WHY do Liberals shun the Liberal word.
Georgann Chenault
I genuinely want to know.
What is it about the word Liberal that makes liberals so uncomforatble.
What makes them think we should stop using the words Liberal and
Conservative?
Has anyone got a better idea on how to sucinctly describle these
diametrically opposed world-views?
Thanks,
GC
P.S.
Posts from those not known for being obnoxious liberals will not be
read.
So most of the regular knee-jert posters needn't bother to write for my
sake.
Georgann Chenault
Neutrodyne
>From: Georgann Chenault chen...@mindspring.com
>Date: Sun, 05 December 1999 09:29 AM EST
>Message-id: <384A76C2...@mindspring.com>
Trolls like this are bad enough when they are on topic, don't you think?
Neutrodyne
Card Carrier, RKJP Local #379
kelly england
Neutrodyne <neutr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991205101414...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
Is Daedra a troll?
http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/carcassofgod/smash.html
clari...@hotspammail.com
Rush when you use that word to describe your beliefs people get the
impression that you're a extreme. The other reason is that when you
label yourself you're held accountable by the Rushes and Lauras for
all the stupid things other people who use that same label for
themselves do and say. When it comes to beliefs it's better to stop
trying to fit everyone into a small tight little box because not
everyone is going to fit.
On Sun, 05 Dec 1999 09:29:58 -0500, Georgann Chenault
<chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I'm asking some that may actually have a CLUE!
>I genuinely want to know.
>
>What is it about the word Liberal that makes liberals so uncomforatble.
>What makes them think we should stop using the words Liberal and
>Conservative?
>
>Has anyone got a better idea on how to sucinctly describle these
>diametrically opposed world-views?
>
>
>Thanks,
>GC
>
>P.S.
>Posts from those not known for being obnoxious liberals will not be
>read.
>So most of the regular knee-jert posters needn't bother to write for my
>sake.
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"As God as my witness,
I thought Turkeys could fly."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kelly england
<clari...@hotSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:384a8502....@news.zebra.net...
| I don't like the word liberal because thanks to people like Laura and
| Rush when you use that word to describe your beliefs people get the
| impression that you're a extreme. The other reason is that when you
| label yourself you're held accountable by the Rushes and Lauras for
| all the stupid things other people who use that same label for
| themselves do and say. When it comes to beliefs it's better to stop
| trying to fit everyone into a small tight little box because not
| everyone is going to fit.
So true!
kel
odorous_genitals
> > P.S.
> > Posts from those not known for being obnoxious liberals will not be
> > read.
> > So most of the regular knee-jert posters needn't bother to write for my
> > sake.
Although nobody who knows me would call me a liberal, I'm double
delighted to be on Georgann's ever-growing list of unreading material.
It reminds me of the old Index Librorum Prohibitorum, the long list of
books forbidden by the pope, banned by the full force of
ecclesiastical law. You could find some great literature by scouring
the list, with works by damned writers like Victor Hugo, Alexandre
Dumas, Emmanuel Kant, Francis Bacon, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, on
and on.
Jitpring
>
> I'm asking some that may actually have a CLUE!
> I genuinely want to know.
>
> What is it about the word Liberal that makes liberals so uncomforatble.
> What makes them think we should stop using the words Liberal and
> Conservative?
>
> Has anyone got a better idea on how to sucinctly describle these
> diametrically opposed world-views?
>
> Thanks,
> GC
Perhaps it's because such black-and-white characterizations seem to come
primarily from rather simple-minded folk who cannot deal with
contradiction and ambiguity, though precisely this - contradiction and
ambiguity - is the way of the world.
Jitpring
--
"Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves
that can be sold."
- Christopher Columbus, 1495
Georgann Chenault
> Perhaps it's because such black-and-white characterizations seem to come
> primarily from rather simple-minded folk who cannot deal with
> contradiction and ambiguity, though precisely this - contradiction and
> ambiguity - is the way of the world.
> Jitpring
I see your point.
But longer definitions somehow seem to fail miserably:
Like instead of saying liberal vs conservative we might say "The people who
want to take away one guys stuff so they can decide how to generously give
it to the folks they think are weak, stupid and/or unfortunately lazy." VS
"The people who think individuals are self-sufficient and largley generous
enough to do both for themselves and to help others less-fortunate on a
pretty-much voluntary basis."
This gets incredibly cumbersome when two simple words are generally a very
informative subsitute.
I think Ill stick with the flawed but descriptive shorter versions even if
they are too black and white for the truly hip.
Jitpring
> > Perhaps it's because such black-and-white characterizations seem to > > come primarily from rather simple-minded folk who cannot deal with
> > contradiction and ambiguity, though precisely this - contradiction > > and ambiguity - is the way of the world.
> > Jitpring
Georgann Chenault replied:
> I see your point.
> But longer definitions somehow seem to fail miserably:
>
> Like instead of saying liberal vs conservative we might say "The people who
> want to take away one guys stuff so they can decide how to generously give
> it to the folks they think are weak, stupid and/or unfortunately lazy." VS
> "The people who think individuals are self-sufficient and largley generous
> enough to do both for themselves and to help others less-fortunate on a
> pretty-much voluntary basis."
>
> This gets incredibly cumbersome when two simple words are generally a very
> informative subsitute.
The problem is that in the real world most people don't fit the
"either/or" mold. Most people are somewhere in the middle. The blanket
terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" - while they are convenient - are in
my opinion intellectually lazy.
August XXi
Thanks to this newsgroup, I've learned not to throw every Christian out with
the bathwater, and to focus on specific issues when I am debating Christians,
for example.
Why not debate individual issues with people rather than assume every liberal
and every conservative believe the same as every other liberal and
conservative? Some people can be very liberal in some areas and yet
conservative in others. My parents, for example, are socially liberal and yet
Catholic. They vote Democrat and my mom has even voted for a Socialist
candidate or two, and yet they hold hard and fast to their religious beliefs.
Just as it irks when people say,"You Christians are all hypocrites," it irks
when lumping everyone into a liberal or conservative camp and spouting off
about them. And it solves nothing. I found that out the hard way. Debate
individual issues and you stay on track.
August
Cyn
>From: augu...@aol.comnospam (August XXi)
>Date: Sun, 05 December 1999 05:12 PM EST
>Message-id: <19991205171259...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
"moderates"? Didn't there used to be 3 pigeon holes for political debates?
iamsamsamiam
Alias Cyn
"Here she comes; sam i am,
Wasting time and wasting RAM..."
Bushman
Neutrodyne <neutr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991205101414...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
> >Subject: WHY do Liberals shun the Liberal word.
> >From: Georgann Chenault chen...@mindspring.com
> >Date: Sun, 05 December 1999 09:29 AM EST
> >Message-id: <384A76C2...@mindspring.com>
> >
> >I genuinely want to know.
> >
> >What is it about the word Liberal that makes liberals so uncomforatble.
> >What makes them think we should stop using the words Liberal and
> >Conservative?
> >
> >Has anyone got a better idea on how to sucinctly describle these
> >diametrically opposed world-views?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >GC
> >
> >Posts from those not known for being obnoxious liberals will not be
> >read.
> >So most of the regular knee-jert posters needn't bother to write for my
> >sake.
>
think?
>
> Neutrodyne
> Card Carrier, RKJP Local #379
I crossed this particular crazy off my list last week. She has nothing to
share so there is nothing to gain by conversing with her.
Bushman
Neutrodyne
>From: kim...@aol.comspamiam (Cyn)
>Date: Sun, 05 December 1999 05:22 PM EST
>Message-id: <19991205172235...@ng-ck1.aol.com>
According to Limbaugh, moderates just wait to see who's winning between the
conservatives and liberals before they make their mind up on anything.
Neutrodyne
August XXi
I'm assuming you are just reporting what Limbaugh says and not using his words
to express what you think.
Now, assuming that... Who gives a shit what Limbaugh says? All he knows is how
to spin an issue and how to play golf.
This sounds too much like what some gays say about bisexuals. It's just as
wrong to say bisexuals are gays in denial as it is to say moderates are just
liberals or conservatives without the balls to commit. There are true bisexuals
out there and I'm sure there are true moderates. Not everything comes in black
and white, right?
August
bigdlaura1
""@chen...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Jitpring wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it's because such black-and-white characterizations seem to
come
> > primarily from rather simple-minded folk who cannot deal with
> > contradiction and ambiguity, though precisely this - contradiction
and
> > ambiguity - is the way of the world.
> > Jitpring
>
> But longer definitions somehow seem to fail miserably:
>
> Like instead of saying liberal vs conservative we might say "The
people who
> want to take away one guys stuff so they can decide how to generously
give
> it to the folks they think are weak, stupid and/or unfortunately
lazy." VS
> "The people who think individuals are self-sufficient and largley
generous
> enough to do both for themselves and to help others less-fortunate on
a
> pretty-much voluntary basis."
Heh. Liberalism is a political tradition, a political theory and a
general philosophy. In America just about every mainstream politician
and commentator is technically a liberal in the second sense. Their
differences of opinion fall within the scope of liberalism. The way I
sort them out is by looking at where they stand on the issue of freedom
and democracy versus private property and income inequality. If they
think the way to resolve the conflict is by reducing the sphere of
democracy to exclude most economic decisions, I consider them
conservatives. If they try to find a compromise that eases inequality,
I consider them liberals. Personally, I don't think that there's any
good intellectual defense for property (distinguished in this sense
from possessions); it's just around because people who have it are
powerful and don't want to get rid of it.
Bertrand Russell wrote a "Liberal Decalogue" which describes a liberal
(in the sense of a general philosophy) outlook.
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for
the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your
husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not
by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and
illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always
contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if
you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now
accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement,
for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a
deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it
is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's
paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness."
GISP
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gary DeWaay
> Jitpring wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it's because such black-and-white characterizations seem to come
> > primarily from rather simple-minded folk who cannot deal with
> > contradiction and ambiguity, though precisely this - contradiction and
> > ambiguity - is the way of the world.
