New Riding Buddy (heheh)
Paladin
don't mind going through mtbr, here are some pictures from last night's
group ride that I host. For a little background, the FIQ (female in
question) is quite famous around here, and the slavering dogs on the ID
mtbr board make references to her every week...
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=216690
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=216903
CDB
your goodwill ambassador to the unridden masses
G.T.
"Paladin" <cdb...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:1155168890....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> For Mattb and others who appreciate the "finer things in life", and who
> don't mind going through mtbr, here are some pictures from last night's
> group ride that I host. For a little background, the FIQ (female in
> question) is quite famous around here, and the slavering dogs on the ID
> mtbr board make references to her every week...
>
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=216690
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=216903
>
Is she a pornstar?
Greg
Paladin
No, she's a Christian activist who happens to be quite attractive and a
real fun person. I think she feels safe with me, I'm almost old enough
to be her dad...
CDB
pete fagerlin
> Is she a pornstar?
Google says she is even more of a threat to
society than some STD-ridden porn star.
http://www.brandiswindell.org/about.asp
But I could be wrong...
Paladin
Just a really energetic gal who's out there acting on what she believes
in. That's the great thing about freedom, we can believe what we want,
pretty well say what we want, and if someone doesn't like it, and they
want to believesomething else, and even try to persuade others to his
or her way of thinking, that's when freedom rings... :)
CDB
Corvus Corvax
pete fagerlin wrote:
>
> http://www.brandiswindell.org/about.asp
Now that is some scary shit. Talk about Idaho living up to the
stereotype. Check the blog:
'Thank you to each who attended the Nampa Library Board meeting about
the removal of the sexually explicit and graphic materials, 'The Joy of
Sex' and 'The Joy of Gay Sex'.
Mike? How about "Mountain Bikers Advocate Book Banning"? Could be a
whole new direction for you.
CC
Corvus Corvax
Paladin wrote:
>
> Just a really energetic gal who's out there acting on what she believes
> in. That's the great thing about freedom, we can believe what we want,
> pretty well say what we want, and if someone doesn't like it, and they
> want to believesomething else, and even try to persuade others to his
> or her way of thinking, that's when freedom rings... :)
If you mean "fundamentalist nutjob trying to cram her religion down
everybody else's throats", then I'm with you there. Let freedom ring.
Hooooah!
CC
Bill Sornson
How do you type with your arms twisted behind your back while being forced
to look at her website(s)?
Bill "not my thing, but I'd sure ride with her" S.
G.T.
So she hasn't done any of that stuff she mentions in her blog? She's
never done anything but run her regressive little website?
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Corvus Corvax wrote:
>>
>>> Paladin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just a really energetic gal who's out there acting on what she
>>>> believes in. That's the great thing about freedom, we can believe
>>>> what we want, pretty well say what we want, and if someone doesn't
>>>> like it, and they want to believesomething else, and even try to
>>>> persuade others to his or her way of thinking, that's when freedom
>>>> rings... :)
>>
>>
>>> If you mean "fundamentalist nutjob trying to cram her religion down
>>> everybody else's throats", then I'm with you there. Let freedom
>>> ring. Hooooah!
>>
>>
>> How do you type with your arms twisted behind your back while being
>> forced to look at her website(s)?
>>
>
> So she hasn't done any of that stuff she mentions in her blog? She's
> never done anything but run her regressive little website?
Nothing's been crammed down my throat as yet. Why, what have you heard?
Corvus Corvax
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> How do you type with your arms twisted behind your back while being forced
> to look at her website(s)?
If she gets her legistlative agenda through, there might not be much
else to read. Brandi -- and I am not making this up -- is running for
public office in Boise on a platform of cutting funding for libraries
that stock books she doesn't like, and posting the Ten Commandments in
public parks:
http://www.brandiswindell.org/citycouncilrace.asp
Also from Brandi's web site:
'Last week, Nampa businessman Larry Knapp announced he would withhold a
$10,000
donation to the Nampa library because it would not remove the sex
books.
[...]
Brandi Swindell, the director of Generation Life who battled Boise
leaders over the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from city
property in 2004, sent out a news release about Knapp's decision and
has called on the Nampa business community to follow Knapp's lead.
She said her focus is on Nampa now because it seems to have more sex
books than other local libraries, but she plans to confront other
libraries that carry explicit material, especially those with graphic
images in their pages, including "The Joy of Sex."
If the city of Boise continues with plans to ask voters to approve a
bond for library expansion next year, library content will be part of
the debate, Swindell said.
"I'm sure it will be," she said. "This is something that the library
board in Boise should be thinking about." '
Reference:
http://www.brandiswindell.org/news.asp?id=26
CC
Carla A-G
Send me the pics, I can't see them on mtbr (not a member).
- CA-G
Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!
Mark Hickey
>pete fagerlin wrote:
>>
>> http://www.brandiswindell.org/about.asp
>
>Now that is some scary shit.
You're apparently very easily scared.
If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the thought
of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a Taliban-like society
(or kill us all if that doesn't work out) do to you? Just curious...
> Talk about Idaho living up to the
>stereotype. Check the blog:
>
>'Thank you to each who attended the Nampa Library Board meeting about
>the removal of the sexually explicit and graphic materials, 'The Joy of
>Sex' and 'The Joy of Gay Sex'.
There are actually parents out there who'd prefer to be the ones who
tell their children about sex, rather than have them getting it from
sources like the above.
Or maybe you wouldn't mind your (hypothetical) 8 year old daughter
checking out 'The Joy of Gay Sex' on her next trip to the library.
Perhaps it's just simpler to buy her a stack of porn DVDs and get it
over with, huh?
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
Corvus Corvax
Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the thought
> of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a Taliban-like society
> (or kill us all if that doesn't work out) do to you? Just curious...
