Fwd: The Cosmos of Rick...

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 7:17 pm
Subject: The Cosmos of Rick...

                            The Cosmos of Rick: Odd Couple - Adam and Kevin

                         by Richard DePersio (Citizen Journalist is still missing

                                                                 as we go to press)

Once again, we present arguments off of the beaten path.

Homosexuality: The religious state accurately that homo is immoral according to

the Bible and are incapable and unwilling to go further. Libs maintain that it is

simply a matter of understanding and compassion. We say: Let's examine it

scientifically.

Sociobiology: This field began to form in the 1940s; it is relatively new. Some

biochemists, geneticists, psychiatrists and psychologists think that our behavior

is largely determined genetically. You can be born with a strong homo or

criminal or nasty or greedy or etc. gene. Recently, the prestigious John Hopkins

Medical Center claimed that you can be born with a strong pedophile gene. If

you are born with a strong gene, there is a 90% that you will grow up to possess

that personality trait. Other biochemists, geneticists, etc. think that these

constitute inclinations. If you are born with a strong nasty gene, there's a

slightly better chance of your growing up to be nasty because you personality is

determined by biology/nature - 50% and environment/nurture - 50%. The latter will

ultimately determine personality. (It's one or the other).

Traditional biology: Humans have the most advanced brains, therefore, aren't slaves

of their biology; Religion would say: Humans were given free will.

Those who maintain that we are largely genetically determined are ignoring our

advanced brains and are making excuses for bad behavior. Libs contend that

criminals shouldn't be punished too severely, if at all, because they can't help

having criminal natures and that homos are born that way - as are scum peds.

What about the 50/50-ers? Why don't they drop their genes (if attractive, I want to

be present in lab when this transpires; heterosexual here). Why can't they say: we

are the result of everything that we learned in the order that we learned it; everything

that we experienced in the order that we experienced; everyone that we have known,

especially, in most cases, parents.

Although, the following might be factors: the amount of testosterone the fetus is

exposed to after 5 months gestation might determined more aggressive boys from

less aggressive boys; more aggressive girls from less - in rare cases, some nearly

 as aggressive as boys. The top of our brain is devided into two halves - boys are more

 right-hemisphered while girls left. - But we are not slaves of biology - - it might be

harder and take longer but girl can excel at r-h functions.

Traditional psychiatry/psychology: Homos is abnormal, Decades of research was

discarded like old panties in the early '80s due to pressure from the gay lobby and

feminist orgs- sacrificed at the lib alter. It was now a normal but alternate lifestyle.

How can we still consider psychiatry a medical 'science' and psychology a social

'science.'

Let's return to the idea of homos being born that way. Statement: I am saying things

that even conservative politicians are afraid to say; I am saying things that the

minority of moderate and conservative scientists are afraid to say (those that have

political positions); the religious can't and won't say - they're limited to just the

religious argument which won't suffice nowadays. More lesbos than gay-boys

want to be parents by adopting or in vitro (30%, 15% respectively), and only 5% of the

population is homo, therefore, they are...Offending with Truth and who can forget

how CJ used to describe himself: CITIZEN Your Shoot-from-the-Hop/Non-PC Cripple

JOURNALIST...they are bad mutations or freaks in evolutionary terms because only

5% and evolutionary disadvantageous" wouldn't be inclined to support survival-of-the-

species if we were faced with possible extinction.

We don't think that they were born that way. They are the byproduct of a traumatic

experience prior to the age of five or poor upbringing. They can be cured but must

strongly want it - consciously and subconsciously; must work hard at it.

Alternative: Our advanced brains are meaningless; we don't possess free will; homos

are freaks; criminals, including, peds must be treated with kid cloves.

Gov and society shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning unnatural/abnormal/immoral

behavior. They claim to be victims of verbal; and physical gay bashing - stay in the damn closet!!!

If you want to go around talking about you abborent behavior: I like boys

instead of girls; I like to be spanked; I like to be tied up. You're asking to be teased or worse.

Archie comic book introduced gay character, Kevin, who was participating in a 'gay pride'

him to tutor his stepson. Townshend would later become Chancellor of the Exchequer,

responsible a long with the king, for the notorious tax on American tea. Returning to Scotland

in 1766, he entered scholarly retirement and wrote his most famous book, "Wealth of Nations."

More downstairs: Use stairs; elevator out-of-order.

parade; later, he was spun off into his own comic. Infiltrating the world of the innocent for

the purpose of indoctrination.

Nearly twenty states are teaching first graders that all families are equal: mom/dad; two

moms; two dads; one mom; one dad; whatever else. Yet, every study over the past

fifteen years has shown that a child is best off in mom/dad household functional followed

by mom/dad dysfunctional followed by single parent functional and sing dys. It made lie out

of feminist claim: a women can do it all well - man optional. It also demonstrates how

libs will sacrifice education for brain-washing.

                                ADAM SMITH: The LIGHTER SIDE

Adam had a curious stumbling gait that a friend described as "vermicular." And. he was an

absent-minded professor. On one occasion, absorbed in discussion, he fell into a

tanning pit. A successful author, he came to the attention of Lord Townshend, who engaged

Fwd: WELCOME to MY WORLD...

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 22, 2012 8:48 pm
Subject: WELCOME to MY WORLD...
                                               Tying Up Loose Ends:

                              WELCOME to MY WORLD, SIT DOWN, MAKE YOURSELF
                                COMFORTABLE, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE to DRINK?

 by Richard DePersio sans Citizen Journalist (who is at Andy's favorite fishing hole in Mayberry)

The other night, we saw "Star Trek" (2009) - our critique: writing stellar; directing  and acting:

dwarf planet level. We intend to 'Offend with Truth' in Citizen Journalist's absence. The most

important elements in a movie or TV series in order: Writer, Director, Producer, Actor. The latter is

an over-paid puppet for the writer puts the words in his or her mouth and the director pulls the

strings: telling the actor how to use his voice and body. The theatrical actor is on a par with the

director for it is live and they must tackle unforeseen contingencies. Pay us the big bucks and we

can flub or lines with the best of them! Five, ten, fifteen takes mostly the fault of the actors - cast and

crew laugh -- but not the studio (movie), executive producer and/or studio and/or network (TV) for time

is money. They have so little respect for their craft, in spite of, being paid stupid money to learn

their lines - too much partying! It doesn't take talent to act: just a personality-type who is comfortable

speaking/moving in front of others/lights/cameras. Name another job in which you can

continuously screw up and not be fired. Have you seen most actors on talk shows sans writer/

director - pathetic... or impressive to little minds! Time doesn't suffice for us to explain why the

producer's role is more critical than that of the puppet.

National Standardized Tests and State-Wide Tests:

       First Place: Private schools (most of which are Catholic) students on average score higher

than

       Second Place: Home-schooled and Charter School kids, who, in turn, score higher than

       Third Place: Public Magnet school youngsters

       Last Place: Regular Public school 'don't you just feel sorry for them' kids.

Prior to the '60s, public schools were nearly as good as Catholic schools when it came to

education and discipline.

       What happened? We have increased funding for public schools 5-fold since the '60s.

Observations: the first and biggest teacher's union formed in the early '60s; beginning in '64,

the school day would no longer begin and end with a prayer/the Bible could no longer be used

to help teach English (policies which go back to our nation's founding were deemed unconstitut-

ional by the U.S. Supreme Court which had the audacity to believe that it know more about

the U.S. Constitution than the Founding Fathers!); in '78, with the establishment of the

Department of Education, fed gov (we believe unconstitutionally) got more involved (we don't think

it should be involved at all except for giving funds to the states for education - which it doesn't

always give without strings attached as to how it must be spent) with education.

       Look at second place. Parents (over 60% are strongly religious of those involved in home-

schooling) are better teachers than public  school teachers (partly because unions have made

it virtually impossible for incompetent teachers to be fired by principals).

       Libs claim that public school teachers aren't paid enough. Charter school teachers are paid

less. Libs claim that schools don't get enough funding. Regular public schools get more $$$s than

magnets; charters even less. Unions have no say when it comes to charters and have less say

regarding magnets than they do regs. It varies from city to city: on average tuition for private elementary

and high schools is $7000 per year; on average: it costs $14,000 a year to 'educate' a student in a

reg, about $12,00 for mags and $10,000 for charters. Students on regs far more so than the other

types are not receiving an education but an indoctrination into lib philosophy (lib science, lib

revisionist American and world history, lib sex ed; some reg highs are introducing anti-capitalist

concepts into math classes - this will sure prepare these kids for adult American society. Do you - the

taxpayer - think that you are getting your moneys-worth (rhetorical question) and do you think that this

bodes will for America's future (another rhetorical). Of course, libs have a solution: increase funding

for regs, in other words, throw good money after bad is  their mantra when a program is failing.

       If we care about kids, we would do away with regs. Is it they we care more about unions!?!

Shocker: Mr. Progressive (lib) himself - FDR - hoped that there would never be public sector unions!

The dirty little secret that all educated people know about (are you educated?) but are afraid to talk

about - even conservatives. We're not afraid. In the early '80s, feminist orgs complained that very few

 vaginas could pass the mental and physical tests to get into police academies and virtually none who

did could successfully graduate. So they made the tests easier for everybody (unlike the military

which just lowered standards for women - go one floor down - walk, elevator is out-of-order) which

is why there are so many over-weight and semi-literate cops (some cities made it easier to graduate

than other cities). Cities denied that they had lowered standards for the sake of women, claiming that

they had modernized the tests - but everyone knew the truth and swore to keep their months shut - -

except for a few of us who have been talking about it for over 25 years: lib policy trumped public safety!!!

