Evil lurks in our country
David Hartung
much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
--
David Hartung
dhar...@bellsouth.net
"Try this thought experiment. Pretend you're a tyrant. Among your many
liberty-destroying objectives are extermination of blacks, Jews and
Catholics. Which would you prefer, a United States with political
power centralized in Washington, powerful government agencies with
detailed information on Americans and compliant states or power widely
dispersed over 50 states, thousands of local jurisdictions and a
limited federal government?" --Walter E. Williams
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are
>fighting is much more than merely between Democrats and
>Republicans, or even between conservatives and liberals. The
>Battel is between good and evil, and those who call
>themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
I thought you decided to hang out in alt.fan.sailor-moon until
you could prove that homosexuality and pedophilia were the same
thing. Did you really think that if you hid out long enough, I'd
forget? You're a coward and a lightwieght, Hartung. Otherwise,
you'd get your facts together and fight it out with me.
--
"Our administration has been the victim of individuals who
haven't had the judgement or integrity to put the public's
business above their own selfish interest."
--George H.W. Bush remembers his days as Reagan's VP
georgann chenault
> And what evil have the liberals done?
> Voting rights for blacks and other minorities.
> Voting rights for women.
> Workers rights.
> Minimum wage.
> Medicare.
> Universal education.
> Protecting the environment.
> Winning World War Two.
georgann:
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH. What a snow job they have done on you! Poor thing.
Marc Sylvestre
David Hartung wrote in message ...
>For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
>much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
>conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
>who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
And what evil have the liberals done?
Voting rights for blacks and other minorities.
Voting rights for women.
Workers rights.
Minimum wage.
Medicare.
Universal education.
Protecting the environment.
Winning World War Two.
What are liberals trying to do?
Health care for all.
Higher education for all.
Civil rights for gays and lesbians.
What have conservatives ever done.......
I'm waiting.
Ted Krueger
Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> David Hartung wrote in message ...
> >For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> >much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> >conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
> >who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
>
> And what evil have the liberals done?
> Voting rights for blacks and other minorities.
> Voting rights for women.
That was done by the folks in Montana, I believe.
>
> Workers rights.
The right to do what?
>
> Minimum wage.
If this is so good, why not make the minimum wage $30 per hour?
>
> Medicare.
> Universal education.
You're kidding, right?
>
> Protecting the environment.
By stealing private property from the owner.
>
> Winning World War Two.
WTF?
You think that all the soldiers were liberals?
>
>
> What are liberals trying to do?
> Health care for all.
Like in Canada?
I believe I heard that there are more heart-lung machines in Baltimore than
there are in Canada.
>
> Higher education for all.
Read my lips. No more NEA.
>
> Civil rights for gays and lesbians.
>
>
> What have conservatives ever done.......
>
> I'm waiting.
Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
BillT
"Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3A21218D...@uswest.net...
[snip]
>
> Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
>
>
I wish the "conservadives" would leave people alone!
k
"Marc Sylvestre" <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8vr6cr$uf3$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> David Hartung wrote in message ...
> >For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> >much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> >conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and
those
> >who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
>
>
> And what evil have the liberals done?
> Voting rights for blacks and other minorities.
> Voting rights for women.
> Workers rights.
> Minimum wage.
> Medicare.
> Universal education.
> Protecting the environment.
> Winning World War Two.
>
> What are liberals trying to do?
> Health care for all.
> Higher education for all.
> Civil rights for gays and lesbians.
>
> What have conservatives ever done.......
>
> I'm waiting.
Don't hold your breath.
k
>
>
>
>
Uranus.
David Hartung wrote:
> For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
> who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
Then why is it only Republicans that have been the one to try
to start their own government as Nixon and Reagan?
k
"georgann chenault" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:B6468844.439B%chen...@mindspring.com...
> "Marc Sylvestre" wrote:
> > And what evil have the liberals done?
> > Voting rights for blacks and other minorities.
> > Voting rights for women.
> > Workers rights.
> > Minimum wage.
> > Medicare.
> > Universal education.
> > Protecting the environment.
> > Winning World War Two.
>
>
> georgann:
> HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH. What a snow job they have done on you! Poor thing.
The above are lies? Hmmm....Georgann, get a grip.
Read some history.
k
>
Uranus.
Ted Krueger wrote:
> Marc Sylvestre wrote:
>
> >
> > Higher education for all.
>
> Read my lips. No more NEA.
Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
> > What have conservatives ever done.......
> >
> > I'm waiting.
>
> Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
Like marriage for homosexuals.
They want to keep the heterosexuals special right to marry
who they choose and deny this right to those born with both
sexes, homosexuals or odd chromosomes. They want
justice to lift her blindfold to look into the pants of those
that wish to get married to see if the parts do not match. The
problem is that not everyone is born a man or a woman
but are both or somewhere in between. Who does
someone with both sexes marry if the only legal choice is
to marry the opposite sex, and who is the opposite sex to
those born with both sexes. Since marriage is a fundamental
right, if those born with both sexes cannot marry the
same sex they are made to be second class citizens, and
denied the right to legally marry.
Marc Sylvestre
georgann chenault wrote in message ...
>"Marc Sylvestre" wrote:
>> And what evil have the liberals done?
>> Voting rights for blacks and other minorities.
>> Voting rights for women.
>> Workers rights.
>> Minimum wage.
>> Medicare.
>> Universal education.
>> Protecting the environment.
>> Winning World War Two.
>
>
>georgann:
>HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH. What a snow job they have done on you! Poor thing.
As usual, you are unable to carry on a rational argument.
When you don't have the facts, just yell.
Here's a quarter, buy yourself a clue:
You didnt (and were no doubt unable) to name one accomplishment of
conservatism.
You lose, again.
Marc Sylvestre
>
>> David Hartung wrote in message ...
>> >much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
>> >conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and
those
>> >who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
>>
>> Voting rights for blacks and other minorities.
>> Voting rights for women.
>
Universal Suffreage was a position of the left, not of conservatism.
>
>>
>> Workers rights.
>
>The right to do what?
Form Unions, to Strike, 40 hour work week, to name three. There are plenty
more.
>> Minimum wage.
>
>If this is so good, why not make the minimum wage $30 per hour?
Because nobody could afford workers at $30/hour. They can afford workers at
the current minimim wage. Without the minimum wage, our povertry levels
would be much higher, which hurts us all.
>> Medicare.
>> Universal education.
>You're kidding, right?
Uh..no. Where do you think public schools all over the country come from -
nice rich folks? It was a govenrment iniative.
>> Protecting the environment.
>
>By stealing private property from the owner.
How is the regulation of what people dump in rivers or put into the air
stealing porperty? When I grew up in Washington, you couldn't go near the
Potomac river. You certainly couldn't fish in it. Now people can actually
swim in the potomac. Enviromentalism has been good for the country.
>> Winning World War Two.
>
>WTF?
Roosevelt was a liberal - and he lead the country into and throught the war.
>You think that all the soldiers were liberals?
My Dad certainly was. However, the war was won by the President having the
political will to get us involved in fighting Hitler and Japan. There were
plenty of people at the time that thought we shouldn't bother.
>> Health care for all.
>
>Like in Canada?
Hardly. The how's have not been worked out, but universal health care is
better than our current situation.
>> Higher education for all.
>
>Read my lips. No more NEA.
Is that the National Educational Association or the national Endowment for
the Arts.
>> Civil rights for gays and lesbians.
>
>>
>>
>> What have conservatives ever done.......
>>
>> I'm waiting.
>
>Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
Which is why conservatism has always failed. It does nothing.
Thanks for making my point.
Schmoopiesdad
David Hartung wrote:
> For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
> who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
So the bunch of jackbooted thugs the repubs bused into florida to physically
intimidate the people counting votes were the good guys?
J.P.R. Jenkins
>
> >Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> >
> >> David Hartung wrote in message ...
snip
> >> Winning World War Two.
> >
> >WTF?
>
> Roosevelt was a liberal - and he lead the country into and throught the war.
>
> >You think that all the soldiers were liberals?
>
> My Dad certainly was. However, the war was won by the President having the
> political will to get us involved in fighting Hitler and Japan. There were
> plenty of people at the time that thought we shouldn't bother.
I just heard from a childhood friend this morning, we were in Civil Air
Patrol together, but went our separate ways in High School, when his GOP
parents forbid him from hanging out with me.
He went on to graduate from West Point, and pursue a career in the Army.
He agrees that the GOP is stealing this election, and of course
disapproves.
There may be a large number of conservatives in the military, but there
are also a large number of men and women, who have been trained not to
think, question, or take initiative on their own.
One of the prime responsibilities of soldering, is to die when ordered
to do so, and send others off to die, when required to do so.
"Mine is not to reason why, mine is but to do and die"
I'm grateful there are soldiers to protect a way of life that I believe
is worthy of pursuit; the American way of life, if you will.
But that doesn't mean soldiers are the authority on how Americans should
live their life, nor does it mean that they have any special political
insight.
I dare to say, that a military perspective on the world as a whole, is
defective in nature. Most soldiers live their lives out of country in
nationalized sterility. In protected compounds which shield them from
non American lifestyles and viewpoints.
I'm amazed at how many career soldiers I've met, who fail to recognize
that the military economic system they have existed in their entire
careers, and will exist in throughout retirement, are socialistic
systems, wrought with the tyranny they have spent their lives fighting.
So most soldiers think they are conservative, big deal, most don't even
realize what it means to be conservative, or capitalistic.
>
> >> Health care for all.
> >
> >Like in Canada?
>
> Hardly. The how's have not been worked out, but universal health care is
> better than our current situation.
>
> >> Higher education for all.
> >
> >Read my lips. No more NEA.
>
> Is that the National Educational Association or the national Endowment for
> the Arts.