When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference between
the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists,
except that they dress different. (The Christians are way tackier.)
> Or maybe you wouldn't mind your (hypothetical) 8 year old daughter
> checking out 'The Joy of Gay Sex' on her next trip to the library.
> Perhaps it's just simpler to buy her a stack of porn DVDs and get it
> over with, huh?
It's very simple, Mark: you don't get to use your religion to control
what I (or my children) read. It's none of your fucking business.
That's what actual freedom means.
CC
Ed Pirrero
Corvus Corvax wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> > Or maybe you wouldn't mind your (hypothetical) 8 year old daughter
> > checking out 'The Joy of Gay Sex' on her next trip to the library.
> > Perhaps it's just simpler to buy her a stack of porn DVDs and get it
> > over with, huh?
>
> It's very simple, Mark: you don't get to use your religion to control
> what I (or my children) read. It's none of your fucking business.
> That's what actual freedom means.
Right. Folks like Brandi assume I can't parent my own kids. That's
the assumption made when you try and legislate ANY morality. "I know
my kids are upright and wouldn't read that stuff, but those Corvax
kids..."
E.P.
small change
"Corvus Corvax" <corvus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155217379.0...@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
Mark?
ps
Corvus Corvax
Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> Right. Folks like Brandi assume I can't parent my own kids. That's
> the assumption made when you try and legislate ANY morality. "I know
> my kids are upright and wouldn't read that stuff, but those Corvax
> kids..."
Notice that the religious nuts' argument is so weak on this one that
somebody like Mark _immediately_ brings up the bogeyman of terrorism,
as if that has anything at all to do with a city council election in
Idaho. (I notice that Brandy got her ass kicked in the election, by the
way. A victory for real American freedom.)
CC
MattB
Nice pics, but besides riding a mountain bike, I think she epitomizes
"not my type" in every way imaginable.
And good for the Nampa library for standing up for the first amendment
when trying to be bribed to suppress it.
Matt
Bill Sornson
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the thought
>> of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a Taliban-like society
>> (or kill us all if that doesn't work out) do to you? Just curious...
>
> When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference between
> the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists,
> except that they dress different. (The Christians are way tackier.)
Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot to blow
up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
MattB
Word.
Fundamentalists (in power) are a danger to our way of life no matter
which end of the spectrum they come from.
Matt
Corvus Corvax
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot to blow
> up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
That's a difference in tactics, not agendas.
I would still like an explanation of how terrorism (or Islam in
general) is germane to book banning in Idaho.
CC
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot
>> to blow up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>
> That's a difference in tactics, not agendas.
You wrote (and snipped for some reason), "I fail to see much of a difference
between the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
fundamentalists"
Seems to me the latter's "agendas" and "tactics" are the same: kill many
thousands of innocent people.
Somehow "Brandi" doesn't seem quite as menacing. LOL (Are you saying she
shouldn't have the /right/ to be wrong? Didn't you or someone say she ran
for public office and got trounced? Are you suggesting that's dangerous?)
> I would still like an explanation of how terrorism (or Islam in
> general) is germane to book banning in Idaho.
Wasn't my contention. I didn't read her website (no interest), but I highly
doubt that she's a true threat to anything you or I hold dear. (Or are you
saying that people should be free to call Bush "Hitler" and the like but
somehow some blonde chick somewhere shouldn't be free to express /her/
views?)
Seems like a double standard to me. One of /many/.
Bill S.
Shawn Curry
Mine Penny. We lived a block from the library in Salida. My children,
and many others, go there by themselves. Doubt if she'd be interested
in browsing the section where she might find "The Joys of Sex" though,
there's no Harry Potter there. :-p
Shawn
G.T.
It sure ain't atheists bombing family planning clinics and beating gays
to death.
Corvus Corvax
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> You wrote (and snipped for some reason), "I fail to see much of a difference
> between the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
> fundamentalists"
>
> Seems to me the latter's "agendas" and "tactics" are the same: kill many
> thousands of innocent people.
>
> Somehow "Brandi" doesn't seem quite as menacing.
Well, ok. If your best argument is "we're not as bad as the Taliban", I
really don't know what to say.
CC
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Corvus Corvax wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>>> If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the
>>>> thought of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a
>>>> Taliban-like society (or kill us all if that doesn't work out) do
>>>> to you? Just curious...
>>>
>>> When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference between
>>> the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
>>> fundamentalists, except that they dress different. (The Christians
>>> are way tackier.)
>>
>>
>> Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot
>> to blow up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>>
>
> It sure ain't atheists bombing family planning clinics and beating
> gays to death.
Just had some hate crime assaults here in SD after the Pride Parade. The
punk perps were not religious nuts of any sort; they were skinhead/nazi
types (for lack of a better term).
While isolated acts of violence and intolerance are abhorrent and must be
severely punished or better yet /stopped/, I think that Mark's point about
"overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented from
having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL )
She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
Bill Sornson
If I wrote, suggested, implied or meant that, then you'd have a point.
Yet another double standard: OK for /you/ (universal you) to reduce things
to the absurd in order to sound...what, pious?
I'll just roll my eyes and call it a day...
Chris Glidden
G.T. wrote:
>
> It sure ain't atheists bombing family planning clinics and beating gays
> to death.
>
> Greg
> --
Can I hear an amen and a hallelujah. Right on Brother Greg!!!
CG
G.T.
> G.T. wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>Corvus Corvax wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the
>>>>>thought of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a
>>>>>Taliban-like society (or kill us all if that doesn't work out) do
>>>>>to you? Just curious...
>>>>
>>>>When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference between
>>>>the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
>>>>fundamentalists, except that they dress different. (The Christians
>>>>are way tackier.)
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot
>>>to blow up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>>>
>>
>>It sure ain't atheists bombing family planning clinics and beating
>>gays to death.
>
>
> Just had some hate crime assaults here in SD after the Pride Parade. The
> punk perps were not religious nuts of any sort; they were skinhead/nazi
> types (for lack of a better term).
>
> While isolated acts of violence and intolerance are abhorrent and must be
> severely punished or better yet /stopped/,
Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like Islamic
fundamentalists.
> I think that Mark's point about
> "overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented from
> having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL )
>
> She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda one
people, and that is hugely scary.
Bill Sornson
So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some skinheads
assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the connection. How about
locking up violent criminals, period?
>> I think that Mark's point about
>> "overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented
>> from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL
>> ) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
> Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda
> one people, and that is hugely scary.
Is there freeedom of speech here or not? There are all kinds of nutjobs
espousing all kinds of wacky crap. "Brandi" ain't affecting my travel plans
this weekend.
Double standards...
Ed Pirrero
That's a good point. By the time my kids are old enough to even be
curious about that sort of thing, I would *hope* that the moral
education my wife and I have given them will make those sorts of books
look like medical reference textbooks, rather than exhortations to go
forth and sin as much as possible.
Truth be told, the mind control of corporate America (via the boob
tube) is much more egregious than any sort of book available in the
library. And the library is certainly not as potentially dangerous as
the high-speed internet connection I have right at home.
So yes, let's please focus on those evil sex books that corrupt young
minds.
If you hear a popping noise, that's the sound of some religious wacko's
head emerging from his/her backside. But that sound is quite rare.
E.P.
Corvus Corvax
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Corvus Corvax wrote:
> >
> > I really don't know what to say.
>
> If I wrote, suggested, implied or meant that, then you'd have a point.
Wait. Then you _are_ as bad as the Taliban?
CC
Ed Pirrero
Corvus Corvax wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot to blow
> > up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>
> That's a difference in tactics, not agendas.
Right. The "civilized" fundementalists want to force their morals on
you with a stroke of a pen. Threaten you with jail or monetary fines
if you don't do it "their way." The "uncivilized" fundementalists want
you to do it "their way" under the barrel of a gun, or threat of mass
destruction.
The one that aactually scares me is the one that's easier to
accomplish. Because both systems are not remotely about religion or
morals, but about CONTROL.
E.P.
MattB
I'm pretty sure Greg's point isn't that she shouldn't be able to speak
or run for office. He's saying (and I wholeheartedly agree) that IF she
were elected to office and carried out her agenda, that we would lose
some freedom (like being able to get a book from the library, even if
some people don't like it).
It's a similar agenda to many other religious fundamentalists. She is
just employing different tactics to meet her goal. While her tactics are
relatively benign, especially compared to terrorists, the goal of
controlling what can do based on religious beliefs is the dangerous
thing here.
Matt
small change
"Shawn Curry" <scurryfifenynteam@comcastdotnet> wrote in message
news:UOKdnZZMROjKy0bZ...@comcast.com...
Good point, let me rephrase that, what good parent is not supervising what
their kids are checking out. We all know the crackhead parents aren't
paying attention, period.
ps
Ed Pirrero
Bill Sornson wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
>
> > Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
> > Islamic fundamentalists.
>
> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some skinheads
> assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the connection. How about
> locking up violent criminals, period?
What, now we're back to the law enforcement model? I thought all you
Clinton-haters reviled him for that stance?
> >> I think that Mark's point about
> >> "overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented
> >> from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL
> >> ) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>
> > Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda
> > one people, and that is hugely scary.
>
> Is there freeedom of speech here or not?
I see a pretty big difference between speaking your mind on a political
issue and forcing (through legislation) everyone to bow to your
opinion. One is enshrined in the USC. The other is contrary to
everything the Founding Fathers stood for.
> There are all kinds of nutjobs
> espousing all kinds of wacky crap. "Brandi" ain't affecting my travel plans
> this weekend.
Neither are the U.K. terrorists because you weren't going anywhere
anyway. And even if you were, you could still travel anywhere you
wanted.
E.P.
Chris Glidden
Bill Sornson wrote:
> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some skinheads
> assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the connection. How about
> locking up violent criminals, period?
>
> >> I think that Mark's point about
> >> "overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented
> >> from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL
> >> ) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>
> > Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda
> > one people, and that is hugely scary.
>
> Is there freeedom of speech here or not? There are all kinds of nutjobs
> espousing all kinds of wacky crap. "Brandi" ain't affecting my travel plans
> this weekend.
>
> Double standards...
True, there are "all kind of nutjobs" out there, BUT it seems like most
of them use religion (Christianity, Islam, etc) as the driving force
behind their cause. This is not ne, it's been going on for centuries:
The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch hunts, 9/11,
bombing of abortion clinics, etc, etc, etc. People interpret specific
religious text (The Bible, Koran, Torah) to suit their personal agenda.
Jesus and Mohamed were brilliant MEN who preached love, forgiveness
and understanding. I missed the parts in these books where it said to
love, forgive and understand your fellow man only if they have the same
beliefs you have. If they don't, bomb the shit out of them. Religion
facinates me, I have spent alot of time studying the main ones out
there. The message is good, it's what people do with that message that
makes religion evil. IMHO, Jesus was no more the son of god than I am.
Like I said before, he was a brilliant man with a brilliant message.
I follow one creed and I sleep very well every night: Do unto others
as you would have done unto you.
CG
Ed Pirrero
Chris Glidden wrote:
>
> I follow one creed and I sleep very well every night: Do unto others
> as you would have done unto you.
That is a paraphrase of the commandment Jesus gave in the Sermon on the
Mount.
Some folks call it the 11th Commandment. Fundementalist Christians, in
their cafeteria style, overlook that particular teaching because it
conflicts with their control agenda.
E.P.
Bill Sornson
No argument with that at all.
I do wonder where the outrage is at, for example, the recent shootings
outside a Jewish Temple in Seattle. Hate crime pure and simple. Yet
there's barely any coverage of it -- and first thing they DO say is that the
shooter was a "troubled man" and "mentally ill", and had a terrible
childhood.
Double standards...
MattB
And once you get to a certain point, you can have a little confidence in
your child's ability to make decisions (I'm still looking forward to
that luxury, but I see it in some of my friends' kids).
That way, when (generally when, not if) their friend shows them that
copy of Hustler he found in the dumpster they will know that isn't
really what sex and physical love between regular people is like.
It's like when I was a kid, the guy who partied the hardest and whose
older brother had the biggest porn collection was from a Mormon family.
They were so repressed they had to go out and find this on their own.
My parents had The Joy of Sex right there in the book case, and while
they didn't encourage me to read it, when I was curious enough to have a
look it sure seemed tame (and "normal") compared to what the other kids
were looking at.
Matt
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> G.T. wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
>>> Islamic fundamentalists.
>>
>> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some
>> skinheads assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the
>> connection. How about locking up violent criminals, period?
>
> What, now we're back to the law enforcement model? I thought all you
> Clinton-haters reviled him for that stance?
Ed, Ed, Ed. Shirley you know the difference between a criminal act such as
a hate crime and a terrorist act such as releasing poisonous gas in a subway
or mixing chemicals on an airplane to blow it up.
>> There are all kinds of nutjobs
>> espousing all kinds of wacky crap. "Brandi" ain't affecting my
>> travel plans this weekend.
> Neither are the U.K. terrorists because you weren't going anywhere
> anyway. And even if you were, you could still travel anywhere you
> wanted.
But not with my hair gel! It's fucking unacceptable!!!
Priorities, people. Priorities...
Bill "note to self: be smart like Mark and just STFU" S.
Corvus Corvax
Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> The one that aactually scares me is the one that's easier to
> accomplish. Because both systems are not remotely about religion or
> morals, but about CONTROL.
Bingo.
Americans have a laudably high regard for fairness, and (Christian)
fundamentalist demagogues have very cynically exploited this fact to
give themselves a seat at the political table which they do not
deserve. Just listen to all sides of the debate, right? Bullshit. These
people are crazy. When they get power, they are dangerous. They deserve
ridicule and derision, not a polite hearing-out. Free speech does not
entail an obligation on anybody else's part to listen.
CC
Ed Pirrero
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> G.T. wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like
> >>> Islamic fundamentalists.
> >>
> >> So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some
> >> skinheads assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the
> >> connection. How about locking up violent criminals, period?
> >
> > What, now we're back to the law enforcement model? I thought all you
> > Clinton-haters reviled him for that stance?
>
> Ed, Ed, Ed. Shirley you know the difference between a criminal act such as
> a hate crime and a terrorist act such as releasing poisonous gas in a subway
> or mixing chemicals on an airplane to blow it up.
Yeah. It's a matter of degree.
At what body count does one become the other?
Somebody was smirking about double standards...who was that, again?
E.P.
cc
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the thought
>>of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a Taliban-like society
>>(or kill us all if that doesn't work out) do to you? Just curious...
>
>
> When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference between
> the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists,
> except that they dress different. (The Christians are way tackier.)
>
>
>>Or maybe you wouldn't mind your (hypothetical) 8 year old daughter
>>checking out 'The Joy of Gay Sex' on her next trip to the library.
>>Perhaps it's just simpler to buy her a stack of porn DVDs and get it
>>over with, huh?
>
>
> It's very simple, Mark: you don't get to use your religion to control
> what I (or my children) read. It's none of your fucking business.
> That's what actual freedom means.
>
A-fucking-men. Well said.
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> What, now we're back to the law enforcement model? I thought all
>>> you Clinton-haters reviled him for that stance?
>> Ed, Ed, Ed. Shirley you know the difference between a criminal act
>> such as a hate crime and a terrorist act such as releasing poisonous
>> gas in a subway or mixing chemicals on an airplane to blow it up.
>
> Yeah. It's a matter of degree.
>
> At what body count does one become the other?
Brandi on the corner preaching (not topless) or running for office: free
speech.
Brandi interfering with people entering the library or she steals books from
it: criminal.
Brandi assaulting people who read certain books: hate crime.
Brandi blowing up the library for ideological reasons: terrorism.
Bill "man, that Brandi chick sure keeps busy" S.
cc
Yes, that sounds about right.
Saying that 'fundamentalists'
should be locked up is totally
contrary to freedom of
religion, and implies judgment
on our part about what is
'okay' to practice or preach.
>
>>>I think that Mark's point about
>>>"overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented
>>>from having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL
>>>) She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>
>
>>Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda
>>one people, and that is hugely scary.
>
>
> Is there freeedom of speech here or not? There are all kinds of nutjobs
> espousing all kinds of wacky crap. "Brandi" ain't affecting my travel plans
> this weekend.
There should be. As scary as
her ideas are, she has the
right to express them, in
whatever forum suits her and
with whomever cares to hear
what she has to say.
If she is able to put over
legislation or other policy
that supports inflicting her
values on the remainder of the
population, that is IMO a
problem with those
constituents. It is our duty
as citizens to decide where to
draw that line, but not
before. You can't persecute
her because she /talks/ about
doing something unconstitutional.
>
> Double standards...
>
>
>
cc
So hopefully the people
realize that and don't vote
for her. Otherwise you have to
ask yourself who are the
people who constitute our
nation and whether it is our
duty to protect the
constitution from religious
zealots, or change it to
reflect the prevalent
demographic? Now that's a
scary concept . .
Ed Pirrero
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >>> What, now we're back to the law enforcement model? I thought all
> >>> you Clinton-haters reviled him for that stance?
>
> >> Ed, Ed, Ed. Shirley you know the difference between a criminal act
> >> such as a hate crime and a terrorist act such as releasing poisonous
> >> gas in a subway or mixing chemicals on an airplane to blow it up.
> >
> > Yeah. It's a matter of degree.
> >
> > At what body count does one become the other?
>
> Brandi on the corner preaching (not topless) or running for office: free
> speech.
Non sequitur. Red herring.
> Brandi interfering with people entering the library or she steals books from
> it: criminal.
Non sequitur. Red herring.
> Brandi assaulting people who read certain books: hate crime.
As an example, OK...
> Brandi blowing up the library for ideological reasons: terrorism.
What if nobody dies? The line you're drawing is artificial. There's
no standard, which means "terrorism" could be whatever *you* say it is.
I find that an unacceptably hazy distinction.
And it becomes quite convenient to categorize anyone you want as a
terrorist by assigning "ideological" reasons to what are otherwise
merely criminal acts. And thus subject them to rules purtaining to
"terrorists", rather than "criminal suspects."
For some folks on the fundementalist right, guys like Eric Rudolph
aren't criminals or terrorists, but heros. And I have yet to hear
anyone actually call the guy a terrorist, even though he follows your
model of blowing stuff up for ideological reasons.
Yeah, there's a double standard alright. Ironically so.
E.P.
cc
Well, not that it makes it any
better, but is there a
difference between a drunken
alcoholic making unacceptable
anti-semitic remarks while
face-down and one making the
same remarks from a pulpit?
The remarks are just as
shameful and obscene, but I
can't take the former
seriously as evidence of an
undercurrent of prominent
anti-semitism.
Bill Sornson
One difference: THE GUN. ONE DEAD. FIVE INJURED.
Nothing major...
Bill Sornson
The red herring was your "criminality" troll. My bad for taking the hook.
cc
Brandi withdrawing funding
from libraries based on book
content: community-sponsored
censorship.
cc
I wasn't saying the incidents
were similar in impact, but
just how one might
instinctually trivialize the
motives, Bill.
Ed Pirrero
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> The red herring was your "criminality" troll. My bad for taking the hook.
Here are your words:
"So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some
skinheads assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the
connection. How about locking up violent criminals, period? "
Bill, pretty much any political conversation that comes along, you bite
on. Pointing the finger at me is pretty funny.
"Doctor, heal thyself."
E.P.
Shawn Curry
snip
You can't persecute her because
> she /talks/ about doing something unconstitutional.
You /can/ justifiably call her un-American.
Shawn
Paladin
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Corvus Corvax wrote:
> >>
> >> Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot
> >> to blow up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
> >
>
> between the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic
> fundamentalists"
>
> thousands of innocent people.
>
> Somehow "Brandi" doesn't seem quite as menacing. LOL (Are you saying she
> shouldn't have the /right/ to be wrong? Didn't you or someone say she ran
> for public office and got trounced? Are you suggesting that's dangerous?)
>
> > I would still like an explanation of how terrorism (or Islam in
> > general) is germane to book banning in Idaho.
>
> Wasn't my contention. I didn't read her website (no interest), but I highly
> doubt that she's a true threat to anything you or I hold dear. (Or are you
> saying that people should be free to call Bush "Hitler" and the like but
> somehow some blonde chick somewhere shouldn't be free to express /her/
> views?)
>
> Seems like a double standard to me. One of /many/.
>
> Bill S.
I wanna buy you a beer! Next time you're in Boise, your money's no
good...
CDB
Paladin
Now are you an idiot or do you just play one on the internet??
The library doesn't have to stock its shelves with pornography or even
explicit sex books available to children. It doesn't have to stock
every book ever written, either. Every decision to stock this book,
but not that one, is discrimination. Making choices, like when you
choose one television program over another, or one bike rack over
another. Discrimination, or "censorship" is not the issue. It is whose
values will dictate what is on the shelves? Someone's gonna decide,
and those are the books available for check out.
She disapproves of these books, and she's brave enough to stand up for
what she believes in. You may approve, and have every opportunity to
protest and work towards your view of what should be on the shelves.
That's freedom, once again.
The decision as to which books get bought and put on the shelves, and
which ones don't is and should be a community decision, and you act
like she's the censor, when she protests the availability of explicit
sex picture books in a public library. If you like them there, then
you can replace the funding that Larry Knapp withheld and stand on your
soapbox and try to convince parents that their children need to have
publicly funded access to materials where they can learn how to have
gay sex with each other. I don't approve, you do, that's fine, freedom
of debate.
OK, I'll get back to work, now.
CDB
Paladin
Well Chris, if Jesus was a brilliant man, but not the son of God, then
he was also a brilliant and consistent liar, because he repeatedly
asserted that he was the son of God, and the only way to God. Great
teacher on some subjects, but out of his mind on others? Doesn't
really add up that way when you look at it.
CDB
cc
sure.
If she's voted into office, what do you call her constituents?
Un-Americans? Or maybe supporters of a different American ideal?
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> The red herring was your "criminality" troll. My bad for taking the
>> hook.
> Here are your words:
>
> "So someone should lock up some Christians somewhere because some
> skinheads assaulted some gays? Sorry, I just don't get the
> connection. How about locking up violent criminals, period? "
And then you replied with a Clinton/law enforcement troll. THAT is the hook
upon which I should have passed.
HTH
Bill Sornson
Brandi can withdraw public funding? Who /is/ this chick?!? LOL
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, ok. If your best argument is "we're not as bad as the
>>> Taliban", I really don't know what to say.
