officials came to the White House in May."

As for the issue of whether or not Trump's second (and solo, dangerously unrehearsed) meeting between geopolitical rivals was unusual:

"Experts who spoke to NBC News also said the impromptu tete-a-tete in Germany, while not unprecedented, represented a break with protocol that other nations could not have helped but notice.

'In spending so much time with Putin he was not spending time with other leaders. Both regarding substance and symbolism, that's important," said Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia.'"

Trump and call girl, squatting happily, P-I-S-S-I-N-G.   :cheers: