Why is Rush Fat?
Kevin Wayte
>sponsor his show which means their part of the liberal media.
Why is Rush so fat?
Simple answer.
BECAUSE HE IS STRAIGHT!!!
Why are fat beer-bellies who sit home and watch football ALWAYS straight?
Ever think about it?
Gays are simply (as an overall group) healthier, better educated, better
employed, more attractive, in better shape, have higher IQ's, and have more
taste and artistic traits than straight people as an overall group.
Apuleius
alt.politics.homosexuality:
»»> Rush could lose 50 lbs with the Ultra Slim Fast plan -but- they don't
»»>sponsor his show which means their part of the liberal media.
»»Why is Rush so fat?
Because he wears a money belt.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Pink Swastika may be ordered from
Interviews & Speaking Engagements
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
George Graves
> =
> kev...@ra.isisnet.com (Kevin Wayte) wrote to and
> alt.politics.homosexuality:
> =
> =BB=BB> Rush could lose 50 lbs with the Ultra Slim Fast plan -but- they =
don't
> =BB=BB>sponsor his show which means their part of the liberal media.
> =
> =BB=BBWhy is Rush so fat?
> =
> Because he wears a money belt.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Boy, if that ain't the truth! One thing that Rush is even better at than =
upsetting liberals is SELF PROMOTION, and he's made a fortune from it!
George Graves
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =
> The Pink Swastika may be ordered from
> =
> =
> Interviews & Speaking Engagements
> =
> =
Mr. Sam
>> Rush could lose 50 lbs with the Ultra Slim Fast plan -but- they don't
>>sponsor his show which means their part of the liberal media.
>Why is Rush so fat?
>Simple answer.
>BECAUSE HE IS STRAIGHT!!!
>Why are fat beer-bellies who sit home and watch football ALWAYS straight?
>Ever think about it?
>Gays are simply (as an overall group) healthier, better educated, better
>employed, more attractive, in better shape, have higher IQ's, and have more
>taste and artistic traits than straight people as an overall group.
I disagree. Bill Clinton is not homosexual. Paula and Gennifer will attest
to that.
--
Mr. Sam: member, talk.politics.misc troll patrol.
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Government is not a solution to our | "First of all, keep in mind that most
problem, government IS the problem." | of our problem is with working
-- R. Reagan. | Americans." -- B. Clinton.
_____________________________________|_______________________________________
George Graves
>
> > Rush could lose 50 lbs with the Ultra Slim Fast plan -but- they don't
> >sponsor his show which means their part of the liberal media.
>
> Why is Rush so fat?
>
> Simple answer.
>
> BECAUSE HE IS STRAIGHT!!!
>
> Why are fat beer-bellies who sit home and watch football ALWAYS straight?
>
> Ever think about it?
>
> Gays are simply (as an overall group) healthier, better educated, better
> employed, more attractive, in better shape, have higher IQ's, and have more
> taste and artistic traits than straight people as an overall group.
Yeah, AIDS makes 'em real healthy.
George Graves
Jonah Paul Mainwaring
: >Simple answer.
: >BECAUSE HE IS STRAIGHT!!!
: >Ever think about it?
: I disagree. Bill Clinton is not homosexual. Paula and Gennifer will attest
: to that.
"healthier, attractive, better shape, more taste". Yep, Clinton is
definitely straight, by this definition.
--
Jonah Mainwaring, Rice University
TANSTAAFL
Jonah Paul Mainwaring
: main...@rice.edu (Jonah Paul Mainwaring) wrote:
: >: >Gays are simply (as an overall group) healthier, better educated, better
: >: >taste and artistic traits than straight people as an overall group.
: Wow, you just contradicted the above statement by saying it. I have never
: heard such moronic crap in my life. You are a bigot. BIGOT. Just like
: 16 year old kids who attack homosexuals and bloody their faces for choosing a
: different lifestyle, you are an ignorant BIGOT.
: Next time you hear of gay-bashing, keep that in mind. You are just as ignorant
: for making the above statement as the bashers are. You just have a different
: and equally pathetic way of expressing it.
: Just because you may be a homosexual does not mean that you cannot be racist,
: prejudiced, or Bigoted.
: MDL
Please check your attributions more carefully. I did not write
the above statement, I wrote a response to it. I simply took
the above statement and used it (jokingly) to prove that Clinton
is not gay. I personally am straight, and find most of the
above to be nonsense. Admittedly, studies show gays to be
better educated, and to have higher income, but I suspect that
that is because lower-class gays do not comeout of the closet.
Anti-gay preducdice is more open and vehement among less
educated groups.
EEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Kevin Wayte
>>: >employed, more attractive, in better shape, have higher IQ's, and have
more
>>: >taste and artistic traits than straight people as an overall group.
>
>Wow, you just contradicted the above statement by saying it. I have never
>heard such moronic crap in my life. You are a bigot. BIGOT.
Nope - it's proven scientific fact!!!!!! Take any random 100 gay males and
any 100 random straight males and do identical tests on IQ, blood pressure,
weight, strength, and medical history. Also interview them about income,
education, material wealth, and their hobbies.
It is FACT that the gay males as a collective will average out on top over the
straight males as a collective.
It may come from the biological differences between the two types of males.
The brain differences, maybe nature's reason why we turned out gay, or simply
developments due to increased thickening of our skin and independence when we
grew up. Straight males have it easy - and thus stray in all directions. Gay
males are here for a natural purpose - to not reproduce, guaranteed population
control, to care, to serve, to entertain, and to be wise.
> Just like
>16 year old kids who attack homosexuals and bloody their faces for choosing a
>different lifestyle, you are an ignorant BIGOT.
er....not choosing.... being born with.....no choice, bub.
What would it take to make you choose to be gay?
(fuck, what would it take to make me want to be straight.... NOTHING!)
>Next time you hear of gay-bashing, keep that in mind. You are just as
ignorant
>for making the above statement as the bashers are. You just have a different
>and equally pathetic way of expressing it.
It wasn't to claim superiority. It was to claim a distinct difference.
I honsetly believe gay males naturally occur in human populations at the same
percentage century after century for a reason. There is a very special purpose
which only simple observation would give the answer. Even the hypothalmus lobe
3 in gay males' brains is different than in straight - ALWAYS. Why is that?
Hmmm? What makes all those traits change substancially in a gay group as
compared to a straight group? It's fact. I can't help it. Fact ain't
bigoted. I think it's plain interesting!
>Just because you may be a homosexual does not mean that you cannot be racist,
>prejudiced, or Bigoted.
I love all races.
Hopefully all straight people do.
I love people of whatever sexual orientation.
Straight people also never have this capacity.... another plus with gay males.
- Kevin
jas...@radix.net
What the hell does any of this have to do with Rush being fat......?
kev...@ra.isisnet.com (Kevin Wayte) wrote:
>>>: >Gays are simply (as an overall group) healthier, better educated, better
>>>: >employed, more attractive, in better shape, have higher IQ's, and have
>more
>>>: >taste and artistic traits than straight people as an overall group.
>>
>>Wow, you just contradicted the above statement by saying it. I have never
>>heard such moronic crap in my life. You are a bigot. BIGOT.
How can they be heathier?......I though HIV was running pretty wild in
this group.....No sarcasm, just a question.....
>Nope - it's proven scientific fact!!!!!! Take any random 100 gay males and
>any 100 random straight males and do identical tests on IQ, blood pressure,
>weight, strength, and medical history. Also interview them about income,
>education, material wealth, and their hobbies.
I guess it is also a scientific fact that God doesn't exist only
Evolution......I don't disagree.....Just seems kinda funny that this
same scientific community says that we are having some kind of "Green
House Effect", and we just so happen to get on of the heaviest
snowfalls in about 17 years...... I know...Nothing to do with the
topic right......
>It is FACT that the gay males as a collective will average out on top over the
>straight males as a collective.
I do believe that the Gay Males as a collective would get the crap
knocked out of them by a small group of HomoPhobes, and not really
give a hoot about the I.Q.
>It may come from the biological differences between the two types of males.
>The brain differences, maybe nature's reason why we turned out gay, or simply
>developments due to increased thickening of our skin and independence when we
>grew up. Straight males have it easy - and thus stray in all directions. Gay
>males are here for a natural purpose - to not reproduce, guaranteed population
>control, to care, to serve, to entertain, and to be wise.
Yes.....Now this makes for a good comment.....Do you think it might be
the over abundence of Female hormones in the system? I mean we all
know that women do better scholastic-wise than men, but of course the
men do hold the rope on common knowledge.
>> Just like
>>16 year old kids who attack homosexuals and bloody their faces for choosing a
>>different lifestyle, you are an ignorant BIGOT.
You mean little 16 year olds beat them up.....My god what is this
world coming to.
>er....not choosing.... being born with.....no choice, bub.
>What would it take to make you choose to be gay?
>(fuck, what would it take to make me want to be straight.... NOTHING!)
NOTHING can make me a Homosexual, and why such language....you do know
the Origin of that word right?
>>Next time you hear of gay-bashing, keep that in mind. You are just as
>ignorant
>>for making the above statement as the bashers are. You just have a different
>>and equally pathetic way of expressing it.
>It wasn't to claim superiority. It was to claim a distinct difference.
>I honsetly believe gay males naturally occur in human populations at the same
>percentage century after century for a reason. There is a very special purpose
>which only simple observation would give the answer. Even the hypothalmus lobe
>3 in gay males' brains is different than in straight - ALWAYS. Why is that?
>Hmmm? What makes all those traits change substancially in a gay group as
>compared to a straight group? It's fact. I can't help it. Fact ain't
>bigoted. I think it's plain interesting!
>
I don't know about that little "lady".... it seems as though you
were....
>>Just because you may be a homosexual does not mean that you cannot be racist,
>>prejudiced, or Bigoted.
>I love all races.
>Hopefully all straight people do.
>I love people of whatever sexual orientation.
>Straight people also never have this capacity.... another plus with gay males.
I guess not making any sound when you Flatulate is also a plus? No it
isn't a plus unless you make frequent office visits to the
Proctologist, the discomfort that would be existent in a Male
Heterosexual would be non-Existent in the Male Homosexual.
> - Kevin
Well I guess this will be enough of my Homophobic, Smart-Assed
comments.....Sorry if I offended anyone, just thought it might be fun
to add my 25 cents (Inflation you know)
Andrew Hall
jasonda> What the hell does any of this have to do with Rush being fat......?
Nothing.
jasonda> kev...@ra.isisnet.com (Kevin Wayte) wrote:
>>>>> >Gays are simply (as an overall group) healthier, better educated, better
>>>>> >employed, more attractive, in better shape, have higher IQ's, and have
>> more
>>>>> >taste and artistic traits than straight people as an overall group.
>>>
>>> Wow, you just contradicted the above statement by saying it. I have never
>>> heard such moronic crap in my life. You are a bigot. BIGOT.
jasonda> How can they be heathier?......I though HIV was running pretty wild in
jasonda> this group.....No sarcasm, just a question.....
>> Nope - it's proven scientific fact!!!!!! Take any random 100 gay males and
>> any 100 random straight males and do identical tests on IQ, blood pressure,
>> weight, strength, and medical history. Also interview them about income,
>> education, material wealth, and their hobbies.
jasonda> I guess it is also a scientific fact that God doesn't exist only
Science makes no claim about the existence of any god. Such
beliefs are orthogonal to science.
jasonda> Evolution......I don't disagree.....Just seems kinda funny that this
Many people that believe in God's also believe in evolution.
They are not orthogonal.
jasonda> same scientific community says that we are having some kind of "Green
jasonda> House Effect", and we just so happen to get on of the heaviest
jasonda> snowfalls in about 17 years...... I know...Nothing to do with the
jasonda> topic right......
Global warming theory predicts big storms. The
weather we have been having for the last few years was predicted.
Insurance companies are studying it.
>> It is FACT that the gay males as a collective will average out on top over the
>> straight males as a collective.
jasonda> I do believe that the Gay Males as a collective would get the crap
jasonda> knocked out of them by a small group of HomoPhobes, and not really
jasonda> give a hoot about the I.Q.
This is a useful comment.
ah
ah
Sherwin
>Rush isn't fat. He's horizontally challenged.
Not to mention, mentally challenged.
Sherwin
JLJLJ
(that's where Rush is free in a market and allowed to consume)
You gotta love the guy, though. He's on the money...accurate, informed and
has integrity
*************************************************************************
**********
"One Job, One Wife, One SIG, One Life"
[Washington,...] "Don't tread on me"
**************************************************************************
***********
Chris Bolton
>: >Gays are simply (as an overall group) healthier, better educated, better
>: >employed, more attractive, in better shape, have higher IQ's, and have more
>: >taste and artistic traits than straight people as an overall group.
More attractive? More taste? Aren't these subjective attributes?
You forgot more prone to suicide and depression as well.
Chris Bolton
chrisb@terrestrial (E-Mial)
www.terrestrial.com/~chrisb/index.html (Home Page URL)
Dale Napier
<haze...@iquest.com> writes:
>
>I would imagine that Mr. Limbaugh is so fat because of the large num-
>ber of liberals he eats for lunch every day between 12:00 and 3:00.
>This over abundance of fat...contained mostly in the heads of the
>liberal of the species...is both high in calories, and distinctly
>nourishing. The only possible draw-back to the extreme levels
consumed
>by Mr. Limbaugh, is the potential for the fat to gather within the
>diaphram of the individual resulting in a tendency for spasm to occur,
>causing a series of harsh guffaws, usually punctuated with blows to
any
>convienent surface with a flattened hand.
Let's not forget the spasms between his lips, and his buttocks ...
hardly distinguishable.
>Beware any close contact with
>anyone who has achieved the level of addiction to liberals that has
>been achieved by Mr. Limbaugh....you might accidently learn something.
Emphasis on MIGHT and ACCIDENTALLY, since this is certainly the only
way that Limbaugh learns. Actually, he spends so much time bragging
about how great he is, and how great everyone thinks he is, that he has
little time for passing information of substance, false or otherwise.
There was actually a time when Rush had something to say, but ever
since Clinton got elected he has become completely obsessed with
griping about Bill and bragging about himself. What a bore.
>
>
>D. Terry Hazelrig (not an African,European,Asian, or any other
>adjective.......Just an AMERICAN.)
>P.S. And also not a Republican....surprise!!!
Terry&Melanie Hazelrig
ber of liberals he eats for lunch every day between 12:00 and 3:00.
This over abundance of fat...contained mostly in the heads of the
liberal of the species...is both high in calories, and distinctly
nourishing. The only possible draw-back to the extreme levels consumed
by Mr. Limbaugh, is the potential for the fat to gather within the
diaphram of the individual resulting in a tendency for spasm to occur,
causing a series of harsh guffaws, usually punctuated with blows to any
anyone who has achieved the level of addiction to liberals that has
been achieved by Mr. Limbaugh....you might accidently learn something.
Terry&Melanie Hazelrig
!Rack Jite
wrote and is answered by the sorely CONSERVATIVELY INCORRECT, Rack Jite:
!!Gays are simply (as an overall group) healthier, better educated,
!!better employed, more attractive, in better shape, have higher IQ's,
!!and have more taste and artistic traits than straight people as an
!!overall group.
!More attractive? More taste? Aren't these subjective attributes?
!You forgot more prone to suicide and depression as well.
!Chris Bolton
!chrisb@terrestrial (E-Mial)
!www.terrestrial.com/~chrisb/index.html (Home Page URL)
When something positive is said about gays, and a Libertarian must take
the time to respond negatively to it, its yet another indicator that the
ideology is nothing more than right-wing crap presented from a different
premise. Imagine what the Libertarian platform of eliminating civil
rights legislation/regulation will do to the gay community when as of
today 41 of the 50 states allow gays to be fired from their jobs on no
other criteria that they are gay.
"I suppose I can understand the selfish callous disregard,
it's the pride in it that passes me by." Rack Jite
Conservatively Incorrect http://turnpike.net/emporium/H/HR/index.htm
A Study in Intolerance http://turnpike.net/emporium/H/HR/soapbox.htm
synergy
>On Tue, 30 Jan 1996 22:30:29 GMT, chr...@terrestrial.com (Chris Bolton)
>wrote:
>!!Gays are simply (as an overall group) healthier, better educated,
>!!better employed, more attractive, in better shape, have higher IQ's,
>!!and have more taste and artistic traits than straight people as an
>!!overall group.
>!More attractive? More taste? Aren't these subjective attributes?
>!You forgot more prone to suicide and depression as well.
>!Chris Bolton
>!chrisb@terrestrial (E-Mial)
>!www.terrestrial.com/~chrisb/index.html (Home Page URL)
>When something positive is said about gays, and a Libertarian must take
>the time to respond negatively to it, its yet another indicator that the
>ideology is nothing more than right-wing crap presented from a different
>premise. Imagine what the Libertarian platform of eliminating civil
>rights legislation/regulation will do to the gay community when as of
>today 41 of the 50 states allow gays to be fired from their jobs on no
>other criteria that they are gay.
Silly Racky. Libertarians (in general) believe that employers
should be able to hire and fire employees for any reason at any time.
That's only fair, since employees can quit their jobs and/or
seek work elsewhere at any time. Now, I would have a real problem
working for any company that brazenly refused to hire certain people because
of their race or sex, but I don't have any major problem with employers
who choose not to hire people based on their behavior, including sexual
behavior.
To me, it is no more wrong to refuse to hire someone who is openly
homosexual than it is to refuse to hire someone who admits to being
a pedophile and a child molester. One doesn't decide to be white or black.
One doesn't decide to be male or female. But one does decide who one's
sexual partners are.
Most libertarians believe that if you are an employer and want to hire
only left-handed, lesbian, albino, Eskimo midgets, that is your right.
However, most libertarians would also consider you foolish to refuse
to hire whoever is most qualified to do whatever job you need to have
done. In short, they believe you have a right to run your business
however you want to run it--but that doesn't mean that they approve
of poor management on your part.
Employers who hire and fire for reasons not related to the jobs at
hand will almost certainly have less qualified, less efficient, less
productive work forces than employers who choose the people with
the best skills for the given jobs.
--
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt
Annoy a Fascist: Just Say No to Gun Control!
Annoy a Leftist: Think!
"Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization
that [Hillary Clinton]...is a congenital liar." -- William Safire
Trenton J. Grale
[...]
>seek work elsewhere at any time. Now, I would have a real problem
>working for any company that brazenly refused to hire certain people because
>of their race or sex, but I don't have any major problem with employers
>who choose not to hire people based on their behavior, including sexual
>behavior.
seek work elsewhere at any time. Now, I would have a real problem
working for any company that brazenly refused to hire certain people because
of their sexual orientation, but I don't have any major problem with employers
who choose not to hire people based on their behavior, including displaying
their skin color, or writing with their left hand.
>To me, it is no more wrong to refuse to hire someone who is openly
>homosexual than it is to refuse to hire someone who admits to being
>a pedophile and a child molester. One doesn't decide to be white or black.
>One doesn't decide to be male or female. But one does decide who one's
>sexual partners are.
To me, it is no more wrong to refuse to hire someone who is openly
black or openly left-handed than it is to refuse to hire someone who admits
to being a gang member and a drug dealer. One doesn't decide to be straight
or gay. But one does decide whether to display the color of his skin without
covering it with lightening cream, or to write with his left hand.
>Employers who hire and fire for reasons not related to the jobs at
>hand will almost certainly have less qualified, less efficient, less
>productive work forces than employers who choose the people with
>the best skills for the given jobs.
How does one's sexual orientation, and consequent choice of a sexual
partner, make one less qualified for certain jobs? How the hell did
this thread get onto talk.politics.guns?
--Trenton
--
========================================================================
I fear for my country.
Rodya Raskolnikov
No matter what I may say about homosexuality, I cannot condone
mistreatment of any citizen or human being based on something as
superficial as their sexual preferences/orientation. I have found that
many Libertarians are rather more self-absorbed when it comes to this
subject, and have no cares if people THEY disapprove of are being
mistreated so long as they are not. I have found that Libertarians are
generally selfish and seek liberty only for their own benefit, not as a
principle which is to be desired and sought after. Indeed, if liberty
were to cost them any real pain or difficulty, I wonder if they would
stand by their principles or if they would cave like so many other
self-important leaders and groups.
Yours respectfully,
Daniel Larison
dlar...@unm.edu, ch01...@arriba.nm.org, Free UNIX Users of New Mexico
American Constitutional Party, webpage: http://www.unm.edu/~dlarison.
Dostoevsky and Dante Literary Company:Made-To-Order Poetry, Novels and Slogans.
Mayet Report on MacNet: http://www.manzione.com(Netscape 2.0+)
Scott Foster
male, I find most of the gays I meet today to be self
absorbed, politically uninformed, and totally unaware of the
fight waged in the 70's for our existing civil rights, such as
they are. If you are under 50, you no doubt are unaware that
prior to Stonewall, one had to look far and wide even to
locate a gay organization or even a gay bar. There certainly
were no neon signs outside. AIDS of course has brought many
out, but unfortunately most of the human & $ resourses that
were once marshalled in the fight for our civil rights have
gone to fight this dread disease and the political agenda has
languished. Many of those in my age group a simply tired of
shouting our Casandra warnings and the current Republican
agenda is testimony to the community's apathy. What, one
might ask, is it going to take? "Better jobs, taste, fashion
sense," etc. be damned!
Michael Zarlenga
The kind of people who can't figure out why Rush is fat must be the
same ones that have a hard time understanding why it is that when
you spend more than you earn you run a deficit.
They also seem to be unable to understand that you simply cannot do
that forever without consequences, which accumulate over time.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Q. Forrest, is Hillary Clinton a liar?
A. Well, momma always says : Hillary is as Hillary does.
Alex Elliott
> Nope - it's proven scientific fact!!!!!! Take any random 100 gay males and
> any 100 random straight males and do identical tests on IQ, blood pressure,
> weight, strength, and medical history. Also interview them about income,
> education, material wealth, and their hobbies.
One survey often quoted is the Overlooked Opinions survey. This survey
was done of the readership of a high-brow magazine aimed at a gay
audience. The survey served its purpose (i.e. it showed that gay male
readers of this magazine were better educated and had much more disposable
income than the U.S. average). However, this survey is often quoted as
being representative of gay men in general, which it most certainly is
*not*.
More carefully conducted surveys have shown that:
a) *Openly* gay men are more likely to have a college education than
the average U.S. male.
b) *Openly* gay men on average have lower salaries than straight men
with the same education.
c) *Openly* gay men are more likely to live in urban areas (and thus
have higher costs of living).
(Openly gay means that they identified themselves as gay to the
pollster.)
Personally, I don't think that gay men are more likely to be more educated
(or are smarter) than straight men. However, I do suspect that a educated
gay man is more likely to be open about his sexual orientation, thus
producing the statistic quoted in a) above.
As for statistic b), part of it could be prejudice (not necessarily
against gay men, but against single men - at the top levels of corporate
culture there is an idea that a good executive should have a wife), and
part of it could be related to c). A gay man might be more likely to
choose to live in a place where he can be openly and comfortably gay
rather than choosing to live somewhere based on who offers him the best
salary.
Alex.
>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<
Alex Elliott
Yale University Physics Department
New Haven, CT, USA
email: ell...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
WWW: http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~elliott/elliott.html
>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<
Libertarius
> Daniel, I assure you, we would stand by our principles. (And what
you do in your bedroom or on the kitchen table with other consenting
adults is strictly your business).
Libertarius
Jonah Paul Mainwaring
|> In article <310f86ac...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
|> Wacky Racky <ji...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
|> >On Tue, 30 Jan 1996 22:30:29 GMT, chr...@terrestrial.com (Chris Bolton)
|> >wrote:
|> >!!Gays are simply (as an overall group) healthier, better educated,
|> >!!better employed, more attractive, in better shape, have higher IQ's,
|> >!!and have more taste and artistic traits than straight people as an
|> >!!overall group.
|>
|>
|> Jonah Mainwaring was simply trolling for a response.
|>
|>
|> Ooh, and you though Jonah was engaging in stereotypes.
|>
OK guys, here goes -- I DID NOT WRITE THE ABOVE STATEMENT. THAT IS A MISATTRIBUTION! I was the respondent who pointed out that the reason for some of the above statistics is that educated gays are more likely to come out of the closet, hence surveying as better employed and having higher IQ's. STOP SENDING ME E-MAIL ABOUT THIS POST -- I DIDN'T MAKE IT! Sorry I was shouting there, but that is not my post. I have trolled before, but this isn't even an issue that I particularly care about. I was merely pointing out a likely source of the above statistics (which didn't even have a source). Thank you for your time. Any future respondents to this thread, please take my name out of the attributions. None of my post is left in the body.
--
Jonah Mainwaring
A .sig by any other name is still a .sig
Terry&Melanie Hazelrig
>
THIS IS A NO BRAINER..............................................
Terry&Melanie Hazelrig
T MAG300
What has happened throughout the history of the world, to EVERY empire or
civilization once it became tolerant of open homosexuality ???
>>> I am NOT trolling for uneducated or hateful remarks ! I am quite
serious.
Achernardo
>THIS IS A NO BRAINER..............................................
Thanks for the warning!
> I would imagine that Mr. Limbaugh is so fat because of the large num-
> ber of liberals he eats for lunch every day between 12:00 and 3:00.
> This over abundance of fat..<snip>
And all this time I thought he got fat by sucking up to wealth and power
like an enormous (such terms become mere euphemisms when used to describe
Limbuagh's grossly elephantine countenance and ego) right-wing vaccum
pump. I give you credit for your intellectual ambition (pity it doesn't
extend to the realm of common sense). Your effort to explain Limbaugh's
girth is the political equivalent of questions such as:
How much water goes over Niagara falls in a decade?
How many grains of sand does it take to fill the Grand Canyon?
How many stars are there in the post-Hubbel universe?
Ok, you've attempted to explain Limbaugh's bloated condition. How do you
explain the fact that he is a lying, hate-mongering, biggoted, fascist?
And why do so many mindless ditto-heads (like yourself) fall over
themselves in the kind of slavish adoration normally reserved for rulers
of oil-rich nations and Dieties? Perhaps the answer is, he gets to control
the debate and you don't.
"One small step for Mankind, one swift kick in the republican behind."
An Angry American
Harry Fulton
Rodya Raskolnikov (dlar...@unm.edu) wrote:
: Hello all,
: No matter what I may say about homosexuality, I cannot condone
: mistreatment of any citizen or human being based on something as
: superficial as their sexual preferences/orientation. I have found that
: many Libertarians are rather more self-absorbed when it comes to this
: subject, and have no cares if people THEY disapprove of are being
: mistreated so long as they are not. I have found that Libertarians are
: generally selfish and seek liberty only for their own benefit, not as a
: principle which is to be desired and sought after. Indeed, if liberty
: were to cost them any real pain or difficulty, I wonder if they would
: stand by their principles or if they would cave like so many other
: self-important leaders and groups.
: Yours respectfully,
: Daniel Larison
To an extent you make a good point. However I am a libertarian and I
think any employer who discriminates against a person on race,sex
physical attribute or sexual orientation is a fool. But I wouldn't allow
a law stopping them from doing what they do. Yes it does hurt, it is
morally wrong but in the end it will harm the business. They will become
uncompetitive and they will lose out whilst the firms that select by
merit will thrive. I am fairly selfish and I expect employers to act selfishly also and pick the best by merit.
N.M
Gregory Wayne Stafford
>N.M
I agree. A law telling me how to run my life is wrong! If I only want
to hire people under 5'2" it is my business. Patronize it if you
choose.
The plural of anecdote is data.
Will Christie
>I agree. A law telling me how to run my life is wrong! If I only want
>to hire people under 5'2" it is my business. Patronize it if you
>choose.
>The plural of anecdote is data.
You've obviously never been on the receiving end of this wonderful
philosophy of great benefit to the rich and powerful. So, if you
were a racist anti-catholic homophobe who ran the only factory in my childhood
home town in central Wisconsin, all local Indians, catholics and
gays couldjust move on, eh? What a awful society you envision in the
name of your individual rights to hire who you please. Let's see,
there could be an entire cottage industry of quilt work maps for
the U.S. showing what companies will hire Irish, which wont, which
will hire women above the level of secretaries, which wont...jesus,
what a pathetic system! Hmmm....I suppose Ralph Reed is promoting
this plan, while ensuring that the Christian Coalition membership
OWN most of the factories/services.
I think a society has a right to promote SOCIAL EQUALITY, or it is
just a glorified feudal system where people frantically try to attach
themselves to some locale where they are tolerated and make do with the
scrapes from the master's table. Obviously, you envision yourself as
one of the masters. I do not side with such power fantasies.
It is truly amazing how little the average human empathizes with
others until they experience the same treatment.
Scott Mackey
> Why doesn't someone post the results of a in depth study on this topic :
>
> What has happened throughout the history of the world, to EVERY empire or
> civilization once it became tolerant of open homosexuality ???
>
What has happened throughout the history of the world, to EVERY empire or
civilization?
Gordon Fitch
| >: No matter what I may say about homosexuality, I cannot condone
| >: mistreatment of any citizen or human being based on something as
| >: superficial as their sexual preferences/orientation. I have found that
mans...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Harry Fulton) wrote:
| >To an extent you make a good point. However I am a libertarian and I
| >think any employer who discriminates against a person on race,sex
| >physical attribute or sexual orientation is a fool. But I wouldn't allow
| >a law stopping them from doing what they do. Yes it does hurt, it is
| >morally wrong but in the end it will harm the business. They will become
| >uncompetitive and they will lose out whilst the firms that select by
| >merit will thrive. I am fairly selfish and I expect employers to act
| >selfishly also and pick the best by merit.
If your theory were correct, then liberalism / capitalism
would have destroyed all forms of coercive prejudice a long
time ago. One must explain why it didn't, not proclaim
that it will.
My theory is that, while people are indeed selfish, they
are not entirely rational (to put in mildly), and they
derive positive utility from discriminating irrationally
against certain groups of people. Hence it is rational, in
a sense, for them to discriminate. If, in a liberal
community, a substantial number of people are prejudiced
discriminators, the market, which distributes utility,
ensures that this discrimination becomes ubiquitous and
self-reinforcing.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Frank R. Hipp
>Ok, you've attempted to explain Limbaugh's bloated condition. How do you
>explain the fact that he is a lying, hate-mongering, biggoted, fascist?
>And why do so many mindless ditto-heads (like yourself) fall over
>themselves in the kind of slavish adoration normally reserved for rulers
>of oil-rich nations and Dieties? Perhaps the answer is, he gets to control
>the debate and you don't.
>
>"One small step for Mankind, one swift kick in the republican behind."
>An Angry American
Hmm, are you speaking of bill clinton when you mention a 'lying,
hate-mongering, biggoted, fascist'? You must be because that's what he
is *and* billy gets prime time coverage for every announcement, statement,
etc. And the liberals say that the Republicans are the party of hate ?? Read
your own post. Listen to the talk from the liberals about extremism,
draconian cuts, etc. that they spout every day. Is it because words are all
you have? Is it because you can't tell the truth because it will destroy you
? Perhaps you could sign your post 'A fooled American' because that's what
you are if you believe the liberal lies.
Frank R. Hipp
Bob Leone
>>I am fairly selfish and I expect employers to act selfishly also and
>>pick the best by merit.
>I agree. Of course, some companies consider skin color a merit due to
>the racist attitudes of clients.
>This "competition" is not automatically a fix. You need sufficient will
>of the people to oppose racial attitudes.
The inconsistancy of preferring a political fix is this: if a majority of the
people are opposed to discrimination, then the person discriminated against
can always find people willing to hire/deal-with him. If a majority of people
are NOT opposed to discrimination, then you're not going to get the political
support to impose a governmental fix in the first place.
The situation in the 60's was that you had a lot of discrimination in the
South, but the overall mood of the country was anti-discriminatory. In the
absence of governmental activity, many Blacks would have done what many did
anyway: move North, away from worst of the Southern discrimination.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Leone (bobl...@pond.com)
O Lord, grant me the serenity to accept
those things I cannot change,
the strength to change the things I can,
and the firepower to make the difference . . .
Steven M. Wilson
individuals to reach the overhead bins; slender individuals to pass
unobtrusively along the aisles; and attractive individuals to keep the
atmosphere of the flight pleasant, the labor board wasn't buying it.
The airline was ordered to hire some short, fat, pig-faced women
forthwith.
--
* Steven...@Colorado.EDU * http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/~wilsonsm/ *
=== finger -l PGP PUBLIC KEY * A lack of initiative would be fatal; ==
== the slightest approach to unauthorized action disastrous. Avoid ===
= these two extremes and you should be perfectly safe. C.S. Lewis ====
T. Michael Lutas
(Will Christie) wrote:
> >I agree. A law telling me how to run my life is wrong! If I only want
> >to hire people under 5'2" it is my business. Patronize it if you
> >choose.
> >The plural of anecdote is data.
>
> You've obviously never been on the receiving end of this wonderful
> philosophy of great benefit to the rich and powerful. So, if you
> were a racist anti-catholic homophobe who ran the only factory in my childhood
> home town in central Wisconsin, all local Indians, catholics and
> gays couldjust move on, eh? What a awful society you envision in the
> name of your individual rights to hire who you please. Let's see,
The kind of idiot who would discriminate like this would never last in
a public company. The negative impact on the bottom line would get
shareholders riled up. As for the mythical small town, what is really
needed is for the indians, catholics, gays, and right thinking protestants
to make their own businesses and to boycott the discriminator's business.
Legislating that people have to associate with one another is a good
way to create more resentments than before.
DB
T. Michael Lutas
> Rodya Raskolnikov (dlar...@unm.edu) wrote:
> | >: No matter what I may say about homosexuality, I cannot condone
> | >: mistreatment of any citizen or human being based on something as
> | >: superficial as their sexual preferences/orientation. I have found that
>
> mans...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Harry Fulton) wrote:
> | >To an extent you make a good point. However I am a libertarian and I
> | >think any employer who discriminates against a person on race,sex
> | >physical attribute or sexual orientation is a fool. But I wouldn't allow
> | >a law stopping them from doing what they do. Yes it does hurt, it is
> | >morally wrong but in the end it will harm the business. They will become
> | >uncompetitive and they will lose out whilst the firms that select by
> | >merit will thrive. I am fairly selfish and I expect employers to act
> | >selfishly also and pick the best by merit.
>
> If your theory were correct, then liberalism / capitalism
> would have destroyed all forms of coercive prejudice a long
> time ago. One must explain why it didn't, not proclaim
> that it will.
I think that there will always be a percentage of irrational people who are
willing to accept a lower return on their investment of capital by not
making use of the best people out there due to their prejudice.
I believe that this self-inflicted financial loss is more than enough
punishment for their stupidity and poor social manners. With forced
association laws, the entire economy undergoes a record keeping burden
in order to identify who are the lunkheads and who aren't. Then the
lunkheads are forced to take the best people available and thus earn
greater profits than they otherwise would.
Why doesn't legally requiring that lunkheads make more money sound right?
DB
David Reilley
>From: wils...@ibg.colorado.edu (Steven M. Wilson)
>Subject: Re: Gay Qualities
>Date: 8 Feb 1996 05:47:23 GMT
>Despite the fact that the airline argued that they needed tall
>individuals to reach the overhead bins; slender individuals to pass
>unobtrusively along the aisles; and attractive individuals to keep the
>atmosphere of the flight pleasant, the labor board wasn't buying it.
>The airline was ordered to hire some short, fat, pig-faced women
>forthwith.
And your wife and mother both got jobs! Lucky you - now you can
afford to quit work, stay home and watch Rush Limbaugh on TV all day long.
Gordon Fitch
| > If your theory were correct, then liberalism / capitalism
| > would have destroyed all forms of coercive prejudice a long
| > time ago. One must explain why it didn't, not proclaim
| > that it will.
dbr...@haven.ios.com (T. Michael Lutas):
| I think that there will always be a percentage of irrational people who are
| willing to accept a lower return on their investment of capital by not
| making use of the best people out there due to their prejudice.
|
| I believe that this self-inflicted financial loss is more than enough
| punishment for their stupidity and poor social manners. With forced
| association laws, the entire economy undergoes a record keeping burden
| in order to identify who are the lunkheads and who aren't. Then the
| lunkheads are forced to take the best people available and thus earn
| greater profits than they otherwise would. ...
Apparently the utility that the prejudiced derive from their
prejudice outweighs their losses due to it. And
unfortunately, others are victimized by their pursuit of
this utility. I think we need to do something about this
besides let it happen. I've suggested non-governmental ways
of attacking bigotry, but there hasn't been much interest.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Steven M. Wilson
David Reilley <drei...@pinc.com> wrote:
Well, hell. Most of my post didn't make it here. Hopefully, while
David Reilley is jerking off in his closet (he doesn't have a wife,
and his mother is dead -- contracted AIDS from that monkey that beat
the dog over the fence) I'll see if I can't make my whole post appear:
It seems that America is not the only country with population-based
hiring quotas. Greece (at least) does as well. Recently their
national airline was sued because of their hiring practices concerning
flight attendents--they were hiring only tall, slim, attractive women
to fill their positions.
The labor board found the airline guilty of "hiring only women of
above-average pulchritude."
>>Despite the fact that the airline argued that they needed tall
>>individuals to reach the overhead bins; slender individuals to pass
>>unobtrusively along the aisles; and attractive individuals to keep the
>>atmosphere of the flight pleasant, the labor board wasn't buying it.
>>The airline was ordered to hire some short, fat, pig-faced women
>>forthwith.
>And your wife and mother both got jobs! Lucky you - now you can
>afford to quit work, stay home and watch Rush Limbaugh on TV all day
>long.
Oh yeah! By the way, do any of you know the difference between Rush
Limbaugh clone David Reilley and the Hindenberg?
Well one is a flaming Nazi bag of gas and the other is a famous
dirigible.
Gregory Wayne Stafford
don't want to serve Rednecks, I should be allowed to weed them out! It
is my property and therefore my business!
g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
The plural of anecdote is data.
Craig Lambert
>Why doesn't someone post the results of a in depth study on this topic :
>
>What has happened throughout the history of the world, to EVERY empire or
>civilization once it became tolerant of open homosexuality ???
>
>>>> I am NOT trolling for uneducated or hateful remarks ! I am quite
>serious.
Err, what has happened throughout the history of the world to EVERY
empire or civilization? Or from another angle, have empires or
civilizations declined that were not "tolerant of open homosexuality"?
You have to answer yes, and your thesis is already crippled near to
death.
Classical Greek Civilization was one civilization tolerant of open
homosexuality before and during its glory days. Athens, Sparta, those
folks. So go figure.
You are free to do your own "in-depth" research. Perhaps others
aren't interested in doing it for you because it would be a waste of
the time of competent people.
Your best bet would just be to make something up, then fax it to Rush
Limbaugh. Its the kind of 'hard' information he thrives on, and
you'll become and instant and recognized dittohead expert. No sweat.
--
Craig Lambert
Predestination: its not just dogma, its the law.
Or will be, someday.
evil Beavis
>
> In article <4f89oc$n...@news.tamu.edu> kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>
> >>pick the best by merit.
>
> >the racist attitudes of clients.
>
> >This "competition" is not automatically a fix. You need sufficient will
> >of the people to oppose racial attitudes.
>
> The inconsistancy of preferring a political fix is this: if a majority of the
> people are opposed to discrimination, then the person discriminated against
> can always find people willing to hire/deal-with him. If a majority of people
> are NOT opposed to discrimination, then you're not going to get the political
> support to impose a governmental fix in the first place.
>
> The situation in the 60's was that you had a lot of discrimination in the
> South, but the overall mood of the country was anti-discriminatory. In the
> absence of governmental activity, many Blacks would have done what many did
> anyway: move North, away from worst of the Southern discrimination.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Leone (bobl...@pond.com)
>
> O Lord, grant me the serenity to accept
> those things I cannot change,
> the strength to change the things I can,
> and the firepower to make the difference . . .
>
political clout in the South today.
eB
John Payson
In article <4fa6ou$h...@panix2.panix.com>, Gordon Fitch <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>If your theory were correct, then liberalism / capitalism
>would have destroyed all forms of coercive prejudice a long
>time ago. One must explain why it didn't, not proclaim
>that it will.
Four answers:
[1] Even in a competitive marketplace, it is possible for SOME discrimination
to remain indefinitely. In general, however, if there are n providers of
service and no government intervention [below], no level of discrimination
can remain which would deny service to more than (1/n) of the market and
usually the level would be much less.
[2] In many areas, businesses which have served minorities have been subject
to unlawful attacks (e.g. rocks thrown through windows, assaults upon
customers or personnel, etc.) and the local constabulatory has been non-
responsive in stopping such attacks (and in some cases may have partici-
pated in them). Libertarians roundly condemn such attacks, and any
deliberate efforts by law-enforcement personnel to leave such businesses
and their customers unprotected.
[3] Some discriminatory businesses, such as bus lines and schools, are run by
local governments and are thus not subject to the market forces which
would force them to accept minority customers. Libertarians disapprove
of such government control over businesses.
[4] To an increasing extent today, many minority neighborhoods are subject to
such high crime rates it is nearly impossible to do business profitably
for many types of companies; losses due to crime would exceed profits.
It's unclear whether this is merely the result of chance, or whether it is
a result of drug lords wanting to keep control of their neighborhoods.
Libertarians generally believe that if Prohibition II were replaced with
a system of regulations, crime would decline much as it did after the
repeal of Prohibition I, and such neighborhoods would become safe enough
for [legitimate] businesses to move in.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
supe...@mcs.com | "Je crois que je ne vais jamais voir... | J\_/L
John Payson | Un animal aussi beau qu'un chat." | ( o o )
Melek Yhuda
Keith,
KE>Path:
news.planetc.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.na
KE>sa.gov!bcm.tmc.edu!news.tamu.edu!kjackson
KE>From: kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson)
KE>Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.white-power,al
KE>t.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.mi
KE>sc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.refo
KE>rm,alt.politics.radical-le
KE>ft,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.homosexuality,al
KE>.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.economics,alt.politic
KE>s.democrats.d,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton
KE>Subject: Discrimination
KE>Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
KE>Date: 6 Feb 1996 19:21:48 GMT
KE>Organization: Texas A&M Computer Science Department, College Station, TX
KE>Lines: 32
KE>Message-ID: <4f89oc$n...@news.tamu.edu>
KE>References: <potato-2811...@pm0x7.dialip.mo.net>
<310f86ac.36314438@
KE>nntp.ix.netcom.com> <Pine.A32.3.91.960201...@callisto.unm.e
KE>du> <4f84ps$j...@news.ox.ac.uk>
KE>NNTP-Posting-Host: vanilla.cs.tamu.edu
KE>Xref: news.planetc.com alt.politics.white-power:8095
alt.politics.usa.republi
KE>can:26670 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:10375 alt.politics.usa.misc:11128 a
KE>lt.politics.usa.constitution:4493 alt.politics.usa.congress:9287 alt.politic
KE>s.reform:9827 alt.politics
KE>.radical-left:8635 alt.politics.perot:5020
alt.politics.libertarian:14954 alt
KE>.politics.homosexuality:5193 alt.politics.equality:825 alt.politics.election
KE>s:3265 alt.politics.economics:7319 alt.politics.democrats.d:11932 alt.politi
KE>cs.correct:13652 alt.polit
KE>ics.clinton:16365
KE>
KE>In article <4f84ps$j...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
KE>Harry Fulton <mans...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
KE>>To an extent you make a good point. However I am a libertarian and I
KE>>think any employer who discriminates against a person on race,sex
KE>>physical attribute or sexual orientation is a fool.