>>
>> If I wrote, suggested, implied or meant that, then you'd have a
>> point.
>
> Wait. Then you _are_ as bad as the Taliban?
Wait. You always snip to avoid pointed questions?
Ed Pirrero
It wasn't a troll - that's just a straw man. But we both know that,
don't we? You wouldn't keep taking line if it was a troll...
Ooops. :)
You are the one who suggested law enforcement. See your quote above.
But I have read elsewhere where you object to the law enforcement model
when dealing with terrorists. Bad-mouthing Clinton, in fact.
I'm just trying to find out how it's not a double-standard on your
part. And, FWIW, what terrorism and the approach to quelling it has to
do with some Boise Coulter-wannabe and her political aspirations (shot
down in flames by an obviously-large group of clear-thinking Boise
residents.)
In addition, I'm trying to figure out where you draw the line between
"violent/hate criminal" and "terrorist". Your distinction isn't at all
clear. In fact, it seem rather arbitrary.
E.P.
Bill Sornson
Make it a coffee (I have to be home by Christmas!) and you've got a deal.
:-D :-P <eg> :o) 8-) 8-O
GeeDubb
"Paladin" <cdb...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:1155243588.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
didn't say, it's only speculation. He may of been stating that he and all
people of his time were children of the God he believed in and (excuse me)
god forbid, he was quoted out of context. That could never happen....
How about we get back on the subject of mountain biking. What's a good disc
wheelset (for a 200 pounder)to buy?
Geesh
Gary (volunteered to read books for possible addition to the school library
this year)
Bill Sornson
> How about we get back on the subject of mountain biking. What's a
> good disc wheelset (for a 200 pounder)to buy?
Real men still use V-brakes.
Ed Pirrero
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Corvus Corvax wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>
> >> You wrote (and snipped for some reason), "I fail to see much of a
> >> difference between the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and
> >> Islamic fundamentalists"
> >>
> >> Seems to me the latter's "agendas" and "tactics" are the same: kill
> >> many thousands of innocent people.
> >>
> >> Somehow "Brandi" doesn't seem quite as menacing.
>
> > I really don't know what to say.
>
> If I wrote, suggested, implied or meant that, then you'd have a point.
Corvus was comparing the agendas.
You made the (false) claim that the Islamists tactics and agenda are
the same.
Then went from there to claim Brandi's wasn't "as menacing."
While Corvus' flip remark was a bit OTT, the implication DOES exist
that since she doesn't want to restrict freedom as much as the Taliban,
her brand of shoving Fundementalism down the throats of her follow
Boise residents isn't as onerous.
Maybe you just wanted to make a funny quip. Yeah, sell it that way.
E.P.
GeeDubb
"Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:IBNCg.10604$Vq1....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
still using v-brakes but tired of losing braking ability in the wet.
hell, I have center pulls on my old Trek MTB!
Gary
cc
Ok, so I read through the entire article only after making that comment.
I see that it was a private contributor. I can only assume, however,
that if she were elected she would attempt to propagate these ideals
through her office.
cc
No, but if every library could, they would. You can bet that once every
book written is available electronically, every library will have *every
book*.
Every decision to stock this book,
> but not that one, is discrimination.
No, deciding which book to purchase for the library is a conscious
decision. Deciding to *remove* a book is censorship. Plain and simple.
Every book has value. Period.
Making choices, like when you
> choose one television program over another, or one bike rack over
> another. Discrimination, or "censorship" is not the issue. It is whose
> values will dictate what is on the shelves? Someone's gonna decide,
> and those are the books available for check out.
Every material has some value, even if it is to shock and discourage. If
you don't like it, don't read it! That is your choice. It doesn't mean
that you have the right to limit my choices !
>
> She disapproves of these books, and she's brave enough to stand up for
> what she believes in. You may approve, and have every opportunity to
> protest and work towards your view of what should be on the shelves.
> That's freedom, once again.
My freedom is to read them. Hers is to not read them. If she pulls the
books, she is violating my rights.
>
> The decision as to which books get bought and put on the shelves, and
> which ones don't is and should be a community decision,
Again, we're not talking about buying more books here. If there is a
limited well of funds for purchasing new books, then the community
decides what books are purchased. Besides that, there is no issue. If
the funds are unlimited, all books should be available. What argument
can you /possibly/ make in the context of the first amendment that is
valid in that situation?
and you act
> like she's the censor, when she protests the availability of explicit
> sex picture books in a public library.
She IS !!!! Hello, McFly? A couple synapses disconnected here?
If you like them there, then
> you can replace the funding that Larry Knapp withheld
So again you make it into a funding issue. Take that away and you have
nothing.
and stand on your
> soapbox and try to convince parents that their children need to have
> publicly funded access to materials where they can learn how to have
> gay sex with each other. I don't approve, you do, that's fine, freedom
> of debate.
Yes, but your freedom to disapprove does not trump my freedom to access
those materials.
cc
Corvus Corvax
I'm making fun of you, Bill. Please get with the program.
CC
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> forced to look at her website(s)?
> If she gets her legistlative agenda through, there might not be much
> else to read. Brandi -- and I am not making this up -- is running for
> public office in Boise on a platform of cutting funding for libraries
> that stock books she doesn't like, and posting the Ten Commandments in
> public parks:
>
> http://www.brandiswindell.org/citycouncilrace.asp
She's really running for office? (November 8th is a Wednesday this year.)
She's really running for office on a platform of "cut funding for libraries
that stock books I don't like"?
She'll probably lose. (Oh , wait. Already did.)
Besides, her helmet looked kinda clunky.
Bill Sornson
> Maybe you just wanted to make a funny quip. Yeah, sell it that way.
Which, of course, explains why you deleted the LOL when you quoted it.