> > Jitpring
>
> I see your point.
> But longer definitions somehow seem to fail miserably:
>
> Like instead of saying liberal vs conservative we might say "The people who
> want to take away one guys stuff so they can decide how to generously give
> it to the folks they think are weak, stupid and/or unfortunately lazy." VS
> "The people who think individuals are self-sufficient and largley generous
> enough to do both for themselves and to help others less-fortunate on a
> pretty-much voluntary basis."
Translation: "keep your damn hands out of my wallet while I pretend to
be helping people"
Gary
(Dr. DeWaay)
Purveyor of degenerates (now offseason).
Required ARTD-L reading:
FAQ: http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire/faq.html
(thanx to Hell Toupee)
CAL: http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire/Corpus.htm
(thanx to Dr. Charlie)
t.s...@home.com
<chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jitpring wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it's because such black-and-white characterizations seem to come
>> primarily from rather simple-minded folk who cannot deal with
>> contradiction and ambiguity, though precisely this - contradiction and
>> ambiguity - is the way of the world.
>> Jitpring
>
>I see your point.
>But longer definitions somehow seem to fail miserably:
>
>Like instead of saying liberal vs conservative we might say "The people who
>want to take away one guys stuff so they can decide how to generously give
>it to the folks they think are weak, stupid and/or unfortunately lazy." VS
>"The people who think individuals are self-sufficient and largley generous
>enough to do both for themselves and to help others less-fortunate on a
>pretty-much voluntary basis."
>
>This gets incredibly cumbersome when two simple words are generally a very
>informative subsitute.
>I think Ill stick with the flawed but descriptive shorter versions even if
>they are too black and white for the truly hip.
I can see why you want to stick with these descriptions. Typically
self serving and not very accurate, but no doubt what you want to see
as 'self evident truth'.
The words themselves are meaningless because they only have any truism
in specific situations. The reality is that some who you would brand
as Liberal recognize certain inherent selfish functionalities within
the system just as those you admire as Conservative due on occassion
recognize a failure in that same system.
The fact you want to use this classification simply indicates your
approach to the philosophy and nothing to do with a particular
understanding of either ism.
Ted
odd_...@my-deja.com
> Bertrand Russell wrote a "Liberal Decalogue" which describes a liberal
> (in the sense of a general philosophy) outlook.
Bertrand Russell? This Bonzo (with his 'saddlepal" whitehead} took 200
pages to show the world that 1 + 1 = 2. The truth is "liberals" and
"conservatives" are for the most part not diametrically opposed as the
woodhead claimed. Most people fall into a middleground. They actually
agree more than they disagree. Only a small minority of kooks at the
extremes think otherwise. Obviously, this is what we are dealing with.
Eric da Red
Georgann Chenault <""@chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I'm asking some that may actually have a CLUE!
>I genuinely want to know.
>
>What is it about the word Liberal that makes liberals so uncomforatble.
So far, just about every thread you've started and most posts you've made
have been based on one or more false assumptions.
Including this one.
>What makes them think we should stop using the words Liberal and
>Conservative?
>
>Has anyone got a better idea on how to sucinctly describle these
>diametrically opposed world-views?
In America, both liberals and conservatives agree on many fundamental
points, such as a constitutionally-based representative democracy and an
economy based on private property. These viewpoints are not diametrically
opposed and do not represent wildly different worldviews.
--
Usenet Insult Of The Week: "He has to unzip his fly to count past ten.
(And at that, he only gets to ten and a half!)"
CJ
news:384A76C2...@mindspring.com...
> I'm asking some that may actually have a CLUE!
> I genuinely want to know.
Yeah, sure you do...but I'll play along.
> What is it about the word Liberal that makes liberals so uncomforatble.
I didn't know it did? Oh well.
> What makes them think we should stop using the words Liberal and
> Conservative?
Hmmmm...maybe its because more times than not, you get a group of people
that decide for themselves how they stand on particular issues and don't let
political party affiliation dictate what they will and won't believe. Its
called thinking for yourself. Not a bad concept, eh?
> Has anyone got a better idea on how to sucinctly describle these
> diametrically opposed world-views?
Oh, you mean labeling? Ok...how about changing conservative to "good and
pure" and liberal to "evil scum"? I bet that would suit you great, wouldn't
it?
>
>
> Thanks,
> GC
>
> P.S.
> Posts from those not known for being obnoxious liberals will not be
> read.
That was pretty stupid to say seeing as how you have to read them to
ascertain their views. Duh!
If you REALLY want to know if someone is liberal or conservative, why don't
you ask them their views on certain issues, and take a poll? Its a nice
change from assuming someone thinks a certain way due to their stances on
just a couple of issues.
> So most of the regular knee-jert posters needn't bother to write for my
> sake.
Knee-jerk? Gee, and to think you can sit there and deny your own
"knee-jerk"idness. Please.....now you are trying to act like something you
are not.
CJ
news:384a8502....@news.zebra.net...
> I don't like the word liberal because thanks to people like Laura and
> Rush when you use that word to describe your beliefs people get the
> impression that you're a extreme. The other reason is that when you
> label yourself you're held accountable by the Rushes and Lauras for
> all the stupid things other people who use that same label for
> themselves do and say. When it comes to beliefs it's better to stop
> trying to fit everyone into a small tight little box because not
> everyone is going to fit.
EXACTLY....take me for example...Here are a few of my views:
Gun Control: I'm against it
Affirmative Action: I'm against it
Unions: I wouldn't support a union to save my life.
Abortion: Will never personally have to worry about it, but it is not my
place to tell a woman what to do with her body.
There...that is only 4 examples....from that, what affiliation would you say
I belong? Conservative, Liberal, or Moderate?....or something else?
This ought to be interesting.
>
>
> On Sun, 05 Dec 1999 09:29:58 -0500, Georgann Chenault
> <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm asking some that may actually have a CLUE!
> >I genuinely want to know.
> >
> >What is it about the word Liberal that makes liberals so uncomforatble.
> >What makes them think we should stop using the words Liberal and
> >Conservative?
> >
> >Has anyone got a better idea on how to sucinctly describle these
> >diametrically opposed world-views?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >GC
> >
> >P.S.
> >Posts from those not known for being obnoxious liberals will not be
> >read.
> >So most of the regular knee-jert posters needn't bother to write for my
> >sake.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
CJ
news:384AEA...@earthlink.net...
> Jitpring wrote:
> > > Perhaps it's because such black-and-white characterizations seem to >
> come primarily from rather simple-minded folk who cannot deal with
> > > contradiction and ambiguity, though precisely this - contradiction > >
and ambiguity - is the way of the world.
> > > Jitpring
>
> > I see your point.
> > But longer definitions somehow seem to fail miserably:
> >
> > Like instead of saying liberal vs conservative we might say "The people
who
> > want to take away one guys stuff so they can decide how to generously
give
> > it to the folks they think are weak, stupid and/or unfortunately lazy."
VS
> > "The people who think individuals are self-sufficient and largley
generous
> > enough to do both for themselves and to help others less-fortunate on a
> > pretty-much voluntary basis."
> >
> > This gets incredibly cumbersome when two simple words are generally a
very
> > informative subsitute.
>
> "either/or" mold. Most people are somewhere in the middle. The blanket
> terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" - while they are convenient - are in
> my opinion intellectually lazy.
> Jitpring
Very good post Jitpring. You hear someone express even just one view and
automatically..."Yup, you're a goddamn liberal all right", or "Yup, you're a
goddamn conservative all right". I think the people that like to
pigeon-hole people like that before even getting to know just what the hell
they actuall DO believe should also be pigeon-holed into a
category....seeing as how they like the black and white labeling so
much.....what was it you said? "Intellectually lazy"? I think so.
CJ
> Jitpring wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it's because such black-and-white characterizations seem to come
> > primarily from rather simple-minded folk who cannot deal with
> > contradiction and ambiguity, though precisely this - contradiction and
> > ambiguity - is the way of the world.
> > Jitpring
>
> But longer definitions somehow seem to fail miserably:
>
> Like instead of saying liberal vs conservative we might say "The people
who
> want to take away one guys stuff so they can decide how to generously give
> it to the folks they think are weak, stupid and/or unfortunately lazy." VS
> "The people who think individuals are self-sufficient and largley generous
> enough to do both for themselves and to help others less-fortunate on a
> pretty-much voluntary basis."
BWAHAHAHAHA.....yeah, ok....thats rich.
To see you write such biased BS....why do you think anyone would try to have
a decent conversation on the topic?
Why don't you just pat yourself on the back and say, "Me good, you bad!"
And if you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, the term "less-fortunate" is BS
according to him.
So I guess you aren't as good of a conservative as you think.
Bushman
CJ <csj...@illicom.net> wrote in message
news:s4of4h6...@corp.supernews.com...
> <clari...@hotSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> news:384a8502....@news.zebra.net...
> > I don't like the word liberal because thanks to people like Laura and
> > Rush when you use that word to describe your beliefs people get the
> > impression that you're a extreme. The other reason is that when you
> > label yourself you're held accountable by the Rushes and Lauras for
> > all the stupid things other people who use that same label for
> > themselves do and say. When it comes to beliefs it's better to stop
> > trying to fit everyone into a small tight little box because not
> > everyone is going to fit.
>
> EXACTLY....take me for example...Here are a few of my views:
>
> Gun Control: I'm against it
> Affirmative Action: I'm against it
> Unions: I wouldn't support a union to save my life.
> Abortion: Will never personally have to worry about it, but it is not my
> place to tell a woman what to do with her body.
>
> There...that is only 4 examples....from that, what affiliation would you
say
> I belong? Conservative, Liberal, or Moderate?....or something else?
>
> This ought to be interesting.
Let's muddy it some more.
Gun control - against it.
Affirmative action - for it.
Unions - they are the only answer to WTO, GATT, NAFTA.
Abortion - between the woman and her doctor.
When you find time to classify CJ, try mine.
Bushman
Bushman
Bushman
> Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:384AD214...@mindspring.com...
> > Jitpring wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps it's because such black-and-white characterizations seem to
come
> > > primarily from rather simple-minded folk who cannot deal with
> > > contradiction and ambiguity, though precisely this - contradiction and
> > > ambiguity - is the way of the world.
> > > Jitpring
> >
> > I see your point.
> > But longer definitions somehow seem to fail miserably:
> >
> > Like instead of saying liberal vs conservative we might say "The people
> who
> > want to take away one guys stuff so they can decide how to generously
give
> > it to the folks they think are weak, stupid and/or unfortunately lazy."
VS
> > "The people who think individuals are self-sufficient and largley
generous
> > enough to do both for themselves and to help others less-fortunate on a
> > pretty-much voluntary basis."
Neat trick. If people are self-sufficient then there are no
"less-fortunate", right? And "self-sufficent" is a strange term for a
species that spends the first ten years of life being dependent, the last
ten being dependent, and the middle years at the mercy of disease, war,
famine, the economy and the religious right.
Bushman
Jitpring
> > Has anyone got a better idea on how to sucinctly describle these
> > diametrically opposed world-views?
CJ replied:
> Oh, you mean labeling? Ok...how about changing conservative to "good and
> pure" and liberal to "evil scum"? I bet that would suit you great, wouldn't
> it?
Exactly. That's exactly what those terms mean to her. Sickening.
Jitpring
Martha Hughes
<Mouldy Genitals> wrote in message
news:384c5ebb...@news.mindspring.com...
> Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
For it
> Affirmative action: ambivalent.
Against it
> Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
Wholeheartedly for it
> Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
For it - to certian extants
> Militias: proud member, California Condors.
disdain militias, unelss I start my own
> President Clinton: should have been removed from office.
I like Clinton and don't give a shit what he does under his desk
> Unions: proud member, Industrial Workers of the World.
I hate unions
>
> Favorite politician, national: Pat Buchanan (reputed Nazi).
fav politician? don't have one
> Favorite politician, local: Tom Ammiano (reputed Marxist).
I don't share your liking for Ammiano, Bushie. I find him ridiculous, snotty
and wants to run every big business out of town. Who does he think actually
pays for things? He's a complete commie rat bastard.
How can you not be for gun control, and not be rah rah for affirmative
action and actually LIKE Mr. Ammiano?
>
> Am I liberal, or conservative?
>
How about me?
>
Georgann Chenault
> The words themselves are meaningless because they only have any truism
> in specific situations. The reality is that some who you would brand
> as Liberal recognize certain inherent selfish functionalities within
> the system just as those you admire as Conservative due on occassion
> recognize a failure in that same system.
>
> The fact you want to use this classification simply indicates your
> approach to the philosophy and nothing to do with a particular
> understanding of either ism.
Huh?
Martha Hughes
<Mouldy Genitals> wrote in message
> Genitals Guy wrote
> > > Am I liberal, or conservative?
>
> > How about me?
>
> Looks like we're all complicated human beings, not labels. Will
> Georgann be able to digest this information, or will the shock be too
> great? Stay tuned...
This is true.
I'd just like to know how in in the world you can like Tom Ammiano. Maybe
you like him just because he's different. Do you live in SF? If so, do you
think you could handle his voice for 4 years? Oy! He sounds like Ethel
Merman on helium.
Martha Hughes
<Shriveled Wrinkled Prunelike Genitals> wrote in message
news:384cb13a...@news.mindspring.com...
> "Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > I'd just like to know how in in the world you can like Tom Ammiano.
Maybe
> > you like him just because he's different. Do you live in SF? If so, do
you
> > think you could handle his voice for 4 years? Oy! He sounds like Ethel
> > Merman on helium.
>
> reasons I'd rather not take the time to go in to, but a quick response
> is that I simply respect his honesty, and he hasn't lost touch with
> working stiffs like me.
>
I don't know about Ammiano's honesty. He wasn't honest about running for
mayor.
> As for his voice, I couldn't care less. Mayor Brown has a smooth,
> pleasant voice, but he's a liar, an embezzler, a man who misplaced his
> principles years ago, and a wholly owned subsidiary of The Gap.
I don't like Brown either. Frankly, I'd like to see both of them go away.
But Ammiano.....can't stand him.
>
> Prediction: Brown will win in a landslide.
I hope so.
mouldy_genitals
Affirmative action: ambivalent.
Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
Favorite politician, national: Pat Buchanan (reputed Nazi).
Favorite politician, local: Tom Ammiano (reputed Marxist).
Am I liberal, or conservative?
bigdlaura1
odd_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Bertrand Russell wrote a "Liberal Decalogue" which describes a
liberal
> > (in the sense of a general philosophy) outlook.
> Oh please, can't we do better than quoting that longwinded fraud
> Bertrand Russell? This Bonzo (with his 'saddlepal" whitehead} took 200
> pages to show the world that 1 + 1 = 2.
Just because you think the foundations of mathematics is a trivial
subject doesn't mean that someone who looks for them is a "bonzo" -
whatever that means.
The truth is "liberals" and
> "conservatives" are for the most part not diametrically opposed as the
> woodhead claimed.
What are you talking about? I was responding to the person who made
that claim.
GISP
bigdlaura1
Mouldy Genitals wrote:
> Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
> Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
> Unions: proud member, Industrial Workers of the World.
I agree with all of these*. Well, I'm not in a union, but I think
they're dandy. Especially the IWW. I'm a libertarian socialist, which,
as I keep trying to tell beldin, is not the same thing as a liberal.
GISP
*but I still think you're a jerk
mouldy_genitals
> > Am I liberal, or conservative?
Martha replied
bigdlaura1
"Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <Mouldy Genitals> wrote in message
> news:384c5ebb...@news.mindspring.com...
> > Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> For it
>
> > Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> Against it
>
>
> > Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
>
>
>
> > Am I liberal, or conservative?
> >
Either you're an extremely complicated person who's so special and
unique that it's impossible to label you or there are more than two
possible ideologies. I think I know which one you think it is and you
can probably guess which one I think it is
GISP
Tinas49ers
>
>Gun Control: I'm against it
>Affirmative Action: I'm against it
>Unions: I wouldn't support a union to save my life.
>Abortion: Will never personally have to worry about it, but it is not my
>place to tell a woman what to do with her body.
>
>There...that is only 4 examples....from that, what affiliation would you say
>I belong? Conservative, Liberal, or Moderate?....or something else?
>
>This ought to be interesting.
>
I would think you would need to share a few more views to REALLY be able to
label you and I feel the same way that you do on all points.....and this group
I bet thinks I'm a conserative person.
Tina
Jesus is the reason for the season
#1 49ER FAN!!!!!!!!
THERE'S NO WHINING IN FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!
Look, I have my own troll~~>> sleep...@my-deja.com
Tinas49ers
>
>Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
>Affirmative action: ambivalent.
>
>Favorite politician, local: Tom Ammiano (reputed Marxist).
>
Moderate
t.s...@home.com
>Genitals Guy wrote
>> > Am I liberal, or conservative?
>
>Martha replied
>> How about me?
>
>Looks like we're all complicated human beings, not labels. Will
>Georgann be able to digest this information, or will the shock be too
>great? Stay tuned...
Life is so much easier if you don't have to consider shades of grey.
Simply find one instance where someone transgresses you personal code
and you have them labeled for life.
If you're really good at this you simply call them morons and stupid
in the aftermath.
No wait.. .that was Pee Wee's Playhouse.
Ted
t.s...@home.com
<bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
><Mouldy Genitals> wrote in message
>news:384c7655...@news.mindspring.com...
>> Genitals Guy wrote
>> > > Am I liberal, or conservative?
>>
>> Martha replied
>> > How about me?
>>
>> Looks like we're all complicated human beings, not labels. Will
>> Georgann be able to digest this information, or will the shock be too
>> great? Stay tuned...
>
>This is true.
>
>I'd just like to know how in in the world you can like Tom Ammiano. Maybe
>you like him just because he's different. Do you live in SF? If so, do you
>think you could handle his voice for 4 years? Oy! He sounds like Ethel
>Merman on helium.
We'll trade you a Tom Ammiano for a Preston Manning, (leader of the
Canadian Reform Party), when he says, "Refor-m" ugh... children start
crying and the pets start behaving like a tornada is about to hit
town.
Ted
shriveled_wrinkled_prunelike_genitals
> I'd just like to know how in in the world you can like Tom Ammiano. Maybe
> you like him just because he's different. Do you live in SF? If so, do you
> think you could handle his voice for 4 years? Oy! He sounds like Ethel
> Merman on helium.
Yes ma'am, I live in San Francisco. I like Tom Ammiano for myriad
reasons I'd rather not take the time to go in to, but a quick response
is that I simply respect his honesty, and he hasn't lost touch with
working stiffs like me.
As for his voice, I couldn't care less. Mayor Brown has a smooth,
pleasant voice, but he's a liar, an embezzler, a man who misplaced his
principles years ago, and a wholly owned subsidiary of The Gap.
Prediction: Brown will win in a landslide.
shriveled_wrinkled_prunelike_genitals
> >Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> >Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> >Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
> >Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
> >Militias: proud member, California Condors.
> >President Clinton: should have been removed from office.
> >Unions: proud member, Industrial Workers of the World.
> >
> >Favorite politician, national: Pat Buchanan (reputed Nazi).
> >Favorite politician, local: Tom Ammiano (reputed Marxist).
> >
Tina replied
> Moderate
Yup, me and Gerald Ford. You sure figured me out proper. Can't pull
the wool over your eyes, no ma'am.
Bushman
<Mouldy Genitals> wrote in message
news:384c7655...@news.mindspring.com...
> Genitals Guy wrote
>
> > How about me?
>
> Looks like we're all complicated human beings, not labels. Will
> Georgann be able to digest this information, or will the shock be too
> great? Stay tuned...
I doubt it will register. It could be a really interesting thread though,
and a non-combative way for people to say what they believe in. It could get
explosive after that, I suppose.
Bushman
Bushman
Martha Hughes <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:82hsdi$n1r$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>
> <Mouldy Genitals> wrote in message
> > Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> For it
>
> > Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> Against it
>
>
> > Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
>
>
>
> >
> > Favorite politician, national: Pat Buchanan (reputed Nazi).
>
>
snotty
> and wants to run every big business out of town. Who does he think
actually
> pays for things? He's a complete commie rat bastard.
>
> How can you not be for gun control, and not be rah rah for affirmative
> action and actually LIKE Mr. Ammiano?
Whoa! Stop. When Genitals the Great posted after me he clipped my
description and the one bfore it, so those were his stats you were reading.
I try to stay pretty current but don't really know who Ammiano is. I'm not
for gun control because I owned my own .22 and hunted with it at age 12,
alone, like the other farm kids. No husbands or wives or kids in the whole
county ever shot each other and yet gun racks held loaded guns. Shortly
before my time, students at the catholic grade school could bring .22's to
school so they could use them to hunt squirrels on the way home. No shit.
That led me to the theory that rage is what kills, and removing guns will
just lead to more inventive ways of killing people. The Columbine kids were
into bombs, and if they had succeeded with their kitchen bomb and ruptured
the large propane tank in there, they would have leveled the school and
everyone in it. Maybe that will happen anyway, but I still see rage as the
real problem. Our culture keeps piling up the stress - 30 years ago (about)
there was enough stress to produce a lone sniper in Texas, who fired from a
tower. Actually, that must have been around 1970. Anyway, the more stress
added, the more of the bell curve of stability underwater. It has finally
rubbed off on younger and younger people. I think the "zero tolerance"
mentality has only accelerated the process.
I'm against the death penalty mostly because I don't believe the state
should have the power of life and death over its citizens, and also because
the state and juries make many mistakes - 81 of them just met in Chicago
this summer. All were on death row and were released because of DNA evidence
or proof dug up by third parties, some were convicted by testimony of
eyewitnesses, some by crooked DA's, and most were black.
And I checked "yes" for affirmative action - if freed slaves had been
given a plot of land and a mule we would all be farther ahead today.
Bushman
> >
>
> > Am I liberal, or conservative?
> >
> How about me?
> >
>
>
Bushman
<Shriveled Wrinkled Prunelike Genitals> wrote in message
news:384cb1c0...@news.mindspring.com...
> Genitial Guy wrote
> > >Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> > >Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> > >
> > >
>
> > Moderate
>
> Yup, me and Gerald Ford. You sure figured me out proper. Can't pull
> the wool over your eyes, no ma'am.
She's a shrewd one. That's why she gets paid TWICE what a receptionist gets.
Yessir, yessir, three bags full.
Bushman
I see that mouldy problem got worse.
Georgann Chenault
> Genitals Guy wrote
> > > Am I liberal, or conservative?
>
> Martha replied
> > How about me?
>
> Looks like we're all complicated human beings, not labels. Will
> Georgann be able to digest this information, or will the shock be too
> great? Stay tuned...
Ummmm.
Let's see.
Oh, now I get it.
You're not really male or female! That's labeling.
Unsure? Still forming? Evolving? Mutating?
How much simpler to be ambivolent about it.
Georgann Chenault
> In article <384c5ebb...@news.mindspring.com>,
> Mouldy Genitals wrote:
>
> > Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> > Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> > Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
> > Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
> > Unions: proud member, Industrial Workers of the World.
>
> I agree with all of these*. Well, I'm not in a union, but I think
> they're dandy. Especially the IWW. I'm a libertarian socialist, which,
> as I keep trying to tell beldin, is not the same thing as a liberal.
>
> GISP
How can you be any kind of socialist if you are against Gun Contol.
Guess you forgot the primary tenant of socialism: disarm first then
redirect (control) the masses.
Didn't you mean Guns: wholeheartedly against em?
GC
kelly england
<Mouldy Genitals> wrote in message
news:384c5ebb...@news.mindspring.com...
| Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
| Affirmative action: ambivalent.
| Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
| Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
| President Clinton: should have been removed from office.
|
| Favorite politician, local: Tom Ammiano (reputed Marxist).
|
Semi-Libertarian
|
|
Martha Hughes
Bushman <jiml...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:82iedt$4fd$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
> <Mouldy Genitals> wrote in message
> > Genitals Guy wrote
> > > > Am I liberal, or conservative?
> >
> > > How about me?
> >
> > Looks like we're all complicated human beings, not labels. Will
> > Georgann be able to digest this information, or will the shock be too
> > great? Stay tuned...
>
> and a non-combative way for people to say what they believe in. It could
get
> explosive after that, I suppose.
>
>
Bushman
>
New technology is great.
>
>
Martha Hughes
bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:82ivlp$5lo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> > Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
> > Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
>
> they're dandy. Especially the IWW. I'm a
libertarian socialist,
Out of curiously and a lack of understanding, how can one be both? The
definition of libertarianism is not to rely upon government programs and
such.
which,
> as I keep trying to tell beldin, is not the same thing as a liberal.