>
> >> Civil rights for gays and lesbians.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> What have conservatives ever done.......
> >>
> >> I'm waiting.
> >
> >Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
>
> Which is why conservatism has always failed. It does nothing.
> Thanks for making my point.
--
"He broke out in assholes and shit himself to death"
One Nixon Aide To Another, during last
days of watergate, regarding
George H.W. Bush's reaction to news of Nixon's eminent demise.
Ted Krueger
BillT wrote:
> "Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:3A21218D...@uswest.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
> >
> >
>
> I wish the "conservadives" would leave people alone!
"Conservadives?" Is that a reall boring bar?
Ted Krueger
"Uranus." wrote:
> Ted Krueger wrote:
>
> > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Higher education for all.
> >
> > Read my lips. No more NEA.
>
> Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
> > > What have conservatives ever done.......
> > >
> > > I'm waiting.
> >
> > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
>
> Like marriage for homosexuals.
Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
Chas&Carlo
For the legal benefits heterosexuals get that homosexuals are denied. This
is clearly a case of government treating one group differently than another,
which offends the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution.
chas
Ward Stewart
<chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Marc Sylvestre" wrote:
>> And what evil have the liberals done?
>> Voting rights for blacks and other minorities.
>> Voting rights for women.
>> Workers rights.
>> Minimum wage.
>> Medicare.
>> Universal education.
>> Protecting the environment.
>> Winning World War Two.
>
>
>georgann:
>HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH. What a snow job they have done on you! Poor thing.
Speaking of "snow jobs," -- which of the above advances have been
pressed forward in our society by Republicans or conservatives?
ward
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 1964 Civil Rights Act is "the single most dangerous piece
of legislation ever introduced in the Congress"
He later opposed a national holiday for that
"pervert" Martin Luther King Jr.
Who but? Jesse Helms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy used to be a good thing, but now it
has gotten into the wrong hands.
Senator Jesse Helms (R.-North Carolina)
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for
women ... It is about a socialist, anti-family political
movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
capitalism, and become Lesbians."
-- Pat Robertson (1992)
---------------------------------------------------
August XXi
>"Uranus." wrote:
>
>> Ted Krueger wrote:
>>
>> > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Higher education for all.
>> >
>> > Read my lips. No more NEA.
>>
>> Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
>
>I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
>
>> > > What have conservatives ever done.......
>> > >
>> > > I'm waiting.
>> >
>> > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
>>
>> Like marriage for homosexuals.
>
>Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
What a stupid question.
August
Ted Krueger
Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> >Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> >
> >> David Hartung wrote in message ...
> >> >For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> >> >much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> >> >conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and
> those
> >> >who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
> >>
> >> And what evil have the liberals done?
> >> Voting rights for blacks and other minorities.
> >> Voting rights for women.
> >
> >That was done by the folks in Montana, I believe.
>
> Universal Suffreage was a position of the left, not of conservatism.
Since when?
> >> Workers rights.
> >
> >The right to do what?
> Form Unions, to Strike, 40 hour work week, to name three. There are plenty
> more.
>
> >> Minimum wage.
> >
> >If this is so good, why not make the minimum wage $30 per hour?
>
> Because nobody could afford workers at $30/hour. They can afford workers at
> the current minimim wage. Without the minimum wage, our povertry levels
> would be much higher, which hurts us all.
>
> >> Medicare.
> >> Universal education.
>
> >You're kidding, right?
>
> Uh..no. Where do you think public schools all over the country come from -
> nice rich folks? It was a govenrment iniative.
No boob. I think public schools suck. I used to teach in them and both of my
kids currently attend them.
Tomorrow morning I get to go to one to explain to the stupid-assed social worker
why my kid gets tired after lunch.
I'm guessing that it will include a chemistry lesson.
> >> Protecting the environment.
> >
> >By stealing private property from the owner.
>
> How is the regulation of what people dump in rivers or put into the air
> stealing porperty? When I grew up in Washington, you couldn't go near the
> Potomac river. You certainly couldn't fish in it. Now people can actually
> swim in the potomac. Enviromentalism has been good for the country.
You've heard of the cases where liberals steal people's property away from them
because there is some special snail darter fish that swims in the streams that
run through their property?
> >> Winning World War Two.
> >
> >WTF?
>
> Roosevelt was a liberal - and he lead the country into and throught the war.
>
Actually, lots of you Democrats are now claiming that FDR set us up for WWII.
He let Pearl Harbor happen to force the country to accept involvement in WWII.
> >You think that all the soldiers were liberals?
>
> My Dad certainly was. However, the war was won by the President having the
> political will to get us involved in fighting Hitler and Japan. There were
> plenty of people at the time that thought we shouldn't bother.
>
> >> Health care for all.
> >
> >Like in Canada?
>
> Hardly. The how's have not been worked out, but universal health care is
> better than our current situation.
>
> >> Higher education for all.
> >
> >Read my lips. No more NEA.
>
> Is that the National Educational Association or the national Endowment for
> the Arts.
Yes. Cancel both.
> >> Civil rights for gays and lesbians.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> What have conservatives ever done.......
> >>
> >> I'm waiting.
> >
> >Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
>
> Which is why conservatism has always failed. It does nothing.
> Thanks for making my point.
A government that does nothing is infinitely better than what we have today.
1984. George Orwell was precient.
Ted Krueger
Chas&Carlo wrote:
> "Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:3A2179E1...@uswest.net...
> >
> >
> > "Uranus." wrote:
> >
> > > Ted Krueger wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Higher education for all.
> > > >
> > > > Read my lips. No more NEA.
> > >
> > > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
> >
> > I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
> >
> > > > > What have conservatives ever done.......
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm waiting.
> > > >
> > > > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
> > >
> > > Like marriage for homosexuals.
> >
> > Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
>
> For the legal benefits heterosexuals get that homosexuals are denied. This
> is clearly a case of government treating one group differently than another,
> which offends the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution.
So you want to get taxed at a higher rate than if you just shacked up?
Ted Krueger
August XXi wrote:
> Ted Krueger krue...@uswest.net wrote:
>
> >"Uranus." wrote:
> >
> >> Ted Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >> > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Higher education for all.
> >> >
> >> > Read my lips. No more NEA.
> >>
> >> Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
> >
> >I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
> >
> >> > > What have conservatives ever done.......
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm waiting.
> >> >
> >> > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
> >>
> >> Like marriage for homosexuals.
> >
> >Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
>
> What a stupid question.
What a stupid response.
Jack Rudd
"David Hartung" <dhar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting
is
> much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even
between
> conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and
those
> who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
>
reference, names, dates and so on.
--
Jack Rudd
President of the unofficial Jackie Woodburne Fan Club
http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Glade/9872
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Uranus.
Ted Krueger wrote:
> "Uranus." wrote:
>
>
> > > Read my lips. No more NEA.
> >
> > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
Not legally unless it is a private school.
> > > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
> >
> > Like marriage for homosexuals.
>
> Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
Why do you? It seems to be very important to the heterosexuals
because they want to keep this government sanctioning as a
special right to marry who they choose but deny this right to
homosexuals and those that are born with both sexes. The
legal right that heterosexuals have as a special right would give
the homosexuals and especially those that are born with both
sexes (and if they want to get married must be able to marry the
same sex.) gives the legal right to live together so that they cannot
be kick out of their apartment for no other reason than two
same sex people are living together. Many benefits are gained
when the legal fundamental right to marry is given equally, not
given to one group as a special right. This is no different than the
right to go to the same schools as whites.
augustxxi
>
> August XXi wrote:
>
> > Ted Krueger krue...@uswest.net wrote:
> >
> > >"Uranus." wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ted Krueger wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Higher education for all.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
> > >
> > >I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm waiting.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Like marriage for homosexuals.
> > >
> > >Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
> >
>
> What a stupid response.
Bye, Ted.
August
Marc Sylvestre
>> >Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
>>
>> What a stupid question.
>
>What a stupid response.
A more polite responce would have pointed out that without protection of
unions, Union members could be fired for beloning to a union. They were also
beaten by people working for the companies, and some were killed.
That's why the people needed government protection from the companies to
form their unions.
Marc Sylvestre
>>
>> I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
>
Hate to burst your bubble, but the Clinton administration had the DOJ make
sure there were guideline showing how it isperfectly legal to pray in
school. You cannot have mandatory prayer. At the school where my wife
teaches the kids pray around the flag poll every day.
John Milford
proposing offensive. Who is going
to pay for the items you list below ?
Let me guess, ME, in the form of
ever increasing taxes since I will have
to support a bunch of free-loaders.
YOU pay for them and leave me
out of it.
John Milford
"Marc Sylvestre" <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8vr6cr$uf3$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> What are liberals trying to do?
> Health care for all.
> Higher education for all.
> Civil rights for gays and lesbians.
>
Rob
snip
>
>
>>
>> What are liberals trying to do?
>> Health care for all.
>
>Like in Canada?
>
>I believe I heard that there are more heart-lung machines in Baltimore than
>there are in Canada.
>
Now there's a statement..."I believe I heard."
And I suppose you believed what you believed you heard.
How many do you think we should have proportionately to match the
States? Quick. Look up our population. Maybe even find out how many
you have first. That might be an idea.
Rob
Matthew Alexander
wrote:
>
>
>Ted Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Uranus." wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > Read my lips. No more NEA.
>> >
>> > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
>>
>> I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
>
>Not legally unless it is a private school.
Of course it's legal. Students are free to pray, read religous texts
or form clubs in accordance with their Consitutional rights. What
social conservatives complain about is the lack of mandated or
institutionalized religion, like prayer in class or Biblical passages
on the walls. They've always insisted on the hyperbole that it makes
school "anti-Christian", and you seem to have bought into that, albiet
with a different spin...
Matthew Alexander
<dhar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
>much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
>conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
>who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
So... in the closest election in over a century, in a state where the
margin is so close that a movie theater full of voters could have
turned the tide, and a vote where serious technical problems have
plauged the ballot.... the idea that we ought to actually _count_ the
votes is "evil"?
Gee, you're certainly unbiased.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>
>
>Chas&Carlo wrote:
>
>> "Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>> news:3A2179E1...@uswest.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > "Uranus." wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ted Krueger wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Higher education for all.
>> > > >
>> > > > Read my lips. No more NEA.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
>> >
>> > I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
>> >
>> > > > > What have conservatives ever done.......
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm waiting.
>> > > >
>> > > > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
>> > >
>> > > Like marriage for homosexuals.
>> >
>> > Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
>>
>> For the legal benefits heterosexuals get that homosexuals are denied. This
>> is clearly a case of government treating one group differently than another,
>> which offends the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution.
>
>So you want to get taxed at a higher rate than if you just shacked up?
>
So, why didn't you just "shack up," and save yourself a couple of
dollars?
ward
--------------------
Ward and George
44 years together
and yet,
strangers before the law.
---------------------------
Eve DuJardin
>From: Ted Krueger krue...@uswest.net
>Date: 11/26/00 2:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
>A government that does nothing is infinitely better than what we have today.
>
>1984. George Orwell was precient.
>
You may have the right author, Ted, but definitely the wrong book. It's got to
be Animal Farm. Guess who's the big Jackass?
Ciekawy Eva ~ Curious Eve
Uranus.
Matthew Alexander wrote:
Oh ye of little faith, I know the individually can do what they
want but the teacher cannot have children legally pray, but
I also know schools where they do anyway. You cannot
prove it or stop it unless you can get one of the children to
testify and the parents would have to agree.
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>A government that does nothing is infinitely better than what
>we have today.
>
>1984. George Orwell was precient.
Are you seriously comparing our government to he one portrayed
in "1984"?
--
"Our administration has been the victim of individuals who
haven't had the judgement or integrity to put the public's
business above their own selfish interest."
--George H.W. Bush remembers his days as Reagan's VP
Brien Sullivan
>Ted Krueger wrote:
>>A government that does nothing is infinitely better than what
>>we have today.
>>1984. George Orwell was precient.
>Are you seriously comparing our government to he one portrayed
>in "1984"?
It *could* be happening, Tim.
--
Brien
I don't know what makes Ted so stupid,
but it really works! --Dr. Hell Toupee
J.P.R. Jenkins
>
> Chas&Carlo wrote:
>
> > "Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A2179E1...@uswest.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > "Uranus." wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ted Krueger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Higher education for all.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
> > >
> > > I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm waiting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
> > > >
> > > > Like marriage for homosexuals.
> > >
> > > Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
> >
> > For the legal benefits heterosexuals get that homosexuals are denied. This
> > is clearly a case of government treating one group differently than another,
> > which offends the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution.
>
> So you want to get taxed at a higher rate than if you just shacked up?
No, they want to be able to visit their partners in hospital ICUs, they
want to be able to give consent for organ donations, they want to be
able to leave their possessions, by default to their significant others,
and not have their estates controlled by estranged family members.
There are a myriad of things they deserve just as married heterosexuals
deserve them.
Quit attempting to shield your hate in logic, you fail every time.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Ted Krueger wrote:
>
>>A government that does nothing is infinitely better than what
>>we have today.
>>
>>1984. George Orwell was precient.
>
>Are you seriously comparing our government to he one portrayed
>in "1984"?
It is always an amusement to see the illiterati citing Orwell to what
they imagine are their purposes.
This dismal Klown MAY have read some of 1984 but has surely not read
"Burmese Days" or "Down and Out in Paris and London" or "The road to
Wigan Pier." All EXCELLENT books vividly illustrating Orwell's
passionate socialism.
Chas&Carlo
>
>
> Chas&Carlo wrote:
>
> > "Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A2179E1...@uswest.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > "Uranus." wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ted Krueger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Higher education for all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Read my lips. No more NEA.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
> > >
> > > I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
> > >
> > > > > > What have conservatives ever done.......
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm waiting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
> > > >
> > > > Like marriage for homosexuals.
> > >
> > > Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
> >
> > For the legal benefits heterosexuals get that homosexuals are denied.
This
> > is clearly a case of government treating one group differently than
another,
> > which offends the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution.
>
> So you want to get taxed at a higher rate than if you just shacked up?
That is one tiny little negative aspect of legal marriage. There are
hundreds of positive ones. Why are you addressing that one as if it is the
only difference between a legal union and "shacking up?" Sounds a little
dishonest, if you ask me.
chas
big_...@my-deja.com
Not necesarily true. A few years back, there was some teachers in a
school in Northern Michigan that was being, "Led to God", by a small
group of teachers in one school district. They opened up each class
with a prayer, and a bible reading. A group of parents filed a class
action lawsuit and naturally won. The kids didn't have to testify,
just some of the parents that either witnessed it happening, or was
told about it by their kids. Of course, the teachers did not deny that
they were doing it either. Three of the teachers were found in
contempt of court for what the judge descibed as, "preaching and verbal
snake handling", to the judge.
big_...@my-deja.com
Next weeks episode: Krueger Strikes Back!
Review: In this critics opinion, Ted's stale attempt to equate the far
more forcefully legally upheld bond of marriage pales in comparison to
the suggestion that gays can achieve all the same legal rights through
various legal instruments falls flat and fails to illustrate the point
he wishes to make. Everyone knows that any other legal instrument that
does not confer next of kin status to the participants is easily and
often successfully challenged in court by surviving relatives.
Additionally, these legal documents are expensive to gain, and to
maintain. I would give Krueger's predicted reply a big thumbs down
Ward, how about you?
These debates have become so friggan predictable!
Gregory Gadow
> For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
> who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing that all people
have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a kind word or two -- are totally
incompatable with the goals of Christianity.
--
Gregory Gadow
Email: tech...@serv.net
Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Our doubts are traitors,
And make us lose the good we oft might win,
By fearing to attempt"
-- William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
Ninure Saunders
<krue...@uswest.net> wrote:
-"Uranus." wrote:
-
-> Ted Krueger wrote:
->
-> > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
-> >
-> > >
-> > > Higher education for all.
-> >
-> > Read my lips. No more NEA.
->
-> Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
-
-I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
-
-> > > What have conservatives ever done.......
-> > >
-> > > I'm waiting.
-> >
-> > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
->
-> Like marriage for homosexuals.
-
-Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
For the same reasons *you" need sanctioning of your unions.
But you already knew that.
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
http://www.hungersite.com
Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
georgann chenault
>> For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
>> much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
>> conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
>> who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
"Gregory Gadow" wrote:
> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing that all people
> have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a kind word or two -- are totally
> incompatable with the goals of Christianity.
georgann:
ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one to give to
another. Giving is, by definition, voluntary.
Ninure Saunders
<krue...@uswest.net> wrote:
-Marc Sylvestre wrote:
-
-> >Marc Sylvestre wrote:
-> >
-> >> David Hartung wrote in message ...
-> >> >For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
-> >> >much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
-> >> >conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and
-> those
-> >> >who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
-> >>
-> >> And what evil have the liberals done?
-> >> Voting rights for blacks and other minorities.
-> >> Voting rights for women.
-> >
-> >That was done by the folks in Montana, I believe.
->
-> Universal Suffreage was a position of the left, not of conservatism.
-
-Since when?
-
-> >> Workers rights.
-> >
-> >The right to do what?
-> Form Unions, to Strike, 40 hour work week, to name three. There are plenty
-> more.
->
-> >> Minimum wage.
-> >
-> >If this is so good, why not make the minimum wage $30 per hour?
->
-> Because nobody could afford workers at $30/hour. They can afford workers at
-> the current minimim wage. Without the minimum wage, our povertry levels
-> would be much higher, which hurts us all.
->
-> >> Medicare.
-> >> Universal education.
->
-> >You're kidding, right?
->
-> Uh..no. Where do you think public schools all over the country come from -
-> nice rich folks? It was a govenrment iniative.
-
-No boob. I think public schools suck. I used to teach in them and both of my
-kids currently attend them.
So what did YOU do when you raught in public schools to make them better?
How involved are you now in your children's school?
-Tomorrow morning I get to go to one to explain to the stupid-assed social
worker
-why my kid gets tired after lunch.
Why do they get tired after lunch?
It isn't normal for children to be "tired" agfer lunch, and the fact that
you don't seem to be concerned about that makes one believe that the
social worker needs to look real closely at what else you don't care about
when it comes to your children's welfare.
-
-I'm guessing that it will include a chemistry lesson.
Yeah, right.
-
-> >> Protecting the environment.
-> >
-> >By stealing private property from the owner.
->
-> How is the regulation of what people dump in rivers or put into the air
-> stealing porperty? When I grew up in Washington, you couldn't go near the
-> Potomac river. You certainly couldn't fish in it. Now people can actually
-> swim in the potomac. Enviromentalism has been good for the country.
-
-You've heard of the cases where liberals steal people's property away from them
-because there is some special snail darter fish that swims in the streams that
-run through their property?
I've heard that, and when I haved asked for specifics (names, dates, etc.
nobody ever seems to know any.
BTW: Do you have a degree in any science even remotely connected to
ecology, or biology?
Do you understand what can when one species is removed or introduced into
an ecological system?
(Try asking the aussies about their feral cat problem sometime.)
-
-> >> Winning World War Two.
-> >
-> >WTF?
->
-> Roosevelt was a liberal - and he lead the country into and throught the war.
->
-
-Actually, lots of you Democrats are now claiming that FDR set us up for WWII.
-
-He let Pearl Harbor happen to force the country to accept involvement in WWII.
Proof?
Or is that something you believe like the "Blacks are used by the Jews..."
-
Ninure Saunders
<krue...@uswest.net> wrote:
-Chas&Carlo wrote:
-
-> "Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
-> news:3A2179E1...@uswest.net...
-> >
-> >
-> > "Uranus." wrote:
-> >
-> > > Ted Krueger wrote:
-> > >
-> > > > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
-> > > >
-> > > > >
-> > > > > Higher education for all.
-> > > >
-> > > > Read my lips. No more NEA.
-> > >
-> > > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
-> >
-> > I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
-> >
-> > > > > What have conservatives ever done.......
-> > > > >
-> > > > > I'm waiting.
-> > > >
-> > > > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
-> > >
-> > > Like marriage for homosexuals.
-> >
-> > Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
->
-> For the legal benefits heterosexuals get that homosexuals are denied. This
-> is clearly a case of government treating one group differently than another,
-> which offends the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution.
-
-So you want to get taxed at a higher rate than if you just shacked up?
Actually, if that means "we" get all the rights, priveleges, respect,
duties, responsibilities as heterosexuals, then TES!!
But you knew that.
Ninure Saunders
<chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
-> David Hartung wrote:
->> For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
->> much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
->> conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
->> who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
-
-
-"Gregory Gadow" wrote:
-> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing that all people
-> have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a kind word or two -- are totally
-> incompatable with the goals of Christianity.
-
-
-georgann:
-ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one to give to
-another. Giving is, by definition, voluntary.
Which proves that there are very few true Christians amonmg
conservatives.......since conservatives so rarely give.
Matthew 25 :41 łThen he will say to those on his left, ŚDepart from
me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and
his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was
thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you
did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was
sick and in prison and you did not look after me.ą
:44 łThey also will answer, ŚLord, when did we see you hungry or
thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not
help you?ą
:45 łHe will reply, ŚI tell you the truth, whatever you did not do
for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.ą
But then the conservatives will answer:
:46 łThen they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous
to eternal life.˛
"But Lord, those were lazy bumns, potential welfare cheats, stupid
people, worthless scum.!!And why should I have had to support lazy
people?"
All the Commands of Jesus
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734/alljesus.html
Gregory Gadow
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:00:14 GMT, "Chas&Carlo" <mand...@voicenet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >That is one tiny little negative aspect of legal marriage. There are
> >hundreds of positive ones. Why are you addressing that one as if it is the
> >only difference between a legal union and "shacking up?" Sounds a little
> >dishonest, if you ask me.
>
> Holy Mackerel! If there are hundreds certainly you won't mind pointing
> out fifty or so that can't be acquired under better conditions and
> fairer to both parties, with a simple written contract of agreement or
> a simple will.
It can cost thousands to pursue written as contracts or contract-like agreements
(medical power of attorney, etc.) what can be obtain far more securely with a
$35 marriage license, these contracts have been easily contested and overturned
by disgruntled ex-lovers and family members, and no contract can grant many of
the rights and responsibilities automatically granted by marriage (such as the
legal right to care for your partner's children, join coverage of health
insurance, survivorship for pensions, joint Social Security and disability
insurance coverage, etc.)
Wills are routinely contested by family, and every single case that I am aware
of (six, actually), the family won and left the bereaved partner out completely.
There have been many more cases where, sadly, a will was not brought up until
too late, usually leaving the partner homeless and destitute. Marriage comes
with automatic and virtually unbreakable inheritance rights, regardless of the
presence or lack of a will.
Charles Basner
"Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3A229AE0...@serv.net...
And how about not having to testify against your husband/wife?
No contract between two people - except marriage - can induce a bank to
grant a mortgage to the two of them unless each of them can independently
secure the loan. Unless maybe the two can go into business together and use
corporate lawyers in order to get the same loan that an 80 year old
grandmother and a 16 year old boy can get just by going to a justice of the
peace. Simple, right?
chas
Neutrodyne
>Date: 11/26/2000 11:57 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <slrn923bp...@Brien.WatchRock.net>
Brien, you are SO nice. I'm so glad we all haven't fallen from grace!
Neutrodyne
Worthless & weak, caught with a "Gore" pin on his uniform....
big_...@my-deja.com
27110009...@1cust243.tnt54.chi5.da.uu.net>,
goodshepherd...@earthling.net (Ninure Saunders) wrote:
> In article <3A219573...@uswest.net>, Ted Krueger
> <krue...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
> -
> -Actually, lots of you Democrats are now claiming that FDR set us up
for WWII.
> -
> -He let Pearl Harbor happen to force the country to accept
involvement in WWII.
>
> Proof?
>
> Or is that something you believe like the "Blacks are used by the
Jews..."
> -
>
> Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
>
There is some convincing evidence that FDR knew about the attack before
hand (how long beforehand is unknown). The evidence is not wholly
conclusive by any stretch of the imagination, and I haven't seen anyone
present it as concrete, or conclusive yet. It really doesn't make
much sense though. The theory is that FDR let a total masacre happen
to draw the USA into WWII. Why would he do that when the attack alone
would have been enough to inflame public opinion and draw the USA in?
A simple communication to Pearl Harbor telling them to secretely ready
themselves for an attack would have done the job just as well. If
Pearl had been ready, and the ships been prepared, they could have
repelled the attack and still caused public opinion to shift enough to
enter the war. FDR would have been a heroe, the USA would have been
drawn into the war, and the agenda would have been met with fewer lives
lost.
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing
>> kind word or two -- are totally incompatable with the goals
>> of Christianity.
>
>
>georgann:
>ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one
Neither does liberalism.
Gregory Gadow
> > David Hartung wrote:
> >> For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> >> much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> >> conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
> >> who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
>
> "Gregory Gadow" wrote:
> > Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing that all people
> > have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a kind word or two -- are totally
> > incompatable with the goals of Christianity.
>
> georgann:
> ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one to give to
> another. Giving is, by definition, voluntary.
Why do you equate promoting the general welfare (according to the Preamble of the
US Constitution, one of the fundamental purposes of the US Government) with
theft? If it is "stealing from one to give to another", can I presume that you
consider such things as public education, roads and bridges, fire and police
departments, a standing military and mandated equal treatment for *all* citizens
in a court of law are all "stealing from one to give to another"?
sal...@my-deja.com
"David Hartung" <dhar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting
is
> much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even
between
> conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and
those
> who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
>
> David Hartung
> dhar...@bellsouth.net
Boy, that's the kind of closely reasoned analytic insight we really
prize in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.
Ted Krueger
Matthew Alexander wrote:
The idea that we should break the law is evil.
The votes had to be confirmed by the Tuesday following the election.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>
>"Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>news:3A21994A...@uswest.net...
>>
>>
>> Chas&Carlo wrote:
>>
>> > "Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>> > news:3A2179E1...@uswest.net...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "Uranus." wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Ted Krueger wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Higher education for all.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Read my lips. No more NEA.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
>> > >
>> > > I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
>> > >
>> > > > > > What have conservatives ever done.......
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I'm waiting.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
>> > > >
>> > > > Like marriage for homosexuals.
>> > >
>> > > Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
>> >
>> > For the legal benefits heterosexuals get that homosexuals are denied.
>This
>> > is clearly a case of government treating one group differently than
>another,
>> > which offends the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution.
>>
>> So you want to get taxed at a higher rate than if you just shacked up?
>
>That is one tiny little negative aspect of legal marriage. There are
>hundreds of positive ones. Why are you addressing that one as if it is the
>only difference between a legal union and "shacking up?" Sounds a little
>dishonest, if you ask me.
>
>chas
>
Illustrative of TWO of the qualities that underlie this sort of post
--
A pervasive malice, a suffocating xenophobia, pointed up by the use of
"shacking up" as compared to loving relationships.
Then, this extreme selectivity illustrates the "irrationality" which
is at the core of the definition of the work "homophobia."
ward
----------------------- from Webster's
Main Entry: ho搶o搆ho搓ia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
Date: 1969
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
- ho搶o搆ho搓ic /-'fO-bik/ adjective
--------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
"Let me say this carefully, but clearly. Anyone who
elevates their prejudices to the position where they
are defended as the will of God is evil.
Anybody who justifies their denigration of another
person's being based upon a quotation from an ancient
sacred text called the Word of God is simply out
of touch with contemporary scholarship. Anybody who
will not open themselves to the new knowledge readily
available in medical and scientific circles because
it calls into question their uninformed attitudes is
profoundly ignorant."
-- John Spong
-----------------------------------------------------
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:00:14 GMT, "Chas&Carlo" <mand...@voicenet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>That is one tiny little negative aspect of legal marriage. There are
>>hundreds of positive ones. Why are you addressing that one as if it is the
>>only difference between a legal union and "shacking up?" Sounds a little
>>dishonest, if you ask me.
>
>Holy Mackerel! If there are hundreds certainly you won't mind pointing
>out fifty or so that can't be acquired under better conditions and
>fairer to both parties, with a simple written contract of agreement or
>a simple will.
>
>
>>chas
>>
We are discussing here that EQUAL standing for ALL the citizens
referred to in the founding documents.
One group goes down to town hall and for twenty-five dollars - or some
equally trivial sum gains these protections.
Another group must needs spend hundreds of dollars on drawing up legal
papers which are vulnerable in court.
Here are two.
NO legal paper can establish the status of "next of kin."
NO legal paper can grant a spouse immunity from being compelled to
testify against a partner.
ward
Here are a couple
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 23:47:35 -0500, "Marc Sylvestre"
><msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>> > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
>>>>
>>>> I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
>>>
>>>Not legally unless it is a private school.
>>
>>Hate to burst your bubble, but the Clinton administration had the DOJ make
>>sure there were guideline showing how it is perfectly legal to pray in
>>school. You cannot have mandatory prayer. At the school where my wife
>>teaches the kids pray around the flag poll every day.
>
>Hell! In some of the schools in "Militia Country", the kids pray "to"
>the flag pole! After the flag is raised of course.
>
>That's real "America."
>
What yo folks seem to miss entirely in these discussions is the fact
that for the government to sponsor prayer in the schools it is first
required that the government must define what is and what is not a
prayer, must announce publicly which of the many deities is to be the
object of these prayers and under what circumstances they may or may
not be offered. Clearly a slippery slope leading to the destruction
of religious freedom.
One might think that the schools had instituted some sort of "prayer
patrol" tasked with checking the children for moving lips over their
lunch trays; for bowed heads over the exam papers.
absurd !
ward
Ward Stewart
<cha...@tipsinc.com> wrote:
>
>"Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
>news:3A229AE0...@serv.net...
>> Pau Andrews wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:00:14 GMT, "Chas&Carlo" <mand...@voicenet.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >That is one tiny little negative aspect of legal marriage. There are
>> > >hundreds of positive ones. Why are you addressing that one as if it is
>the
>> > >only difference between a legal union and "shacking up?" Sounds a
>little
>> > >dishonest, if you ask me.
>> >
>> > Holy Mackerel! If there are hundreds certainly you won't mind pointing
>> > out fifty or so that can't be acquired under better conditions and
>> > fairer to both parties, with a simple written contract of agreement or
>> > a simple will.
>>
>> It can cost thousands to pursue written as contracts or contract-like
>agreements
>> (medical power of attorney, etc.) what can be obtain far more securely
>with a
>> $35 marriage license, these contracts have been easily contested and
>overturned
>> by disgruntled ex-lovers and family members, and no contract can grant
>many of
>> the rights and responsibilities automatically granted by marriage (such as
>the
>> legal right to care for your partner's children, join coverage of health
>> insurance, survivorship for pensions, joint Social Security and disability
>> insurance coverage, etc.)
>>
>> Wills are routinely contested by family, and every single case that I am
>aware
>> of (six, actually), the family won and left the bereaved partner out
>completely.
>> There have been many more cases where, sadly, a will was not brought up
>until
>> too late, usually leaving the partner homeless and destitute. Marriage
>comes
>> with automatic and virtually unbreakable inheritance rights, regardless of
>the
>> presence or lack of a will.
>
>
>No contract between two people - except marriage - can induce a bank to
>grant a mortgage to the two of them unless each of them can independently
>secure the loan. Unless maybe the two can go into business together and use
>corporate lawyers in order to get the same loan that an 80 year old
>grandmother and a 16 year old boy can get just by going to a justice of the
>peace. Simple, right?
>And how about not having to testify against your husband/wife?
>
>chas
>
Aloha Chas --
This business about not being compelled to testify against a spouse
seems, at first glance, to be a remote and improbable circumstance.
HOWEVER the recognition by the courts that one's partner is bound to
one by ties and loyalties stronger than those involved in loyalty to
the state, to the courts and to hell itself IS important.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
And the idea that Florida should "certify" a winner before ALL the
votes were counted is . . .?
One might have supposed that this was at the very core of the election
process!
J.P.R. Jenkins
>
> As a libertarian, I find what you are
> proposing offensive. Who is going
> to pay for the items you list below ?
> Let me guess, ME, in the form of
> ever increasing taxes since I will have
> to support a bunch of free-loaders.
> YOU pay for them and leave me
> out of it.
> John Milford
As a Libertarian, you should move to any third world country, that has
already adopted, and long since practiced, your political viewpoint.
Steve
<dhar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
>much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
>conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
>who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
David, are you reduced to merely trolling these days? Sheesh!
Steve
"The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light
you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Ted Krueger
Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> >> >Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
> >>
> >> What a stupid question.
> >
> >What a stupid response.
>
> A more polite responce would have pointed out that without protection of
> unions, Union members could be fired for beloning to a union. They were also
> beaten by people working for the companies, and some were killed.
> That's why the people needed government protection from the companies to
> form their unions.
So why is Union membership decreasing so much?
Ted Krueger
"J.P.R. Jenkins" wrote:
> Ted Krueger wrote:
> >
> > Chas&Carlo wrote:
> >
> > > "Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3A2179E1...@uswest.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Uranus." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ted Krueger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Higher education for all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Read my lips. No more NEA.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
> > > >
> > > > I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
> > > >
> > > > > > > What have conservatives ever done.......
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm waiting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like marriage for homosexuals.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
> > >
> > > For the legal benefits heterosexuals get that homosexuals are denied. This
> > > is clearly a case of government treating one group differently than another,
> > > which offends the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution.
> >
> > So you want to get taxed at a higher rate than if you just shacked up?
>
> No, they want to be able to visit their partners in hospital ICUs, they
> want to be able to give consent for organ donations, they want to be
> able to leave their possessions, by default to their significant others,
> and not have their estates controlled by estranged family members.
I think they should have the right to do these things.
> There are a myriad of things they deserve just as married heterosexuals
> deserve them.
>
> Quit attempting to shield your hate in logic, you fail every time.
I just love it.
I have a choice. I can either agree with you or I am spewing hate.
Bigot or Borg.
Ted Krueger
Gregory Gadow wrote:
> David Hartung wrote:
>
> > For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> > much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> > conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
> > who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
>
> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing that all people
> have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a kind word or two -- are totally
> incompatable with the goals of Christianity.
Is involuntary taxation to achieve your goals a goal of Christianity?
Ted Krueger
Ninure Saunders wrote:
> In article <3A219573...@uswest.net>, Ted Krueger
> <krue...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> -Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> -
> -> >Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> -> >
I taught my students to think and be responsible for their own actions, not to expect to rely on
government handouts if they want to be successful in life. Hopefully that will encourage them to make
schools better when they grow up.
> How involved are you now in your children's school?
Funny, my wife and I just spoke with school officials today and they were clearly baffled that one of
their students had two involved and educated parents living in the home with the kid.
> -Tomorrow morning I get to go to one to explain to the stupid-assed social
> worker
> -why my kid gets tired after lunch.
>
> Why do they get tired after lunch?
>
> It isn't normal for children to be "tired" agfer lunch, and the fact that
> you don't seem to be concerned about that makes one believe that the
> social worker needs to look real closely at what else you don't care about
> when it comes to your children's welfare.
You need a biology refresher. I don't know that I'm qualified, but I'll give it a first swag.
When energy flows to the digestive tract it leaves less for the rest of the body. Less energy=more tired.
It is normal for people to be tired after a large meal depending on the makeup of the meal.
The kid eats public school food. What more can I say?
> -
> -I'm guessing that it will include a chemistry lesson.
>
> Yeah, right.
Explain.
> -> >> Protecting the environment.
> -> >
> -> >By stealing private property from the owner.
> ->
> -> How is the regulation of what people dump in rivers or put into the air
> -> stealing porperty? When I grew up in Washington, you couldn't go near the
> -> Potomac river. You certainly couldn't fish in it. Now people can actually
> -> swim in the potomac. Enviromentalism has been good for the country.
You must've missed the story about the guy who lost the ability to harvest crops on his farm because the
EPA found a certain kind of animal in one of the field beds.
Bad for private property rights.
> -You've heard of the cases where liberals steal people's property away from them
> -because there is some special snail darter fish that swims in the streams that
> -run through their property?
>
> I've heard that, and when I haved asked for specifics (names, dates, etc.
> nobody ever seems to know any.
Really? You've never heard of the snail darter?
> BTW: Do you have a degree in any science even remotely connected to
> ecology, or biology?
Halfway. My first degree was supposed to be in general science teaching. I took several courses in
biology and botany before transferring to the University of Arizona where they did not have an equivalent
degree. I had to pick two specific branches of science to speciallize in. I chose chemistry and physics.
> Do you understand what can when one species is removed or introduced into
> an ecological system?
Certainly.
> (Try asking the aussies about their feral cat problem sometime.)
Or their problem with kangaroos.
> -> >> Winning World War Two.
> -> >
> -> >WTF?
> ->
> -> Roosevelt was a liberal - and he lead the country into and throught the war.
> ->
> -
> -Actually, lots of you Democrats are now claiming that FDR set us up for WWII.
> -
> -He let Pearl Harbor happen to force the country to accept involvement in WWII.
>
> Proof?
Ask Charlie. He's the one with the PhD in history.
Ted Krueger
ah...@no-spam-to-world.std.com wrote:
> >>>>> Ted Krueger writes:
>
> Ted> Chas&Carlo wrote:
>
> >> "Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news> 3A2179E1...@uswest.net...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Uranus." wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Ted Krueger wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Higher education for all.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Read my lips. No more NEA.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
> >> >
> >> > I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
> >> >
> >> > > > > What have conservatives ever done.......
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I'm waiting.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
> >> > >
> >> > > Like marriage for homosexuals.
> >> >
> >> > Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
> >>
> >> For the legal benefits heterosexuals get that homosexuals are denied. This
> >> is clearly a case of government treating one group differently than another,
> >> which offends the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution.
>
> Ted> So you want to get taxed at a higher rate than if you just shacked up?
>
> More people reap a marriage benefit than pay the marriage penalty.
Really?
I've read the stats that say that the most marriage penalty is paid by a couple who
earn close to the same amount, but I hadn't heard this.
> No non-married people are granted exemptions from the inheritance
> tax.
Sure they are. Six hundred thousand a piece.
> Cheap and inaccurate. You can do better.
I have.
k
"georgann chenault" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:B647E1C8.454B%chen...@mindspring.com...
>
> georgann:
> ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one to give to
> another. Giving is, by definition, voluntary.
Giving is _required_
k
>
Ted Krueger
"Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD" wrote:
> >"Gregory Gadow" wrote:
> >> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing
> >> that all people have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a
> >> kind word or two -- are totally incompatable with the goals
> >> of Christianity.
> >
> >
> >georgann:
> >ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one
> >to give to another.
>
> Neither does liberalism.
What do you call it when the government comes to your door pointing a
loaded weapon at your head demanding money?
Gregory Gadow
> Gregory Gadow wrote:
>
> > David Hartung wrote:
> >
> > > For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> > > much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> > > conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
> > > who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
> >
> > Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing that all people
> > have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a kind word or two -- are totally
> > incompatable with the goals of Christianity.
>
> Is involuntary taxation to achieve your goals a goal of Christianity?
"Involuntary taxation"... the same taxation that pays for public education, the
police and fire protection which keeps the public at large safe and secure and
which help maintain roads? Are these programs, too, evil and counter to everything
Christianity stands for?
And you ignore (deliberately?) the many things for which liberals are directly
responsible for against the wishes of conservatives: equal rights regardless of
gender, race or religion, a fundamental education despite an inability to pay,
programs that at least attempt to fill in the gaps left by private organizations
to feed those in this country who are starving, provide shelter for those who are
homeless and give medical attention and comfort to those who are sick
I think it is disgusting that you equate personal and minor economic
inconvenience with "evil".
Ted Krueger
Gregory Gadow wrote:
> georgann chenault wrote:
>
> > > David Hartung wrote:
> > >> For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> > >> much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> > >> conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
> > >> who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
> >
> > "Gregory Gadow" wrote:
> > > Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing that all people
> > > have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a kind word or two -- are totally
> > > incompatable with the goals of Christianity.
> >
> > georgann:
> > ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one to give to
> > another. Giving is, by definition, voluntary.
>
> Why do you equate promoting the general welfare (according to the Preamble of the
> US Constitution, one of the fundamental purposes of the US Government) with
> theft?
Why do you think that teaching people to ignore self-reliance is "promoting the
general welfare?"
> If it is "stealing from one to give to another", can I presume that you
> consider such things as public education, roads and bridges, fire and police
> departments, a standing military and mandated equal treatment for *all* citizens
> in a court of law are all "stealing from one to give to another"?
Stealing is not giving.
Giving is voluntary. Taxes are not. Therefore they are not giving.
It is possible to argue that public education, roads and bridges, fire and police,
and a standing military promote the general welfare while arguing that cash awards to
people do not.
Ted Krueger
Ward Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:00:06 -0700, Ted Krueger <krue...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Matthew Alexander wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 22:46:30 -0600, "David Hartung"
> >> <dhar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> >> >much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> >> >conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
> >> >who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
> >>
> >> So... in the closest election in over a century, in a state where the
> >> margin is so close that a movie theater full of voters could have
> >> turned the tide, and a vote where serious technical problems have
> >> plauged the ballot.... the idea that we ought to actually _count_ the
> >> votes is "evil"?
> >>
> >> Gee, you're certainly unbiased.
> >
> >The idea that we should break the law is evil.
> >
> >The votes had to be confirmed by the Tuesday following the election.
>
> And the idea that Florida should "certify" a winner before ALL the
> votes were counted is . . .?
When did I say that this certification was of the winner? Florida law does not
state that all the votes must be counted. It says that if the various counties
don't get their results in on time they are to be ignored.
It is a certification of the votes. Then, according to federal law, the overseas
military ballots are certified three days later.
Then the winner could have been announced.
> One might have supposed that this was at the very core of the election
> process!
I'm not following you.
Gregory Gadow
> "Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD" wrote:
>
> > >"Gregory Gadow" wrote:
> > >> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing
> > >> that all people have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a
> > >> kind word or two -- are totally incompatable with the goals
> > >> of Christianity.
> > >
> > >
> > >georgann:
> > >ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one
> > >to give to another.
> >
> > Neither does liberalism.
>
> What do you call it when the government comes to your door pointing a
> loaded weapon at your head demanding money?
That has happened to you? Certainly you do not live in the United States
then. Here, those who refuse to take responsbility for living in a
civilized society (ie they cheat the public schools, the police and fire
departments, the road maintenance department, etc.) face due process of
law.
Paying taxes is like paying your bills. Regardless of any religious
motivation, society as a whole benefits when all people have the chance
to a basic education, when roads are in good repair, when there are
properly maintained parks open to all, when there are enough policemen
and judges and courtrooms and jails to deal with law breakers. Taxes are
the debt we as citizens pay for these services, no different than our
phone, cable or internet service provider bills.
georgann chenault
>> "Gregory Gadow" wrote:
>>> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing
>>> that all people have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a
>>> kind word or two -- are totally incompatable with the goals
>>> of Christianity.
>> georgann:
>> ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one
>> to give to another.
"Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD" wrote:
> Neither does liberalism.
georgann:
Honey, if it ain't voluntary, its stealing.
Gregory Gadow
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 06:59:26 -0800,
>
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
>
> >David Hartung wrote:
> >
> >> For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> >> much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> >> conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
> >> who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
> >
> >Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing that all people
> >have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a kind word or two -- are totally
> >incompatable with the goals of Christianity.
>
> The glue holding the "tax and spend" Democrat Party and
> liberalism together is the ability to service their special-interest
> constituencies with benefits, preferential treatment, perverted
> lifestyle validation, ideological succor and hard cash stolen from
> other Americans.
Would that be the very same "hard cash stolen from other Americans" which paid
your salary and (presumably) your pension, "Colonel"? You, of all people, have no
business complaining about the taxes that gave you a career suckling at the
public teat.
georgann chenault
>>> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing that all people
>>> have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a kind word or two -- are totally
>>> incompatable with the goals of Christianity.
>> georgann:
>> ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one to give to
>> another. Giving is, by definition, voluntary.
"Gregory Gadow" wrote:
> Why do you equate promoting the general welfare (according to the Preamble of
> the US Constitution, one of the fundamental purposes of the US Government)
> with theft? If it is "stealing from one to give to another", can I presume
> that you consider such things as public education, roads and bridges, fire and
> police departments, a standing military and mandated equal treatment for *all*
> citizens in a court of law are all "stealing from one to give to another"?
georgann:
Why do you equate giving with liberalism and NOT with the goals of
Christianity. Your motives are highly suspect. Your logic flawed. And your
attitude rude.
James Doemer
Ward Stewart <wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3a25b118.4316000@news-server...
> -----------------------------------------------------
> "Let me say this carefully, but clearly. Anyone who
> elevates their prejudices to the position where they
> are defended as the will of God is evil.
I know some that would jump at the chance to testify against their spouse.
:c)
James Doemer
>
>
> "Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD" wrote:
>
> > >> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing
> > >> that all people have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a
> > >> kind word or two -- are totally incompatable with the goals
> > >> of Christianity.
> > >
> > >
> > >georgann:
> > >ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one
> > >to give to another.
> >
>
> What do you call it when the government comes to your door pointing a
> loaded weapon at your head demanding money?
>
>
Tax evasion. EIther that, our you are in serious arrears in your student
loan.
How many times has that happened to you anyways?
James Doemer
> Ted Krueger wrote:
>
> > "Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD" wrote:
> >
> > > >"Gregory Gadow" wrote:
> > > >> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing
> > > >> that all people have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a
> > > >> kind word or two -- are totally incompatable with the goals
> > > >> of Christianity.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >georgann:
> > > >ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one
> > > >to give to another.
> > >
> > > Neither does liberalism.
> >
> > What do you call it when the government comes to your door pointing a
> > loaded weapon at your head demanding money?
>
> then. Here, those who refuse to take responsbility for living in a
> civilized society (ie they cheat the public schools, the police and fire
> departments, the road maintenance department, etc.) face due process of
> law.
>
> Paying taxes is like paying your bills. Regardless of any religious
> motivation, society as a whole benefits when all people have the chance
> to a basic education, when roads are in good repair, when there are
> properly maintained parks open to all, when there are enough policemen
> and judges and courtrooms and jails to deal with law breakers. Taxes are
> the debt we as citizens pay for these services, no different than our
> phone, cable or internet service provider bills.
Well, that's not entirely true. I can cancel my phone, cable, or internet
service provider without going to jail.
Ted Krueger
k wrote:
> "georgann chenault" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:B647E1C8.454B%chen...@mindspring.com...
> >
> > georgann:
> > ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one to give to
> > another. Giving is, by definition, voluntary.
>
> Giving is _required_
Not through the government.
I give, and have given plenty. Then the government taxes me to give money to
lazy people (among others).
The reason why it is better to have personal giving than government giving is
that individuals can discriminate.
I would not give to lazy people. The government must.
Ted Krueger
Gregory Gadow wrote:
> Ted Krueger wrote:
>
> > Gregory Gadow wrote:
> >
> > > David Hartung wrote:
> > >
> > > > For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
> > > > much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
> > > > conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
> > > > who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
> > >
> > > Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing that all people
> > > have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a kind word or two -- are totally
> > > incompatable with the goals of Christianity.
> >
> > Is involuntary taxation to achieve your goals a goal of Christianity?
>
> "Involuntary taxation"... the same taxation that pays for public education, the
> police and fire protection which keeps the public at large safe and secure and
> which help maintain roads? Are these programs, too, evil and counter to everything
> Christianity stands for?
Nope. They obviously fall under the "general welfare."
Giving to individuals does nothing for the general welfare.
It teaches people to be lazy.
> And you ignore (deliberately?) the many things for which liberals are directly
> responsible for against the wishes of conservatives: equal rights regardless of
> gender, race or religion,
You can't be wrong about everything.
> a fundamental education despite an inability to pay,
It has become a pretty crappy education.
> programs that at least attempt to fill in the gaps left by private organizations
> to feed those in this country who are starving,
I think private organizations do a really good job of this, and I contribute to them.
Btw, I'm just getting ready to write a check to the Associated Highway Patrolmen of
Arizona to help take care of the families of officers who have been killed in the line
of duty.
> provide shelter for those who are
> homeless
Many of whom should be in mental institutions.
> and give medical attention and comfort to those who are sick
By law, emergency medical attention cannot be denied.
> I think it is disgusting that you equate personal and minor economic
> inconvenience with "evil".
Fine, be disgusted then. A couple weeks ago I received a bonus check from my
company. The check was for 51% of my bonus. Deductions (about 80% of which were
government deductions) took the other 49%.
How much do you think we should be taxed?
Threatening to imprison and execute me to extort money to give to purposes that are
not contributing to the general welfare is evil.
Ted Krueger
Gregory Gadow wrote:
> Ted Krueger wrote:
>
> > "Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD" wrote:
> >
> > > >"Gregory Gadow" wrote:
> > > >> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing
> > > >> that all people have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a
> > > >> kind word or two -- are totally incompatable with the goals
> > > >> of Christianity.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >georgann:
> > > >ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one
> > > >to give to another.
> > >
> > > Neither does liberalism.
> >
> > What do you call it when the government comes to your door pointing a
> > loaded weapon at your head demanding money?
>
> That has happened to you? Certainly you do not live in the United States
> then. Here, those who refuse to take responsbility for living in a
> civilized society (ie they cheat the public schools, the police and fire
> departments, the road maintenance department, etc.) face due process of
> law.
I have never argued against genuine general welfare promotion.
What I argue against is paying a single woman for churning out babies, for
example.
> Paying taxes is like paying your bills. Regardless of any religious
> motivation, society as a whole benefits when all people have the chance
> to a basic education, when roads are in good repair, when there are
> properly maintained parks open to all, when there are enough policemen
> and judges and courtrooms and jails to deal with law breakers. Taxes are
> the debt we as citizens pay for these services, no different than our
> phone, cable or internet service provider bills.
How about cash payouts to lazy, irresponsible people?
augustxxi
>
> >> So what did YOU do when you raught in public schools to make them better?
> >
> >I taught my students to think and be responsible for their own actions, not
> >to expect to rely on
> >government handouts if they want to be successful in life. Hopefully that
> >will encourage them to make
> >schools better when they grow up.
> >
>
>
> >> How involved are you now in your children's school?
> >
> >Funny, my wife and I just spoke with school officials today and they were
> >clearly baffled that one of
> >their students had two involved and educated parents living in the home with
> >the kid.
>
>
> >> It isn't normal for children to be "tired" agfer lunch, and the fact that
> >> you don't seem to be concerned about that makes one believe that the
> >> social worker needs to look real closely at what else you don't care about
> >> when it comes to your children's welfare.
> >
> >You need a biology refresher. I don't know that I'm qualified, but I'll give
> >it a first swag.
> >When energy flows to the digestive tract it leaves less for the rest of the
> >body. Less energy=more tired.
> >>It is normal for people to be tired after a large meal depending on the
> >makeup of the meal.
> >>The kid eats public school food. What more can I say?
> >
>
> happening.
>
> Ivy
Ivy, I don't know who you are replying to, I didn't get the original
post. Would you please use attributions in future?
Thanks!
August
J.P.R. Jenkins
>
> Marc Sylvestre wrote:
>
> > >> >Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
> > >>
> > >
> > >What a stupid response.
> >
> > A more polite responce would have pointed out that without protection of
> > unions, Union members could be fired for beloning to a union. They were also
> > beaten by people working for the companies, and some were killed.
> > That's why the people needed government protection from the companies to
> > form their unions.
>
> So why is Union membership decreasing so much?
Because the Unions were successful in raising working conditions across
the board.
JAY1BEE
DrDecaf
<3A22DA89...@uswest.net>:
>> So what did YOU do when you raught in public schools to make them
>> better?
>
>I taught my students to think and be responsible for their own actions,
>not to expect to rely on government handouts if they want to be
>successful in life. Hopefully that will encourage them to make schools
>better when they grow up.
>
was this a _public_ school?
--dr d
ironies abound
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>
>
>"Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD" wrote:
>
>> >"Gregory Gadow" wrote:
>> >> Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing
>> >> that all people have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a
>> >> kind word or two -- are totally incompatable with the goals
>> >> of Christianity.
>> >
>> >
>> >georgann:
>> >ARE you nuts? Christianity doesn't condone stealing from one
>> >to give to another.
>>
>> Neither does liberalism.
>
>What do you call it when the government comes to your door pointing a
>loaded weapon at your head demanding money?
>
A right wing delusion?
ward
-----------------------------------------------------
"Let me say this carefully, but clearly. Anyone who
elevates their prejudices to the position where they
are defended as the will of God is evil.
Anybody who justifies their denigration of another
person's being based upon a quotation from an ancient
sacred text called the Word of God is simply out
of touch with contemporary scholarship. Anybody who
will not open themselves to the new knowledge readily
available in medical and scientific circles because
it calls into question their uninformed attitudes is
profoundly ignorant."
-- John Spong
-----------------------------------------------------
C.J.W.
Ward Stewart wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:00:14 GMT, "Chas&Carlo" <mand...@voicenet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> >news:3A21994A...@uswest.net...
> >>
> >>
> >> Chas&Carlo wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Ted Krueger" <krue...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:3A2179E1...@uswest.net...
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > "Uranus." wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Ted Krueger wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Higher education for all.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Read my lips. No more NEA.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
> >> > >
> >> > > I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
> >> > >
> >> > > > > > What have conservatives ever done.......
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I'm waiting.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Like marriage for homosexuals.
> >> > >
> >> > > Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
> >> >
> >> > For the legal benefits heterosexuals get that homosexuals are denied.
> >This
> >> > is clearly a case of government treating one group differently than
> >another,
> >> > which offends the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution.
> >>
> >> So you want to get taxed at a higher rate than if you just shacked up?
> >
> >That is one tiny little negative aspect of legal marriage. There are
> >hundreds of positive ones. Why are you addressing that one as if it is the
> >only difference between a legal union and "shacking up?" Sounds a little
> >dishonest, if you ask me.
The position that everyone isn't being treated equally already is the
only specious position above.
> Illustrative of TWO of the qualities that underlie this sort of post
> --
>
> A pervasive malice, a suffocating xenophobia, pointed up by the use of
> "shacking up" as compared to loving relationships.
I suppose that high rates of domestic violence and abuse is an aspect of
"loving" according only to some behavioral deviants.
> Then, this extreme selectivity illustrates the "irrationality" which
> is at the core of the definition of the work "homophobia."
Claims such as the claim that people are not being treated equally is
why homophiles cannot claim irrationality/homophobia. It is you who are
being irrational. And homophiles never provide their rationale for
rationality a priori anyway.
> ward
>
> ----------------------- from Webster's
>
> Main Entry: ho搶o搆ho搓ia
> Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
> Function: noun
> Date: 1969
> : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
> - ho搶o搆ho搓ic /-'fO-bik/ adjective<snip>
Using that definition all nations are homophobic, because none put
homosexuality and heterosexuality on a par. I.e. none put deviancy and
normalcy on a par. So they must be discriminating some difference and
not treating that which is not equal, as if it is equal.
Using that definition and associating homonegativity with homophobia
there is no word left for true homophobia and irrationality. That is
what happens with many of homophiles intellectually absurd associative
arguments.
--
--Watson
"Tolerance is the highest virtue
for those who have no others."
--G.K. Chesterton
http://www.federalist.com
http://member.newsguy.com/~watt2020/Public_Life_and_Homosexuality.html
JAY1BEE
>> happening.
>>
>> Ivy
>
>
>post. Would you please use attributions in future?
>
>Thanks!
>August
Sorry, August. I was responding to a couple of Ted's remarks: that he taught
schoolchildren to be "responsible for their own actions." I think schools
should teach academics. Also, his remark that he spoke with "school officials"
who were "baffled that one of their students had two involved...parents living
in the home with the kid." Frankly, this kind of hyperbole serves no purpose
other than to vent emotion; it certainly is not a believable statement. And
finally, his remark that he had to talk with the social worker because his
child seems tired after lunch: he claimed this is because "energy flows to the
digestive tract" and that it is normal for people to be tired after a large
meal, and his child eats a public school lunch. Evidently, he is saying that he
finds the school lunch program to be a poor one, but still allows his child to
eat it rather than providing him with what he could consider a better, more
nourishing lunch.
Of course, the hypothesis that the school lunch is the problem ignores the fact
that his child is not the only child to eat the school lunch. Are all of them
tired enough to warrant the staff's concern? Seemingly not, yet he does not
appear grateful for the school's interest.
Ivy
Matthew Alexander
wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Alexander wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 22:46:30 -0600, "David Hartung"
>> <dhar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
>> >much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
>> >conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
>> >who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
>>
>> So... in the closest election in over a century, in a state where the
>> margin is so close that a movie theater full of voters could have
>> turned the tide, and a vote where serious technical problems have
>> plauged the ballot.... the idea that we ought to actually _count_ the
>> votes is "evil"?
>>
>> Gee, you're certainly unbiased.
>
>The idea that we should break the law is evil.
Well, from David's tone of voice I thought he was talking about some
kind of Book or Revelation, Wrath of God,
Cats-and-Dogs-Living-Together kind of evil.
>The votes had to be confirmed by the Tuesday following the election.
That's all well and good, but I can't help but wonder if you would
have insisted that had it been Gore who was 300 votes ahead.
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>paying a single woman for churning
>out babies, for example.
What you do on your own time is your own business.
--
"Our administration has been the victim of individuals who
haven't had the judgement or integrity to put the public's
business above their own selfish interest."
--George H.W. Bush remembers his days as Reagan's VP
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>"Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD" wrote:
>> Neither does liberalism.
>
>georgann:
>Honey, if it ain't voluntary, its stealing.
So do you complain about the money that is "stolen" from you to
pay for things like a missile defense system?
mr_p...@my-deja.com
Ted Krueger <krue...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>
> August XXi wrote:
>
> > Ted Krueger krue...@uswest.net wrote:
> >
> > >"Uranus." wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ted Krueger wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Marc Sylvestre wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Higher education for all.
> > >> >
> > >> > Read my lips. No more NEA.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, prayer in schools by any means necessary.
> > >
> > >I hate to burst your bubble, but we have prayer in schools now.
> > >
> > >> > > What have conservatives ever done.......
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm waiting.
> > >> >
> > >> > Leave people alone and let them live their lives.
> > >>
> > >> Like marriage for homosexuals.
> > >
> > >Why do you need government sanctioning of your unions?
> >
>
> What a stupid response.
>
>
I see that Tina is training you well, Ted.
Best
Greg
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gen. JC Christian, General of the Militias
>The glue holding the "tax and spend" Democrat Party and
>liberalism together is the ability to service their
>special-interest constituencies with benefits, preferential
>treatment, perverted lifestyle validation, ideological succor
>and hard cash stolen from other Americans.
I like your spunk Colonel. Why haven't you reported to me yet? I
can't have people calling themselves colonel on the internet if
they haven't reported to me yet. Of course if you're active
duty, that's another story, but if your militia, you are
flirting with mutiny and we won't put up with it.
--
General J C Christian
General of the Militias
Persicos odi, puer, apparatus
http://member.newsguy.com/~satire/militia.htm
Chas&Carlo
"Pau Andrews" <pau...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:pqp52t8d236mcl8q7...@2u.i.am...
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:33:20 -0800, Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Pau Andrews wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:00:14 GMT, "Chas&Carlo" <mand...@voicenet.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >That is one tiny little negative aspect of legal marriage. There are
> >> >hundreds of positive ones. Why are you addressing that one as if it
is the
> >> >only difference between a legal union and "shacking up?" Sounds a
little
> >> >dishonest, if you ask me.
> >>
> >> out fifty or so that can't be acquired under better conditions and
> >> fairer to both parties, with a simple written contract of agreement or
> >> a simple will.
> >
> >It can cost thousands to pursue written as contracts or contract-like
agreements
> >(medical power of attorney, etc.) what can be obtain far more securely
with a
> >$35 marriage license, these contracts have been easily contested and
overturned
> >by disgruntled ex-lovers and family members, and no contract can grant
many of
> >the rights and responsibilities automatically granted by marriage (such
as the
> >legal right to care for your partner's children, join coverage of health
> >insurance, survivorship for pensions, joint Social Security and
disability
> >insurance coverage, etc.)
>
> with it - you can too. Stop whining!
Single hets living together *choose* not to marry. Do you not see that that
is different from being excluded by law from marrying?
>
>
> >Wills are routinely contested by family, and every single case that I am
aware
> >of (six, actually), the family won and left the bereaved partner out
completely.
> >There have been many more cases where, sadly, a will was not brought up
until
> >too late, usually leaving the partner homeless and destitute. Marriage
comes
> >with automatic and virtually unbreakable inheritance rights, regardless
of the
> >presence or lack of a will.
>
> Marriage in our culture is between one man and one woman.
> Not two men and one woman. Not six women and one man. Not
> two men. Not two women...ONE MAN wed to ONE WOMAN is
> the only legal form of marriage. That's what the laws say!! Anything
> else is not recognized by any state or the federal government and
> there is no law compelling them to. Everybody else is living with the
> restrictions as they exist. Stop Whining - Live with it!
There also used to be laws that blacks could not marry whites. Those laws
were changed. So should the current laws be.
>
> You're beginning to sound like Al Gore! (another sore loser.)
God I wish there were an alternate universe where Bush lost the machine
counts by 0.005% of the vote. Oh would the tables be turned...
chas
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>Think about this for a moment: "It is the soldier, not the
>reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.
Actually, it was the politician, lawyer, and publisher. People
like Madison, William O Douglass, and the New York Times
>It is
>the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of
>the speech.
Hardly. It was the politician, lawyer, and the activist. People
like Patrick Henry, Clarence Darrow, and Mario Savio.
>It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who
>has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
Tell that to the kids at Kent State. Again it was the
politician, lawyer, and the activist. People like George Mason,
William Kunsler, and David Dellinger.
>It is the soldier,
>who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose
>coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to
>burn the flag."
And it's mighty nice of you not to enforce military order on our
citizens.
I respect many people who are in the military. When they are
needed, they provide a very important service at great risk to
their own lives. At the same time, I'm sick of hearing some of
them act as if we should worship them simply because they are
soldiers. It's not a sacrifice. It's a profession they chose. No
one forced them into it.
While it is true that those who fought in in the Revolutionary
War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and probably World War II
defended out liberty as a nation, people like Young didn't. Sure
they might have ensured that our economy remained stable by
preventing Iraq from cornering the market on oil, but that's
about it. Losing 1 1/2 half wars in an attempt to prevent people
from choosing their own form of government did nothing for us.
Containment was a stupid strategy. I'm sorry that you had to
fight in those wars, but please don't act as if we should
worship you because you defended our liberty. You didn't.
Gen. JC Christian, General of the Militias
>
>>The glue holding the "tax and spend" Democrat Party and
>>liberalism together is the ability to service their
>>special-interest constituencies with benefits, preferential
>>treatment, perverted lifestyle validation, ideological
>>succor and hard cash stolen from other Americans.
>
>I like your spunk Colonel. Why haven't you reported to me
>yet? I can't have people calling themselves colonel on the
>internet if they haven't reported to me yet. Of course if
>you're active duty, that's another story, but if your
>militia, you are flirting with mutiny and we won't put up
>with it.
Wait a second. I now see your name is Pau. We don't need no
foreigners in the militia. Furthermore this is an American
newsgroup for Americans. We don't need your kind comin into our
newsgroups with your fancy foreign ideas about household
voltage, flouridated water, and weird kinds of bread.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>
>
>Gregory Gadow wrote:
>
>> Ted Krueger wrote:
>>
>> > Gregory Gadow wrote:
>> >
>> > > David Hartung wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > For those who have not figured it out yet, the battle we are fighting is
>> > > > much more than merely between Democrats and Republicans, or even between
>> > > > conservatives and liberals. The Battel is between good and evil, and those
>> > > > who call themselves liberals are on the evil side of the equation.
>> > >
>> > > Indeed. We all know that the ideals of liberalism -- seeing that all people
>> > > have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, a kind word or two -- are totally
>> > > incompatable with the goals of Christianity.
>> >
>> > Is involuntary taxation to achieve your goals a goal of Christianity?
>>
>> "Involuntary taxation"... the same taxation that pays for public education, the
>> police and fire protection which keeps the public at large safe and secure and
>> which help maintain roads? Are these programs, too, evil and counter to everything
>> Christianity stands for?
>
>Nope. They obviously fall under the "general welfare."
>
>Giving to individuals does nothing for the general welfare.
>
>It teaches people to be lazy.
>
>> And you ignore (deliberately?) the many things for which liberals are directly
>> responsible for against the wishes of conservatives: equal rights regardless of
>> gender, race or religion,
>
>You can't be wrong about everything.
>
>> a fundamental education despite an inability to pay,
>
>It has become a pretty crappy education.
So, -- get on the school-board and improve it. Or would you rather
whine about YOUR money going to educate the wrong people.
>
>> programs that at least attempt to fill in the gaps left by private organizations
>> to feed those in this country who are starving,
>
>I think private organizations do a really good job of this, and I contribute to them.
>
>Btw, I'm just getting ready to write a check to the Associated Highway Patrolmen of
>Arizona to help take care of the families of officers who have been killed in the line
>of duty.
HEY! Hot Spit! are you undertaking YEARS of contributions to support
and educate his minor children now fatherless?
>
>> provide shelter for those who are
>> homeless
>
>Many of whom should be in mental institutions.
Thank yo for this opinion doctor. We are grateful indeed for your
prescience. Has it perhaps occurred to you that "mental institutions"
are FAR FAR more expensive of public funds than shelters?
>
>> and give medical attention and comfort to those who are sick
>
>By law, emergency medical attention cannot be denied.
>
>> I think it is disgusting that you equate personal and minor economic
>> inconvenience with "evil".
>
>Fine, be disgusted then. A couple weeks ago I received a bonus check from my
>company. The check was for 51% of my bonus. Deductions (about 80% of which were
>government deductions) took the other 49%.
>
>How much do you think we should be taxed?
Clearly you are being paid an ENORMOUS salary -- or, perhaps you are
lying about the percentage of your wages going to the government.
It would appear not to have occurred to you that your HUGE wages are,
in considerable part, due to the general prosperity and security
dependant on tax revenues.
>Threatening to imprison and execute me to extort money to give to purposes that are
>not contributing to the general welfare is evil.
Could you tell us of the last time any American citizen was executed
for tax evasion?
Come to think of it, don't bother -- you are a waste of time and
attention.
PLONK
ward
>
>
----------------------------------------------------
" . .we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our
prejudices into legal principles.’ If we would guide
by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold.”
Justice Louis Brandeis
----------------------------------------------------
georgann chenault
>>> Neither does liberalism.
>> georgann:
>> Honey, if it ain't voluntary, its stealing.
"Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD" wrote:
> So do you complain about the money that is "stolen" from you to
> pay for things like a missile defense system?
georgann:
Presently the tax systems in the US are viewed as voluntary. Even though we
bitch a lot.
David Hartung
> georgann:
> Presently the tax systems in the US are viewed as voluntary. Even though
we
> bitch a lot.
Try not paying your taxes and see how voluntary they are.
--
David Hartung
dhar...@bellsouth.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty." -- Benjamin Franklin