KE>
KE>Agreed.
Why don't you keep your lovefest to yourselves, and not mark your
letters to "all". Mark them private, and spare us all the clutter.
Not a rebuke, just good netiquette. Thank you.
KE>
KE>>But I wouldn't allow
KE>>a law stopping them from doing what they do. Yes it does hurt, it is
KE>>morally wrong but in the end it will harm the business. They will become
KE>>uncompetitive and they will lose out whilst the firms that select by
KE>>merit will thrive.
KE>
KE>One problem with this scenario. If everyone discriminates against a
KE>particular group, this is like businesses collaborating to jack up
KE>prices.
KE>
KE>>I am fairly selfish and I expect employers to act selfishly also and
KE>>pick the best by merit.
KE>
KE>I agree. Of course, some companies consider skin color a merit due to
KE>the racist attitudes of clients.
KE>
KE>This "competition" is not automatically a fix. You need sufficient will
KE>of the people to oppose racial attitudes.
KE>
KE>--
KE> Keith Jackson + Gig 'em! + Celer et Audax
KE>. - * - = - * - = - * - + - * - = - * - = - * - .
KE> "There's a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons
KE> and reasons that sound good." -- Burton Hillis
___
* UniQWK v4.2 * The Windows Mail Reader
Melek Yhuda
Will,
WC>Path: news.planetc.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!wfchris
WC>From: wfc...@sylvester.srv.pacbell.com (Will Christie)
WC>Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.white-power,al
WC>t.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.mi
WC>sc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.refo
WC>rm,alt.politics.radical-le
WC>ft,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.homosexuality,al
WC>.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.economics,alt.politic
WC>s.democrats.d,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton
WC>Subject: Re: Gay Qualities
WC>Date: 6 Feb 1996 21:31:16 GMT
WC>Organization: Pacific Bell OSSEM
WC>Lines: 28
WC>Distribution: world
WC>Message-ID: <4f8hb4$r...@gw.PacBell.COM>
WC>References: <potato-2811...@pm0x7.dialip.mo.net>
<4ailc9$ctu@newsbf0
WC>2.news.aol.com> <4dl5cp$p...@ra.isisnet.com> <4du6ju$k...@news2.ios.com> <4dvb
WC>be$i...@larry.rice.edu> <4em0jk$3...@ozzy.terrestrial.com> <310f86ac.36314438@
WC>nntp.ix.netcom.com> <Pine.
WC>A32.3.91.96020121...@callisto.unm.edu>
<4f84ps$j...@news.ox.ac.
WC>uk> <4f880c$4...@castle.nando.net>
WC>NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.srv.pacbell.com
WC>Mime-Version: 1.0
WC>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
WC>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
WC>Xref: news.planetc.com alt.politics.white-power:8109
alt.politics.usa.republi
WC>can:26757 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:10404 alt.politics.usa.misc:11180 a
WC>lt.politics.usa.constitution:4506 alt.politics.usa.congress:9317 alt.politic
WC>s.reform:9855 alt.politics
WC>.radical-left:8663 alt.politics.perot:5037
alt.politics.libertarian:15014 alt
WC>.politics.homosexuality:5200 alt.politics.equality:830 alt.politics.election
WC>s:3278 alt.politics.economics:7363 alt.politics.democrats.d:11983 alt.politi
WC>cs.correct:13707 alt.polit
WC>ics.clinton:16406
WC>
WC>
Any chance you two could mark your mail " private" so we all do
not use up precious bandwidth?? Not a criticism just good
netiquette, and courtesy for others. Instead of marking it
for "all" please mark it "private" . Thank you for your time.
WC>>I agree. A law telling me how to run my life is wrong! If I only want
WC>>to hire people under 5'2" it is my business. Patronize it if you
WC>>choose.
WC>>The plural of anecdote is data.
WC>
WC>You've obviously never been on the receiving end of this wonderful
WC>philosophy of great benefit to the rich and powerful. So, if you
WC>were a racist anti-catholic homophobe who ran the only factory in my
childhood
WC>home town in central Wisconsin, all local Indians, catholics and
WC>gays couldjust move on, eh? What a awful society you envision in the
WC>name of your individual rights to hire who you please. Let's see,
WC>there could be an entire cottage industry of quilt work maps for
WC>the U.S. showing what companies will hire Irish, which wont, which
WC>will hire women above the level of secretaries, which wont...jesus,
WC>what a pathetic system! Hmmm....I suppose Ralph Reed is promoting
WC>this plan, while ensuring that the Christian Coalition membership
WC>OWN most of the factories/services.
WC>
WC>I think a society has a right to promote SOCIAL EQUALITY, or it is
WC>just a glorified feudal system where people frantically try to attach
WC>themselves to some locale where they are tolerated and make do with the
WC>scrapes from the master's table. Obviously, you envision yourself as
WC>one of the masters. I do not side with such power fantasies.
WC>
WC>It is truly amazing how little the average human empathizes with
WC>others until they experience the same treatment.
WC>
Robert Nehls
: On Tue, 30 Jan 1996 22:30:29 GMT, chr...@terrestrial.com (Chris Bolton)
: !!Gays are simply (as an overall group) healthier, better educated,
: !!better employed, more attractive, in better shape, have higher IQ's,
: !!and have more taste and artistic traits than straight people as an
: !!overall group.
: !More attractive? More taste? Aren't these subjective attributes?
: !You forgot more prone to suicide and depression as well.
: !Chris Bolton
: !chrisb@terrestrial (E-Mial)
: !www.terrestrial.com/~chrisb/index.html (Home Page URL)
: When something positive is said about gays, and a Libertarian must take
: the time to respond negatively to it, its yet another indicator that the
: ideology is nothing more than right-wing crap presented from a different
: premise. Imagine what the Libertarian platform of eliminating civil
: rights legislation/regulation will do to the gay community when as of
: today 41 of the 50 states allow gays to be fired from their jobs on no
: other criteria that they are gay.
The positive things said about gays was at the expense of straights. Who is
the original poster comparing gays to? By saying that gays are healthier,
he is saying that straights are not as healthy. Besides being wrong
(statistically gay men die much earlier than straight males), its also a
slam against straights. The rest is subjective. The original post was
stupid, Chris responded by presenting facts. For some reason, Jack now sees
that presenting facts against a minority group shows bias. which is BS.
Facts are facts, period. As for being fired, guess what? I'm straight, I'm
white, I'm male, and I'm married and my boss can walk up to me tomorrow and
tell me to clear out my desk. He does not have to give me a reason. Life's
tough. BTW, has there ever been a study to see if gay managers ever fire
people because they're straight? Just curious.
:
--
Bob Nehls Sr. Design Engineer
rn1...@sage.medtronic.com
Working Towards Full Life...
These are my views, not my employers.
Troy Westerberg
buy at your store and to suggest to others that supporting your business
is not in the best interests of a free society. Good luck with your
business.
In article <4fdlvk$8...@castle.nando.net>, Staf...@nando.net wrote:
> You guys seem to be overlooking one point. If I buy a store, and I
> don't want to serve Rednecks, I should be allowed to weed them out! It
> is my property and therefore my business!
>
>
> g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
>
> >gcf:
> >| > If your theory were correct, then liberalism / capitalism
> >| > would have destroyed all forms of coercive prejudice a long
> >| > time ago. One must explain why it didn't, not proclaim
> >| > that it will.
>
> >dbr...@haven.ios.com (T. Michael Lutas):
> >| I think that there will always be a percentage of irrational people who are
> >| willing to accept a lower return on their investment of capital by not
> >| making use of the best people out there due to their prejudice.
> >|
> >| I believe that this self-inflicted financial loss is more than enough
> >| punishment for their stupidity and poor social manners. With forced
> >| association laws, the entire economy undergoes a record keeping burden
> >| in order to identify who are the lunkheads and who aren't. Then the
> >| lunkheads are forced to take the best people available and thus earn
> >| greater profits than they otherwise would. ...
>
> >Apparently the utility that the prejudiced derive from their
> >prejudice outweighs their losses due to it. And
> >unfortunately, others are victimized by their pursuit of
> >this utility. I think we need to do something about this
> >besides let it happen. I've suggested non-governmental ways
> >of attacking bigotry, but there hasn't been much interest.
> >--
> > }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
>
> The plural of anecdote is data.
--
********************************************************
Troy Westerberg
Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
999 18th Street, Suite 2640
Denver, CO 80206
*H*A*N*D*S**O*F*F**T*H*E**N*E*T*!*!*!*!
Gordon Fitch
| You guys seem to be overlooking one point. If I buy a store, and I
| don't want to serve Rednecks, I should be allowed to weed them out! It
| is my property and therefore my business!
Yes, but what's your solution to the problem?
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
John Alway
> Ok, you've attempted to explain Limbaugh's bloated condition. How do you
> explain the fact that he is a lying, hate-mongering, biggoted, fascist?
Not a word of this is true, so no explanation
is necessary. I mean, what is one supposed to
do when the criticisms are lies? Shrug ones
shoulders and continue on, of course.
Rush is not fully defendable, because he is not
a full capitalist, and because he has far too much
of that religious conservative bent, but he certainly
isn't any of the things you say. Not in the least.
...John
--
___________________________________________________________________
\_The most formidable weapon against errors of any kind is Reason._\
/_I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.__________/
\_____________________________________________________Thomas Paine_\
/__John Alway jal...@icsi.net______________________________________/
Andrew Hall
Robert> The positive things said about gays was at the expense of
Basically. It was a dumb post.
Robert> the original poster comparing gays to? By saying that gays are healthier,
Robert> he is saying that straights are not as healthy. Besides being wrong
Robert> (statistically gay men die much earlier than straight males), its also a
I hope you are not using the lying Paul Cameron's stats.
Robert> slam against straights. The rest is subjective. The original post was
Robert> stupid, Chris responded by presenting facts. For some reason, Jack now sees
Robert> that presenting facts against a minority group shows bias. which is BS.
Robert> Facts are facts, period. As for being fired, guess what? I'm straight, I'm
Robert> white, I'm male, and I'm married and my boss can walk up to me tomorrow and
Robert> tell me to clear out my desk. He does not have to give me a reason. Life's
Robert> tough. BTW, has there ever been a study to see if gay managers ever fire
Robert> people because they're straight? Just curious.
Well, the laws being asked for are to prevent discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation, so if that did happen, it
would be against the law of such an anti-discrimination law
were in place. Personally I am ambivalent about all such
anti-discrimination laws. They go against my libertarian
leanings, but I think that they may be needed in certain cases,
such as the South in the 60's.
I have no such ambivalence in other areas of equal rights ---
such as access to marriage for same sex couples. There the government
is discriminating, and that is wrong and should be illegal.
ah
chani
>: mistreated so long as they are not. I have found that Libertarians are
>: generally selfish and seek liberty only for their own benefit, not as a
>: principle which is to be desired and sought after. Indeed, if liberty
>: were to cost them any real pain or difficulty, I wonder if they would
>: stand by their principles or if they would cave like so many other
>: self-important leaders and groups.
>: Yours respectfully,
>: Daniel Larison
>
>To an extent you make a good point. However I am a libertarian and I
>think any employer who discriminates against a person on race,sex
>physical attribute or sexual orientation is a fool. But I wouldn't allow
>a law stopping them from doing what they do. Yes it does hurt, it is
>morally wrong but in the end it will harm the business. They will become
>uncompetitive and they will lose out whilst the firms that select by
>merit will thrive. I am fairly selfish and I expect employers to act selfishly also and pick the best by merit.
Mornin.
This is where I part company with Libertarians. I do not want government in
my bedroom, nor in my finances. But a founding principle of this country was
that it would allow the majority to rule as long as it did not do so by
trampling on the rights of a minority. Homosexuals will never (in all
likelyhood) reach a majority population and therefore need to be afforded some
protection. If a majority population, say in Colorado, say that gays have no
standing, then businesses can keep gays from buying property (banks), from
finding housing (landlords), from finding employment (business owners,
municipalities), or from obtaining services (doctors, dentists, insurers).
Libertarians seem to believe that the marketplace will punish the discriminators
and push them to stop, but if the majority discriminates, the marketplace will
too.
Tracy
IndstrlPwr
over the radio. The concept of an actual physical entity is too revolting
to contemplate-- fat or not.
Patrick Rogoschewsky
(Robert Nehls) wrote:
<snip>
> The positive things said about gays was at the expense of straights. Who is
> the original poster comparing gays to? By saying that gays are healthier,
> he is saying that straights are not as healthy. Besides being wrong
> (statistically gay men die much earlier than straight males), its also a
Since people don't inquire when someone dies if they were gay or not -
where do these stats come from. Most of the 'stats' in this area are the
work of Paul Cameron who used falacious methods to arriave at them.
> slam against straights. The rest is subjective. The original post was
> stupid, Chris responded by presenting facts. For some reason, Jack now sees
> that presenting facts against a minority group shows bias. which is BS.
> Facts are facts, period. As for being fired, guess what? I'm straight, I'm
Well Paul Cameron's 'stats' are as not even in the ball park of being
factual. Is this the sort of 'facts' that were being presented.
> white, I'm male, and I'm married and my boss can walk up to me tomorrow and
> tell me to clear out my desk. He does not have to give me a reason. Life's
> tough. BTW, has there ever been a study to see if gay managers ever fire
> people because they're straight? Just curious.
>
> :
Frank R. Hipp
>From: indst...@aol.com (IndstrlPwr)
>Subject: Re: Why is Rush Fat?
>Date: 10 Feb 1996 16:01:58 -0500
>It's bad enough hearing all his moronic claptrap in the disembodied form
>over the radio. The concept of an actual physical entity is too revolting
>to contemplate-- fat or not.
Why is Ted Kennedy so fat ? Why don't you ask that ? It's funny how
conservatives are branded the party of hate yet there are idiots like this
around. Of course he has probably never listened to the show but just
following the liberal line.
Frank R. Hipp
John Petry
>
> In article <4fg56p$5...@gazette.medtronic.com>, rn1...@medtronic.COM
> (Robert Nehls) wrote:
>
> > white, I'm male, and I'm married and my boss can walk up to me tomorrow and
> > tell me to clear out my desk. He does not have to give me a reason. Life's
> > tough.
Actually he might have to if it appeared that he fired you in violation
of state and federal law. The reality is an employer can fire anyone,
gay or straight for any reason so long as it doesn't run counter to the
laws on employment that presently exist, ie. race, creed, gender,
national origin, religion. The reality also is that it would be a highly
unlikely situation that a straight man would be fired from a job simply
because he was straight. If he was he should have the right to sue as it
isn't any of his employers concern with whom he sleeps as long as it
isn't at work.
> BTW, has there ever been a study to see if gay managers ever fire
> > people because they're straight? Just curious.
> >
If they did then they should, and in California and some other
jurisdictions, would be liable. The demand here is that both gay and
straight employees be protected from this type of discrimination. That
isn't special rights, that's equal protection under the law.
Art Hughes
Jake
>It's bad enough hearing all his moronic claptrap in the disembodied form
>over the radio. The concept of an actual physical entity is too revolting
>to contemplate-- fat or not.
Why? Why is it moronic? Because you don't agree? That's the liberal
way. Insult somone personally when you disagree...
Michael Zarlenga
: Despite the fact that the airline argued that they needed tall
: individuals to reach the overhead bins; slender individuals to pass
: unobtrusively along the aisles; and attractive individuals to keep the
: atmosphere of the flight pleasant, the labor board wasn't buying it.
: The airline was ordered to hire some short, fat, pig-faced women
: forthwith.
Another victory for N.O.W.!
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Vote ABC in 1996. Anybody But Clinton.
Generalisimo Heegis McGreegious Scientist/Brewer
writes:
weekend's sexual conquests, how does your boss know you are gay?
!Rack Jite
answered by the sorely CONSERVATIVELY INCORRECT, Rack Jite:
!On 10 Feb 1996 16:01:58 -0500, indst...@aol.com (IndstrlPwr) wrote:
!
!>It's bad enough hearing all his moronic claptrap in the disembodied
form
!>over the radio. The concept of an actual physical entity is too
revolting
!>to contemplate-- fat or not.
!
!Why? Why is it moronic? Because you don't agree? That's the liberal
!way. Insult somone personally when you disagree...
Of course Rush would never do such a thing... hehe
ITS MOST OF WHAT HE DOES!
You people, what a yuck...
"I suppose I can understand the selfish callous disregard,
it's the pride in it that passes me by." Rack Jite
The NEW Conservatively Incorrect - http://turnpike.net/emporium/H/HR/
NETSCAB CENTRAL - http://turnpike.net/emporium/H/HR/indexnet.htm
Dave Brickner
What the hell is the thread "gay qualities" doing here. Gays want to be taken
seriously, but fail to realize that their lifestyle has no place in evolution
and no future for them except death, now because of AIDS or later because they
can have no legitimate offspring. They are a blank space in the story of life
and should realize that they are wasting time with their rants. Ride a horse
down the middle of a freeway and you may get the idea that the auto age is
here and that you are being stupid. Gays just don't get it.
William R. Discipio Jr
And what the hell is it to you if someone chooses a homosexual
lifestyle? I take it back, you aren't a live and let live bigot. You
don't believe in letting others live their lives as they so choose.
: What the hell is the thread "gay qualities" doing here. Gays want to be taken
--
crl23% finger volt...@chelsea.ios.com
Login: voltai29 Name: Jim KennemurXAXX
Directory: /u/u9/voltai29 Shell: /usr/local/bin/tcsh
No Mail.
jpet...@counsel.com
wrote:
>>This may seem like a stupid question, but without bragging of my last
>weekend's sexual conquests, how does your boss know you are gay?
>
Well stop and think about it. I am 42 years old. I don't have a wife.
No stories of my children's activities at home, school, athletic events,
etc. I live with another man. We have lived together for many years.
When others talk about their spouses and activities that they have done
together or plan to do together, what should I do? Sit there and lie
about it if asked? Others have photographs of their loved ones on the
desk or somewhere at their work station, assuming they work in an office
environment. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same. If the office
person on the make hits me up or someone decides to fix me up with a
friend because I am "unmarried", what do I say or do. Think of all the
normal every day sorts of things that people do when they interact with
their workmates that would tell you if they are married, have kids or
whatever. One need not sit around boasting about who they "nailed" last
night in order for others they work with to come to the conclusion that
they are gay.
jpet...@counsel.com
Buddy Beaudoin
>
> >I agree. A law telling me how to run my life is wrong! If I only want
> >The plural of anecdote is data.
>
Ah, a sodomite who lumps himself with religious groups and ethnic groups.
Don't you understand that being and remaining a sodomite is a moral issue? A
great deal of society does. That's why there are still laws on the books
concerning the act of sodomy.
You wanna work. Shut your mouth and keep your sexual proclivities where it
belongs....in the latrine. Nice Freudian slip with that "out of the closet"
bit though. It's a closet all right....a water closet. Here in America we
call it a toilet.
--
**********************************************************************
* Buddy * The two-second gospel: "If therefore the Son shall *
* Beaudoin * make you free, you shall be free indeed." *
*************************John 8: 36***********************************
chani
>In <4fl935$q...@tlaltec.tezcat.com> ch...@montana.tezcat.com (chani)
>writes:
>>Libertarians seem to believe that the marketplace will punish the
>>discriminators and push them to stop, but if the majority discriminates, the
>>marketplace will too.
>This may seem like a stupid question, but without bragging of my last
>weekend's sexual conquests, how does your boss know you are gay?
Mornin.
a. Probably from the pictures of my spouse and our child on my desk
b. In general conversation, I speak of my spouse the same as others do
theirs.
Tracy
jpet...@counsel.com
>
What the hell is the thread "gay qualities" doing here. Gays want to be
taken seriously, but fail to realize that their lifestyle has no place in
evolution and no future for them except death, now because of AIDS or
later because they can have no legitimate offspring. They are a blank
space in the story of life and should realize that they are wasting time
with their rants. Ride a horse down the middle of a freeway and you may
get the idea that the auto age is here and that you are being stupid.
Gays just don't get it.
*************************************
Dave:
Thak you for sharing your ignorance with us. It is nce that you are able
to formulate opinions even if you are unable to use whatever intellegence
and logic you were endowed with. We could I suppose discuss the various
individual contributions that gay men and women have made over the
centuries both in arts, sciences, business etc. We could talk about the
simple fact that gays as all citizens pay taxes which go for various
items they have little use of. The AIDS statement is simple stupidity on
your part as lesbians have a lower rate fo infection than heterosexuals
have. Among gay men, those who practice safe sex have the same level of
risk as heterosexuals who practice safe sex. The virus doesn't
discriminate. The reproduction issue is also quite amusing as it is
perfectly obvious that some gay men and women do reproduce. Other
prefere not to. This is also true of heterosexuals. Whats the big deal
about it? Are you less of a human because you didn't swim upstream and
spawn like some trailer trash denzien on a weekend binge through the honk
tonks. Is some low life illiterate straight scumbag, wife beating, tax
cheating, drunk driving heterosexual male somehow more of a value to the
human race because he got it up one night and impregnated his girlfriend,
while a law abiding, decent research scientist who is gay, is less
important because he has no desire to reproduce?
Dave Brickner
Ah yes, but the truth hurts. Be thy gay if you want to be, but a loser is a
loser and denial won't change a thing. Gays are deadend.
Dave Brickner
Gay is still deadend, but the lack of desire to reproduce is a bright spot.
Most perversions od nature tend to die out sooner or later. Suck what?
Dave Brickner
I think the musings of gays may be appropriate on a group with Clinton's name
in it, but on TPG?????????????? Get a life.
Harry Fulton
individual, protect minorities and also be a libertarian ? Many have argued
in the past for gay rights; I have called for less laws not more. By taking
out the government and the state you send money and power back to the
individual. However as individuals we are affected by others and the question
arose : if we live in a liberal, capitalistic society then why haven't
the advancement in the power of minorities increased at the same rate as the
majority.
We don't live in a liberal, rational world.
That is why, as a moderate libertarian I would call for their to be a nanny
state for everyone under the age of 18. This state would look after
education and health care. After the age of 18 if that person is able-bodied
he should not recieve any state protection.
This education would allow advancement of rationality and development of
people's critical faculty - important in cutting through the hate and
prejudice of society and to developing a libertarian mind set.
It is *ONLY* through education that we can expose the immorality of
bigoted prejudice. Making a law which says to homophobic businesses you
*must* be an equal opportunities employer will just make those businesses more resentful. They won't change their ways just by being told to do so. The only
real change is through education.
N.M
Will Christie
want to give corporate america carte blanche in employment, yet rely on "education" to eradicate hate and prejudice. When I started working 20+ years
ago for the largest private employer in California, it had just signed a
consent decree (affirmative action) to move towards a work force the by ratio
was representative of the community. It was not at all that way. There
were hardly any racial minorities in white collar jobs. Instead, blacks and
asians and latinos predominantly drove the trucks and answered the phones.
Gender roles were very strict in most departments. The corporation was
FORCED to bypass its own societal prejudice and numerically spread jobs
to different groups. Yes, in the short term this disadvantaged white
males (who for generations took for granted their number one position, with
the scraps going to other groups). I helped administer that program at the time
(I now have nothing to do with such work). However, it is PURELY such
federal efforts that desegregated job titles, not some nebulus fantasy
change in values. Such changes often come AFTER you get the different groups
together in a work relationship, and they learn about each other, find they are
all human anc can get along to "get a job done". They still have the
freedom (fi they are so stupid) to hate others of different races, religions, gender or sexual orientation.
While I think perhaps the time for stringent programs like this may be passed, it seems ABSURD to negate the incredible difference they have made to the
economic equality in the work place. If that does not suit your "religion" of
pure libertarianism, that is too damn bad, in my book. I have 20+ experience,
watching this company go from a good-old-white-boy enclave to a place of white collar diversity. Thank God for such liberal policies of the past.
I fear for this country now when I see so much hatred foisted as "Common sense"
(the local San Francisco KSFO hate-radio station logo). I agree with the
desire for individual freedom to the max. YET! Often the people who proclaim a libertarian view, simply want it for themselves, to carry out some regressive
vengeance related program to re-establish white privilege. Hope you can all
parse out the intent of all the posters.
Andrew Hall
Buddy> Will Christie wrote:
>> >I agree. A law telling me how to run my life is wrong! If I
>> only want >to hire people under 5'2" it is my
>> business. Patronize it if you >choose. >The plural of anecdote
>> is data.
>>
>> You've obviously never been on the receiving end of this
>> wonderful philosophy of great benefit to the rich and
>> powerful. So, if you were a racist anti-catholic homophobe who
>> ran the only factory in my childhood home town in central
>> Wisconsin, all local Indians, catholics and gays couldjust move
>> on,
Buddy> Ah, a sodomite who lumps himself with religious groups and
Buddy> ethnic groups. Don't you understand that being and
Buddy> remaining a sodomite is a moral issue? A great deal of
Since nobody is being harmed by other people engaging in
consensual loving relationships the moral issue is jerks like
you that try to restrict the rights of others that do not harm you.
You are profoundly immoral.
ah
Will Christie
<What the hell is the thread "gay qualities" doing here. Gays want to be taken
<seriously, but fail to realize that their lifestyle has no place in evolution
<and no future for them except death, now because of AIDS or later because they
<can have no legitimate offspring. They are a blank space in the story of life
<and should realize that they are wasting time with their rants. Ride a horse
<down the middle of a freeway and you may get the idea that the auto age is
<here and that you are being stupid. Gays just don't get it.
Sexual orientation is a given, Dave, not rationally chosen. I have always
(since about 5 years old) known that my "self" did not match the gender
stereotypes (rough and tumble play, competition, power...) of other
boys in a group. What the hell are you talking about? As I got close
to my teens I knew I desired other males exually, not females. It is
intrinsically ME, not some stupid choice I made (I assume you think
you "choose" wisely to be hetero, implying therefore that you are also sexually
desiring men, yet choose women instead. I think that is called a bi-sexual).
Sexual orientation is a state-of-being, not a choice like choosing a car
over a horse! The only choice is whether to act upon it, and have a fulfilling
sexual relationship (I have had a monogmaous relationship 20 years, and
YES, I also have a daughter) or try to act like a straight, since you think
it is so cool, simply because they breed. Just what the world needs, more
mouths to feed, versus the great art, music, science, architecture (even
been to the Vatican, designed by a gay man?), etc. The dead end is in your
mind unless breeding is "your life" "I breed, therefore I exist!" The
philosophy of a rabbit.
Gays appear born to each generation, and always have. I don't know where
you get this goofy idea it is simply a bad choice! Clueless, but so sure of
yourself on a subject that does not impact you personally - typical!
Andrew Hall
Dave> Ah yes, but the truth hurts. Be thy gay if you want to be, but a loser is a
Dave> loser and denial won't change a thing. Gays are deadend.
Then why have there been gays throughout history?
The facts dispute your conclusions. NOt that
truth is likely to change the mind if a bigot.
ah
!Rack Jite
by the sorely CONSERVATIVELY INCORRECT, Rack Jite:
!Well stop and think about it. I am 42 years old. I don't have a wife.
!No stories of my children's activities at home,school, athletic events,
!etc. I live with another man. We have lived together for many years.
!When others talk about their spouses and activities that they have done
!together or plan to do together, what should I do? Sit there and lie
!about it if asked? Others have photographs of their loved ones on the
!desk or somewhere at their work station,assuming they work in an office
!environment. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same. If the office
!person on the make hits me up or someone decides to fix me up with a
!friend because I am "unmarried", what do I say or do. Think of all the
!normal every day sorts of things that people do when they interact with
!their workmates that would tell you if they are married, have kids or
!whatever. One need not sit around boasting about who they "nailed" last
!night in order for others they work with to come to the conclusion that
!they are gay.
Beautifully said...
Eric Piotrowski (NC)
On 13 Feb 1996, Harry Fulton wrote:
> Making a law which says to homophobic businesses you
> *must* be an equal opportunities employer will just make those businesses
> more resentful. They won't change their ways just by being told to do
> so. The only
> real change is through education.
>
> N.M
>
I agree that education represents the only real hope for change in our
society, but in the meanwhile, we can't ignore the effects that our
majority-heterosexual business class has on the homosexual minority..
It's a simple fact of our society that gay workers are being excluded
from jobs because of their sexuality. So what do we do to make sure these
people are treated fairly by the business class? AA is a bad band-aid
solution to a real problem and until the underlying discrimination of our
society is addressed, I hear from those who stand to benefit from AA that
it is the preferred option.
Eric |^)
John Petry
>
> Ah, a sodomite who lumps himself with religious groups and ethnic groups.
> Don't you understand that being and remaining a sodomite is a moral issue? A
> great deal of society does. That's why there are still laws on the books
> concerning the act of sodomy.
>
> You wanna work. Shut your mouth and keep your sexual proclivities where it
> belongs....in the latrine. Nice Freudian slip with that "out of the closet"
> bit though. It's a closet all right....a water closet. Here in America we
> call it a toilet.
again. You are correct that it is a moral issue. It is immoral to let
scum sucking homophobes such as yourself interfere with the rights of
americans to earn a living simply because they don't have sexual
relations the way you want them to. If you don't like that then why
don't you go find yourself a country that has a theocracy as a
government, such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. It really isn't any of your
business what someone does in their private life so long as they properly
perform their work duties. After all we let religious fanatics such as
your misbegotten self work with decent americans. And you CHOSE to be
what you are today, a hate filled, small minded, little bigot.
kiss kiss
chani
>Ah, a sodomite who lumps himself with religious groups and ethnic groups.
>Don't you understand that being and remaining a sodomite is a moral issue? A
>great deal of society does. That's why there are still laws on the books
>concerning the act of sodomy.
>
>You wanna work. Shut your mouth and keep your sexual proclivities where it
>belongs....in the latrine. Nice Freudian slip with that "out of the closet"
>bit though. It's a closet all right....a water closet. Here in America we
>call it a toilet.
Mornin.
Ah, a name caller. I am assuming that by sodomite you are referring to
homosexuals. As lesbians can not, by design, engage in sodomy, you must mean
only homosexual males. Be that as it may....
Hetrosexual sexual proclivities are pronounced, and advertised daily. If
you wish to attribute some divine right for those proclivities to be struted
about, I think you will find even the christians here offended by your defense.
My life is no more, or less open than any of my co-workers or friends. I do
not hesitate to introduce my spouse to new acquaintances as my spouse, nor do I
hesitate to show pictures of our child at any drop of the hat opportunity.
The fact that your lifestyle does not have government sanction should not be
reason for you to abuse my choice to have the lifestyle that is right for me.
Nor should government have the right to infringe upon my personal liberty
because of a moral judgement that our founding fathers found abhorant.
Tracy
chani
>
>Gay is still deadend, but the lack of desire to reproduce is a bright spot.
>Most perversions od nature tend to die out sooner or later. Suck what?
>
As homosexuals have been around for as many years as hetrosexuals, a deadend
seems incorrect. I would suggest however that the governments efforts to
protect the stupid from their own actions is having an adverse affect on the
percentage of the population that dies out because of stupidity leaving the
average intelligence stable. Did you understand that, or should I write a
comic book for you?
Tracy
M Simon
>On 10 Feb 1996 16:01:58 -0500, indst...@aol.com (IndstrlPwr) wrote:
>>It's bad enough hearing all his moronic claptrap in the disembodied form
>>over the radio. The concept of an actual physical entity is too revolting
>>to contemplate-- fat or not.
>Why? Why is it moronic? Because you don't agree? That's the liberal
>way. Insult somone personally when you disagree...
Rush is moronic because he favors big government. He just wants
to use it for a different purpose than the Democrats. He
proposes using it for only moral purposes (his) rather than
immoral purposes (liberals).
Libertarians are the only people in this country saying that
government for any but the most limited purposes is dangerous.
Simon
M Simon
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like
those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." --
Ezekial 23:20
**********************************************
The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis
Chapter 19
30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and
his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and
he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old,
and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the
manner of all the earth
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with
him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the
firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not
when he lay down, nor when she arose.
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said
unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let
us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie
with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and
the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when
she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their
father.
37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the
same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name
Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto
this day.
Larry L. Taylor
>> Dave Brickner <dave...@brutus.bright.net> wrote:
>>
>> What the hell is the thread "gay qualities" doing here. Gays want to be
>> taken seriously, but fail to realize that their lifestyle has no place in
>> evolution and no future for them except death, now because of AIDS or
>> later because they can have no legitimate offspring. They are a blank
>> space in the story of life and should realize that they are wasting time
>> with their rants. Ride a horse down the middle of a freeway and you may
>> get the idea that the auto age is here and that you are being stupid.
>> Gays just don't get it.
>>
>>*************************************
[snip]
> The reproduction issue is also quite amusing as it is
> perfectly obvious that some gay men [snip] do reproduce.
[snip]
And to think I never used to know where lawyers came from. Turns out it
wasn't immaculate conception as I had surmised.
--
"When it's my turn to die, I want to go quietly in my sleep, like my
grandfather -- not kicking and screaming, like the passengers in his
car..."
Larry L. Taylor
Systems Engineering, LITCO
John Payson
In article <4fl935$q...@tlaltec.tezcat.com>,
chani <ch...@montana.tezcat.com> wrote:
> This is where I part company with Libertarians. I do not want government in
>my bedroom, nor in my finances. But a founding principle of this country was
>that it would allow the majority to rule as long as it did not do so by
>trampling on the rights of a minority. Homosexuals will never (in all
>likelyhood)reach a majority population and therefore need to be afforded some
>protection. If a majority population, say in Colorado, say that gays have no
>standing, then businesses can keep gays from buying property (banks), from
>finding housing (landlords), from finding employment (business owners,
>municipalities), or from obtaining services (doctors, dentists, insurers).
>Libertarians seem to believe that the marketplace will punish the discrim-
>inators and push them to stop, but if the majority discriminates, the mark-
>etplace will too.
Tracy--
It is certainly true that if the majority of the population in an area
are opposed to homosexuality, that many of the businesses in that area may
discriminate against gays. However, except in the case of government-enforced
or government-assisted oligopolies, there is no way for the players in the
market to prevent either entry by non-discriminating businesses (which, since
they'd get 100% of the gay market, could expect to do quite well) or "defec-
tion" of existing businesses (since poorly-performing businesses would improve
their market share by taking on the unserved gay market: e.g., if there are
ten restaurants in town and gays make up 10% of the potential market, then any
restaurant which is getting less than 10% of the total business [and by the
Lake Wobegon theorem one must exist] would increase its market share by taking
in gay customers, even if they lost *ALL* of their non-gay customers).
Note that for gays to be served it is not necessary that customers boycott
businesses that discriminate (though that would help), nor that any other
marketplace "punishments" be imposed. It is sufficient that those who enter
the market to serve gays be able to profit from serving the gays themselves,
and that they be free from either attacks by the government [e.g., deliberate-
ly rezoning lots containing gay-serving businesses] or attacks sanctioned by
the government [e.g., having the police ignore illegal firebombing or other
attacks by other business owners]. Since the former of these two requirements
is best met by the "minority" group and the latter is best achieved by requir-
ing the government to provide "equal protection under law" and allowing the
"minority-serving" business owner the means of self-protection [in LA, few
people were winning to attack Korean businesses whose owners had rifles] I
see little need for much of anything else.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
supe...@mcs.com | "Je crois que je ne vais jamais voir... | J\_/L
John Payson | Un animal aussi beau qu'un chat." | ( o o )
Milton R Shook
> In article <4fg56p$5...@gazette.medtronic.com>, rn1...@medtronic.COM
> (Robert Nehls) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The positive things said about gays was at the expense of straights. Who is
> > the original poster comparing gays to? By saying that gays are healthier,
> > he is saying that straights are not as healthy. Besides being wrong
> > (statistically gay men die much earlier than straight males), its also a
>
> Since people don't inquire when someone dies if they were gay or not -
> where do these stats come from. Most of the 'stats' in this area are the
> work of Paul Cameron who used falacious methods to arriave at them.
>
> > slam against straights. The rest is subjective. The original post was
> > stupid, Chris responded by presenting facts. For some reason, Jack now sees
> > that presenting facts against a minority group shows bias. which is BS.
> > Facts are facts, period. As for being fired, guess what? I'm straight, I'm
>
> Well Paul Cameron's 'stats' are as not even in the ball park of being
> factual. Is this the sort of 'facts' that were being presented.
>
> > white, I'm male, and I'm married and my boss can walk up to me tomorrow and
> > tell me to clear out my desk. He does not have to give me a reason. Life's
> > tough. BTW, has there ever been a study to see if gay managers ever fire
> > people because they're straight? Just curious.
> >
> > :
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Bob Nehls Sr. Design Engineer
> > rn1...@sage.medtronic.com
> >
> > Working Towards Full Life...
> > These are my views, not my employers.
>
>
Bottom line: who cares who's healthier, who lives longer...we all, gay or
straight, could be hit by a Mack truck tomorrow, so does it really
matter? What does matter is that all PEOPLE have been given certain
rights by the Constitution, and we need to respect that, no matter how we
feel about their personal behaviors, and their biological tendencies.
Period. End of Story.
David T. Hardy
msi...@rworld.com (M Simon) writes:
> The Bible is not Indecent. Read the following and you decide.
>
> "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like
> those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." --
> Ezekial 23:20
>
>
> **********************************************
> The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis
>
> Chapter 19
>
> 30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and
> his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and
> he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
>
> 31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old,
> and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the
> manner of all the earth
>
> 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with
> him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
>
> 33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the
> firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not
> when he lay down, nor when she arose.
THEY LET CHILDREN READ THIS STUFF? Let us cut them off, together with
he who pisseth against the wall!
Ever read Greek classical mythology? Tried to read some to my kid, and
found I had to do a rather dramatic rewrite of just about every page.
"And Zeus showed great favor to Danae, inasmuch as he seduced her,
instead of just violating her by force as he usually did." Wonder if
his cup-bearer Gannymede (the latin version of which gives us
catamite--the texts make it clear the boy's duties included more than
pouring wine) got jealous. Vulcan, discovering some other god is
porking Mrs. Vulcan, designs a metal net to catch the two and imprison
them in the midst of the romp, then invites the other gods in to see
the free peep show--but they find it so amusing they laugh at him
instead. Rape, murder, mutilation, bloody vengence... I tell you,
religion just ain't what it used to be. No wonder so few go to church
anymore.
_____________________________________________________________________
"Far better it is to dare mighty) dha...@indirect.com <David T. Hardy>
things, to win triumphs, though ) http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy
checkered by failure, than to )____________________________________
take ranks with those poor spirits that neither enjoy much nor suffer
much because they live in the grey twilight that knows neither victory
nor defeat." T. Roosevelt, April 10, 1899.
Kent Parks
John--when people refer to discrimination in business, they mean
in EMPLOYMENT, not in discriminating against CUSTOMERS--it is illegal in
most cases for, to use your example, a restaurant to refuse to serve
someone they think is gay...it is, however, legal for restaurants to
refuse to HIRE someone just because they believe him/her to be
homosexual. THAT is what antidiscrimination laws are about.
Kent
Peter H. Proctor
>Subject: The Bible is Not Indecent
>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 16:57:15 GMT
>The Bible is not Indecent. Read the following and you decide.
>"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like
>those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." --
>Ezekial 23:20
Read the whole Song of Solomon. Talk about erotic. Also advocates
miscegenation. Point is: the Jewish scholars who put the Old Testament
together recognized that sexuality was an important part of the human
experience.
PHP
chani
>chani <ch...@montana.tezcat.com> wrote:
>>Libertarians seem to believe that the marketplace will punish the discrim-
>>inators and push them to stop, but if the majority discriminates, the mark-
>>etplace will too.
>
> It is certainly true that if the majority of the population in an area
>are opposed to homosexuality, that many of the businesses in that area may
>discriminate against gays. However, except in the case of government-enforced
>or government-assisted oligopolies, there is no way for the players in the
>market to prevent either entry by non-discriminating businesses (which, since
>they'd get 100% of the gay market, could expect to do quite well) or "defec-
> Note that for gays to be served it is not necessary that customers boycott
>businesses that discriminate (though that would help), nor that any other
>marketplace "punishments" be imposed. It is sufficient that those who enter
>the market to serve gays be able to profit from serving the gays themselves,
And this is where I think an occasional problem occurs (primarily in rural
areas where population counts are low). If there are 3 restaurants in a town of
1200 and a "standard" 10% were gay (assuming all openly), then 120 people would
be all that would be available to support a new restaurant. We can assume, as
you do, that some people that were not gay would go to a new restaurant if the
service/food/atmosphere were better, but maybe not if the general atmosphere in
town were hostile.
Regardless. There are times when political action to protect "apparent
rights" are needed and libertarians seems less inclined to agree with that
"interference".
How much better things would be if people stopped reacting to differences
and accepted that variations exist and are a nice diversion from the same ole
same ole...
Tracy
Joe Buck
> What the hell is the thread "gay qualities" doing here. Gays want to be
> taken seriously, but fail to realize that their lifestyle has no place
> in evolution and no future for them except death, now because of AIDS or
> later because they can have no legitimate offspring.
Sarcasm mode on:
What the hell is the thread "worker bee qualities" doing here. Worker
bees want to be taken seriously, but fail to realize that their lifestyle
has no place in evolution and no future for them except death, now because
of insecticides (which affect them more than us since we stay in the
hive) or later because, since they are sterile, they can have no legitimate
offspring. We drone bees and queen bees shouldn't put up with them.
Similarly, we should ignore the evidence that homosexual behavior is
observed in most mammals, since under extremely simplistic ideas about
evolution that ignore kin selection effects, we don't see how evolution
can produce such a thing.
--
-- Joe Buck <jb...@synopsys.com> (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Work for something because it is good,
not just because it stands a chance to succeed. -- Vaclav Havel
Eric Neill
Bob
Chris Morton
>On 12 Feb 1996 20:23:25 GMT, jpet...@counsel.com wrote and is answered
>by the sorely CONSERVATIVELY INCORRECT, Rack Jite:
>!Well stop and think about it. I am 42 years old. I don't have a wife.
>!No stories of my children's activities at home,school, athletic events,
>!etc. I live with another man. We have lived together for many years.
>!When others talk about their spouses and activities that they have done
>!together or plan to do together, what should I do? Sit there and lie
>!about it if asked? Others have photographs of their loved ones on the
>!desk or somewhere at their work station,assuming they work in an office
>!environment. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same. If the office
>!person on the make hits me up or someone decides to fix me up with a
>!friend because I am "unmarried", what do I say or do. Think of all the
>!normal every day sorts of things that people do when they interact with
>!their workmates that would tell you if they are married, have kids or
>!whatever. One need not sit around boasting about who they "nailed" last
>!night in order for others they work with to come to the conclusion that
>!they are gay.
>Beautifully said...
As Dave Dahlman of Seabrook, Texas polishes up his baseball bat to go
bash some "fags"....
> "I suppose I can understand the selfish callous disregard,
> it's the pride in it that passes me by." Rack Jite
>The NEW Conservatively Incorrect - http://turnpike.net/emporium/H/HR/
> NETSCAB CENTRAL - http://turnpike.net/emporium/H/HR/indexnet.htm
*** Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Ed Glamkowski
:P Read the whole Song of Solomon. Talk about erotic. Also advocates
:P miscegenation. Point is: the Jewish scholars who put the Old Testament
:P together recognized that sexuality was an important part of the human
:P experience.
yes, but try telling that to the US congress, and to the
christian coalition ...
:O