       Partners are suppose to protect each other but not spend an inordinate amount of time

doing so. We knew a retired cop who didn't care if women were now permitted to do the same duties

as men - just so long as he didn't have a female partner. He said, "Men protect women. I

shouldn't have to spend inappropriate amount of time protecting my partner; keeping an eye on her.

Subconsciously, bad guys would fire more bullets in my direction; I only wanted what was due me."

Fwd: CITIZEN Offending with Truth JOURNALIST

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 15, 2012 9:42 pm
Subject: CITIZEN Offending with Truth JOURNALIST

                           CITIZEN Offending with Truth JOURNALIST

    As Sgt. Friday used to say: "Just the facts, ma'am." Our Motto: "We Report/You

              Decide As Yogi Berra used to say: "It's deja vu' all over again

       (Do we have enough titles? Or, put another way, Is our title long enough?)

(The following demonstrates the Citizen Journalist style quite well: while others are

employing just the one argument: the natural inclination to protect; CJ will present

numerous some original, thereby, giving his moderate and conservative readers

ample ammunition. As always, feel free to email this and other posts, we only ask

that we are credited. Please tell friends that they can connect to CJCS Comsats

(web sites) via Facebook - Second American Revolution. Thank You)

Women in uniform are hot!...The TRUTH ABOUT WOMEN IN UNIFORM...

LIBERAL SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION VS. NATIONAL DEFENSE...

Our military is planning to allow women to serve near the front line in war-time.

Is this in the best interest of our security or is this the consequence of

liberal political pressure? What are the facts? In basic training (Army and

Air Force) and in boot camp (Navy and Marines) women don't train with

and aren't graded against men. Why? It is felt that the male recruit is

somewhat immature and might engage in verbal and/or physical harassment

of sexual, as well as, non-sexual nature. This constitutes an absurd mode

of thinking. It should logically follow that the male recruit is too immature

to wear a uniform. Further, aren't women capable of defending themselves!?!

The other reason is unspoken...we shall speak it...women wouldn't perform

as well as men if their were to train and compete together. Feminists would

have a fit that women were being humiliated. At the same time, feminists

try to gloss over the difference between the genders. Feminists chose to

ignore the fact that women have to reach lower standards - mental and

physical - on tests in order to pass basic and boot - and now they should be

allowed near the front! You could have an all-male army and succeed but not an

all-female or all-homo. What about morale? Recently, the military ended Don't Ask/

Don't Tell - in spite of the fact that over 60% of Infantrymen, Marines and Special Forces

didn't want to serve with homos. Parading their Perversion in Public...and in barracks!

 MILITARY MORALE SHOULD TRUMP LIBERAL SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION!!! We

assume that their opinions and objections will be ignored regarding opening up combat

positions near the front to the female. A male soldier doesn't always secure the

occupation that he requests. If he is assigned a combat position, he can't opt out.

Women would be afforded the option. Further, they will be afforded the opportunity to opt

out of a dangerous assignment meaning that a unit might have to perform a task with fewer

individuals than are deemed necessary. Presently, women serve in support

roles. In Iraq, that did walk the streets (as street walkers, we josh) a long

with males when all the fighting in that town (a type of front) was over - all the fighting

 having been done by males. It was dangerous for their were snipers. A role that

women, heretofore, had not assumed. We bet that their were more female

casualties than male. Of course, we will never know: the U.S. Military fears

feminists orgs like N.O.W. On the other hand, there might have been fewer

female casualties, as of result of, male protection. (We confirmed most of the pre-

ceeding with a former soldier who did two tours in Iraq; rest-various sources).

Lest year, we saw a doc on basic training in which males and females - separately, of course -

had to crawl on their stomachs pretending that bullets were being fired above

them. One soldier had the additional task of pulling a heavy load. The male

struggled but succeeded. The female couldn't; two other females had to drift

back to assist her. The narrator said that the important thing was that the job had

been done and that women generally achieved goals via cooperation more often

than men. Let's objectively analyze the situation; three people doing the job of

one is a positive?; what if those two soldiers were need for something else,

they were no longer available; three soldiers clustered together making for an

easier target is a positive!?!