Corvus Corvax
cc wrote:
>
> Ok, so I read through the entire article only after making that comment.
> I see that it was a private contributor. I can only assume, however,
> that if she were elected she would attempt to propagate these ideals
> through her office.
You don't have to assume. Brandi herself made the linkage between
support for a public bond issue and getting books yanked from the
shelves.
CC
Bill Sornson
> cc wrote:
OK, CDB, you buy me a coffee and I'll buy YOU a beer.
Bill
Bill Sornson
> "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:IBNCg.10604$Vq1....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>> GeeDubb wrote:
>>
>>> How about we get back on the subject of mountain biking. What's a
>>> good disc wheelset (for a 200 pounder)to buy?
>>
>> Real men still use V-brakes.
>>
> this coming from, for all intense purposes,.....a roadie :-)
Don't believe everything you read on Usenet.
Paladin
Geedub wrote:
>
> How about we get back on the subject of mountain biking. What's a good disc
> wheelset (for a 200 pounder)to buy?
>
> Geesh
>
> Gary (volunteered to read books for possible addition to the school library
> this year)
OK, where can I find some Christian themed jerseys?!
(remember that one??I think it set an all-time usenet record) :)
CDB
MattB
Troll!
I think they keep them on the the right of the atheist ones.
Matt
MattB
Darn stutter...
Chris Glidden
"Paladin" <cdb...@qwest.net>
>
> Well Chris, if Jesus was a brilliant man, but not the son of God, then
> he was also a brilliant and consistent liar, because he repeatedly
> asserted that he was the son of God, and the only way to God. Great
> teacher on some subjects, but out of his mind on others? Doesn't
> really add up that way when you look at it.
>
> CDB
>
I have no problem with ahyone's religious beliefs... until they try to use
those beliefs to dictate how I should live my life. In any case, I stand by
my belief that Jesus was a brilliant man, I just think that in the centuries
that passed between the time he uttered his words and they were written in
their final form the exact verbage may have changed a tad.
Bill Sornson
Maybe Brandi will cast it out for you.
<eg>
JD
cc is:
> A-fucking-men.
No big surprise there.
JD
Bill Sornson
Ah. So you're wrong AND a bully. Got it, CC, thanks.
Corvus Corvax
Corvus Corvax wrote:
> These people are crazy. When they get power, they are dangerous.
Following up my own post.
I regret saying this. When you move from "this person" to "these
people", or from an ideology to an identity, you cross the line from
opposition to bigotry. No mincing words. I'll be man enough to admit I
was wrong.
CC
Ed Pirrero
No. I deleted the "LOL" because it didn't apply to the discussion
between you and CC.
Even included, it still doesn't erase the implication.
Maybe you typed "LOL" when you meant to type "</sarcasm>".
Just trying to help you spin it so it doesn't sound so
"double-stardardy".
E.P.
Ed Pirrero
GeeDubb wrote:
> What's a good disc
> wheelset (for a 200 pounder)to buy?
I have ISO XT hubs, DT 14/15/14 spokes, 3x 32 count, and Mavic X618
rims. Built them me own damn self, and they've worked pretty well. I
started out at your weight, and am now down nearly to what I was when I
was in high school. But they took all my ham-fisted punishment up to
now without a single touch of the spoke wrench.
Or, if you didn't want to bother, there are plenty of places on teh
interweb that'll do a custom set like that. I dunno if Mavic makes a
double-eyeletted rim any more, but I am hoarding my unbuilt pair of
X618 rims.
E.P.
P.S. ISO vs. Centerlock? No big deal. There are adapters out there.
And I run Avid mechanicals, and they do a great job in the wet.
Ed Pirrero
OK. I read it as "people who believe this sort of thing", which is a
valid grouping, IMO.
E.P.
GeeDubb
"Ed Pirrero" <gcmsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155255575....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
thanks. I have a set of centerlocks but just bought BB7's that need ISO. I
didn't realize there were adapters so maybe I don't need a set of wheels
afterall!!!!!
Now back to you local unnews station
Gary (distancing one's self from the untopic at hand)
G.T.
"MattB" <somed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4k15rkF...@individual.net...
> >
> I'm pretty sure Greg's point isn't that she shouldn't be able to speak
> or run for office. He's saying (and I wholeheartedly agree) that IF she
> were elected to office and carried out her agenda, that we would lose
> some freedom (like being able to get a book from the library, even if
> some people don't like it).
> It's a similar agenda to many other religious fundamentalists. She is
> just employing different tactics to meet her goal. While her tactics are
> relatively benign, especially compared to terrorists, the goal of
> controlling what can do based on religious beliefs is the dangerous
> thing here.
>
Yes. And the hypocrisy of conservatives rings clear here. On the one hand
they outwardly promote small government but on the other hand they'd have
the Spanish Inquisition exhumed and installed as the 4th branch of
government.
Greg
G.T.
"Chris Glidden" <chris_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155228588.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I follow one creed and I sleep very well every night: Do unto others
> as you would have done unto you.
>
What if you're a masochist?
Do what Thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Greg
G.T.
"Paladin" <cdb...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:1155243588.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Well Chris, if Jesus was a brilliant man, but not the son of God, then
> he was also a brilliant and consistent liar, because he repeatedly
> asserted that he was the son of God, and the only way to God.
Is there a point in there somewhere? My neighbor's schizophrenic son is
fucking brilliant but asserts that he created our galaxy and his brother
created the Andromeda galaxy, and he comes from a whole lineage of galaxy
creators.
Greg
G.T.
"GeeDubb" <gee...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:44dba4bc$0$23853$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
>
> How about we get back on the subject of mountain biking. What's a good
disc
> wheelset (for a 200 pounder)to buy?