Who can forget America's heroin...pardon me, hero Jessica Lynch, the first

female soldier to be captured in Iraq. The liberal media, feminist groups and the new

politically-correct military made her into a hero. She was a support soldier who

found herself in proximity to the enemy. Why? Should didn't know how to use a

compass and read a map (How did she pass basic? - That's right, we know how). Was

she a hero for getting lost? Was she a hero for attempting to avoid capture? No;

she didn't do that. Was she a hero for saving lives? No, again. After capture did

she attempt to escape - no, we were told that she was too wounded to do so (Is it

possible that she was too terrified; we'll never know). They don't make heroes like

they used to (forgive me for Offending with Truth and forgive me for ending a

sentence with a proposition!!). LIBERAL SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION.

America's joke: the new military. Be all that you can be in the sissy army. There

was an expression used by real soldiers in WW1: "Praise the Lord and pass the

ammunition." The modern version should be: Praise the Lord and pass the lipstick.

HOLD IT! Lord? God is being removed from the military - a tradition dating back to our

nation's founding due to new minority rule in the military (for more on this, as well as,

women in uniform {learn about the dirty little secret concerning women cops} visit web

site Citizenj - you can connect via Facebook: Second American Revolution).

Do you have a strange feeling of having been there before?

Several years ago what is about to happen in Army had already transpired - The case of

the Navy and Marines: The Tail Hook Incident: Male Marines sexually assaulted

and harassed female officers. All cases were one-on-one; none of the women could

successfully defend themselves - what malfunctioned regarding the female fighting

machines!?! Result: Billy-boy Clinton decided to punish all fighter jocks in Navy and Marines

by making them except females in combat flying roles. No studies to determine if fems could

handle it or what effect it would have on male aviators: their balls had to be shrunk! We now

 know the result of that LIBERAL SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION. According to former Navy

Secretary John Lehman and many others the warrior/fighter jock culture has been diluted.

The old swagger and confidence removed. Standards have been lowered for those

with vaginas so that they can pass - males are compelled to pass them. It is reasonable

to assume that fem casualties are higher, on the other hand, it could be male due to

incompetent flying whores or due to males maneuvering to protect them, thereby,

endangering themselves. Male nature: protect women! Public will never be supplied with

data because now the military is afraid of N.O.W. (National Organization of Women).

Before all-volunteer military was establisheded in '74, only nurses allowed near the front not at

it like corpsman and medics. Female support soldiers weren't allowed to bring supplies to

the front, as a result. temporarily be there - that too will change. Getting back to the Navy

and Marines, we'd like to proposes to new mottos for them: Fly your Flag, Sail and Skirt

High; When Fighter Jock Fly, Shoot Them in the Fly.

Fwd: BACK in CJ's World...

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 5:44 pm
Subject: Fwd: BACK in CJ's World...

                                        BACK in CITIZEN JOURNALIST's WORLD

                                       by Citizen Journalist with Richard DePersio

 

CJ: "I thought that I was too old to take up the guitar (39 like Jack Benny). I might

reconsider!

 

RD muses about CJ (and comes up with his own interpretation of Hopper

painting): 1) Shakespeare: "All the world's a stage and All the men and women merely

players." 2) Hawthorn: "No one can wear one face to himself and another to the

multitude without finally getting bewildered as to which may be true."

No; CJ is not a cross-dresser. Imagine male figures.

 

Citizen 'Crippled Communicator' Journalist: A cripple born without upper limbs was

forbidden from going on a ride at SeaWorld where at least one hand on safety bar is

required. Cripple is suing under the American Disabilities Act of 1990. SeaWorld

formulates his rules predicated on input from manufactures and safety experts. Rules

aren't frivolous but designed to protect their customers and to avoid liability law

suits.

I was hospitalized with a fractured rib in 1990. It was smoking in the lounge and

sipping brandy brought to me, upon my orders, by a younger chap. Upon leaving

lounge a nurse said: "I must have been seeing things; nobody would drink booze in

a hospital. Anyway, you must be so happy that ADA passed." I replied: "No; I

opposed it." Her face dropped. I set her straight:
I predict that it will be abused by the mental and/or physical cripples and that they

will mess-up the able-bodied world.  (I am aware of dozens of ridiculous and unreasonable

law suits levered against businesses of all sizes which cost the business money,

results in higher prices for all {worse when they win or business chooses to settle out

of court} and business might have used money to a hire a worker, perhaps, a semi-

broken person!

We live in capitalist society where free market forces should operate. What should

have happened? Fed and state govs should have recommended that businesses

accommodate these people. Perhaps, a local gov might offer a tax incentive. Let's

say that I own a small business - say, a restaurant - I should have options in a free

society. I might accommodate and secure their business. I might decide that Joe's

restaurant across the street is accommodating. There aren't that many of them in the

neighborhood - no reason that that have to have access to all restaurants in the area.

I might use my money to hire more workers; I might hire a semi-disabled.

(Remember: I'm a deist who favors school prayer. Unorthodox ideas predicated on sound

judgement).