>
Mavic 618s, 32 14/15 DT spokes, brass nipples, XT 6 bolt hubs.
Greg
Mark Hickey
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> If a petite blonde with a website "scares you", what does the thought
>> of the radical Islam goal to convert the US to a Taliban-like society
>> (or kill us all if that doesn't work out) do to you? Just curious...
>
>When you put it that way, I fail to see much of a difference between
>the agendas of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists,
>except that they dress different. (The Christians are way tackier.)
Ummmmm.... I suggest you read some news occasionally. The difference
isn't really all that hard to spot.
>> Or maybe you wouldn't mind your (hypothetical) 8 year old daughter
>> checking out 'The Joy of Gay Sex' on her next trip to the library.
>> Perhaps it's just simpler to buy her a stack of porn DVDs and get it
>> over with, huh?
>
>It's very simple, Mark: you don't get to use your religion to control
>what I (or my children) read. It's none of your fucking business.
>That's what actual freedom means.
Oh, I see - but YOUR "religion" (and it is, BTW) should be the only
one that gets a say, huh? It's all about freedom of speech until
someone says something you disagree with, apparently.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
Mark Hickey
>"Corvus Corvax" <corvus...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>> Or maybe you wouldn't mind your (hypothetical) 8 year old daughter
>>> checking out 'The Joy of Gay Sex' on her next trip to the library.
>>> Perhaps it's just simpler to buy her a stack of porn DVDs and get it
>>> over with, huh?
>>
>> It's very simple, Mark: you don't get to use your religion to control
>> what I (or my children) read. It's none of your fucking business.
>> That's what actual freedom means.
>>
>What 8 year old would be going to the library without supervision? Yours,
>Mark?
I went to the library alone many times as an 8 year old, and
(depending on where I lived) would allow my child to do so (or not,
depending on a host of variables that are beyond the scope of this
conversation).
But surely you and Corvus don't believe in censoring your childrens'
input? How very conservative of you...
Heh.
Mark Hickey
>
>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, those "English /Christians/" almost got away with their plot to blow
>> up 20 airplanes yesterday. Scary people, indeed.
>
>That's a difference in tactics, not agendas.
>
>I would still like an explanation of how terrorism (or Islam in
>general) is germane to book banning in Idaho.
You're ignoring what I wrote.
You might have missed it in the news today, but some radical Islamic
terrorists were trying to down 10 transatlantic flights.
And you were complaining that this petite blonde and her "evil
website" had you scared.
I was suggesting that you get some perspective on what you should be
concerned about.
It's not really that complicated.
Mark Hickey
>Bill Sornson wrote:
>Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like Islamic
>fundamentalists.
>
>> I think that Mark's point about
>> "overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented from
>> having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL )
>>
>> She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
>
>Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda one
>people, and that is hugely scary.
"We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they
don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the
same side as the United States."
Ann Coulter
Mark Hickey
>I see a pretty big difference between speaking your mind on a political
>issue and forcing (through legislation) everyone to bow to your
>opinion.
Unless, of course, it's YOUR opinion, in which, of course, everyone
SHOULD bow to it? LOL.
> One is enshrined in the USC. The other is contrary to
>everything the Founding Fathers stood for.
Yep, you round up the Founding Fathers, and tell them that you're
being abused because some blonde wants to take some sexually explicit
books out of a public library, and to wants display the Ten
Commandments.
Something tells me they wouldn't exactly jump on your bandwagon here,
Ed...
Mark Hickey
>Brandi withdrawing funding
>from libraries based on book
>content: community-sponsored
>censorship.
There is ALWAYS "community-sponsored censorship". Can you pick up the
latest copy of Hustler in the local library? It's all about where the
line is drawn, and I don't think it's that outrageous to not supply
sexually explicit books to kids. I've got no issue at all if there
were some controls so that any adult who wanted to read the books
wanted to check them out (and even if they wanted to give them to
their kids to read).
In the end, the "line" will be drawn by the majority, through the
election of people who will uphold their political will. Sounds like
that happened here, so y'all can go back to not being scared to death
of Brandi.
I just happen to think that the US doesn't really need to slide
further/quicker into more of a sex-focused society - but that's just
me I guess. I'm hardly a prude (you'd know that if you actually knew
me), but I find it hard to imagine there are people out there who
really think there's too little attention paid to sex in our media and
entertainment. It's just annoying that you can't watch a sitcom
without 6th grade sexual references. Or annoying to me - maybe there
are (mental) 6th graders that enjoy it.
Corvus Corvax
Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> Oh, I see - but YOUR "religion" (and it is, BTW) should be the only
> one that gets a say, huh? It's all about freedom of speech until
> someone says something you disagree with, apparently.
No, Mark. Unlike Brandi, there is no Grand Wazoo in the Sky telling me
to ban books. You do not get to police my reading, or my children's.
Or anybody else's. It is none of your fucking business.
And pointing up and shouting "Look! A highjacking!" when somebody
criticises the right's loony excesses at home is not working any more.
I, like many people, am capable of thinking about more than one thing
at a time.
CC
G.T.
"Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
news:u4qnd2hil8ljb7f63...@4ax.com...
> "G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> >Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> >Yes, so Christian fundamentalists should be locked up just like Islamic
> >fundamentalists.
> >
> >> I think that Mark's point about
> >> "overall relative threat" still stands. (Are people being prevented
from
> >> having carry-on bags on airplanes today due to...Brandi?!? LOL )
> >>
> >> She's just not that scary, fellas. Sorry.
> >
> >Oh, yes, she is. She's all about oppression and forcing her agenda one
> >people, and that is hugely scary.
>
> "We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they
> don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the
> same side as the United States."
>
> Ann Coulter
>
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times
Building." - Ann Coulter
That Ann Coulter? What a very nice woman.
Greg