>
>
> GISP
> *but I still think you're a jerk
>
>
>
Martha Hughes
> In article <82hsdi$n1r$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> >
> > > Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> > Against it
> >
> >
> > > Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Am I liberal, or conservative?
> > >
>
> Either you're an extremely complicated person who's so special and
> unique that it's impossible to label you or there are more than two
> possible ideologies. I think I know which one you think it is and you
> can probably guess which one I think it is
>
is.
>
> GISP
Dryden Geronimi
http://members.theglobe.com/drlaura/
Again its: http://members.theglobe.com/drlaura/
Eric da Red
Georgann Chenault <""@chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>bigdlaura1 wrote:
>
>> In article <384c5ebb...@news.mindspring.com>,
>> Mouldy Genitals wrote:
>>
>> > Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
>> > Affirmative action: ambivalent.
>>
>> as I keep trying to tell beldin, is not the same thing as a liberal.
>How can you be any kind of socialist if you are against Gun Contol.
>Guess you forgot the primary tenant of socialism: disarm first then
>redirect (control) the masses.
I'm a socialist who, while favoring some specific forms of gun control, is
opposed to any type of universal disarmament. I'm far from the only one.
Guess we can add "socialism" to the encyclopedia of things you know little
about.
--
Usenet Insult Of The Week: "He has to unzip his fly to count past ten.
(And at that, he only gets to ten and a half!)"
chicken_fried_genitals
> | Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> | Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
> | Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
> |
> | Favorite politician, local: Tom Ammiano (reputed Marxist).
> |
"kelly england" <crystal...@home.com> replied
> Semi-Libertarian
That's a new one, but it's a fairly comfortable fit.
How's about you?
chicken_fried_genitals
> > Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> > Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> > Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
> > Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I agree with all of these*. Well, I'm not in a union, but I think
> they're dandy. Especially the IWW. I'm a libertarian socialist, which,
> as I keep trying to tell beldin, is not the same thing as a liberal.
>
> GISP
> *but I still think you're a jerk
IWW dues are reasonable; consider yourself invited. There are lots of
libertarian socialists at every meeting (but few liberals or
conservatives).
And if you've got the genitals, by all means jerk 'em once in a while.
Improves the circulation.
Eric da Red
<Chicken Fried Genitals> wrote:
>Mouldy Genitals wrote:
>> > Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
>> > Affirmative action: ambivalent.
>> > Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
>> > Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
>> > Unions: proud member, Industrial Workers of the World.
>
>bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> I agree with all of these*. Well, I'm not in a union, but I think
>> they're dandy. Especially the IWW. I'm a libertarian socialist, which,
>> as I keep trying to tell beldin, is not the same thing as a liberal.
>>
>> GISP
>> *but I still think you're a jerk
>
>IWW dues are reasonable; consider yourself invited. There are lots of
>libertarian socialists at every meeting (but few liberals or
>conservatives).
Then he could change his net.name to Wobbly Genitals.
kelly england
<Chicken Fried Genitals> wrote in message
news:384d4a1a...@news.mindspring.com...
| Mouldy Genitals> wrote in message
| > | Affirmative action: ambivalent.
| > | Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
| > | Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
| > | President Clinton: should have been removed from office.
| > |
| > | Favorite politician, local: Tom Ammiano (reputed Marxist).
| > |
| > | Am I liberal, or conservative?
|
| "kelly england" <crystal...@home.com> replied
| > Semi-Libertarian
|
| That's a new one, but it's a fairly comfortable fit.
|
| How's about you?
Political Liberal, Lifestyle Conservative, sort of. I forget.
CJ
>
> CJ <csj...@illicom.net> wrote in message
> news:s4of4h6...@corp.supernews.com...
> > <clari...@hotSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:384a8502....@news.zebra.net...
> > > I don't like the word liberal because thanks to people like Laura and
> > > Rush when you use that word to describe your beliefs people get the
> > > impression that you're a extreme. The other reason is that when you
> > > label yourself you're held accountable by the Rushes and Lauras for
> > > all the stupid things other people who use that same label for
> > > themselves do and say. When it comes to beliefs it's better to stop
> > > trying to fit everyone into a small tight little box because not
> > > everyone is going to fit.
> >
> > EXACTLY....take me for example...Here are a few of my views:
> >
> > Gun Control: I'm against it
> > Affirmative Action: I'm against it
> > Unions: I wouldn't support a union to save my life.
> > Abortion: Will never personally have to worry about it, but it is not
my
> > place to tell a woman what to do with her body.
> >
> > There...that is only 4 examples....from that, what affiliation would you
> say
> > I belong? Conservative, Liberal, or Moderate?....or something else?
> >
> > This ought to be interesting.
>
> Gun control - against it.
> Affirmative action - for it.
> Unions - they are the only answer to WTO, GATT, NAFTA.
> Abortion - between the woman and her doctor.
>
> When you find time to classify CJ, try mine.
Why, I'm not the one who is doing the pigeonholing. I wouldn't really
classify you as anything. Maybe an independently thinking person because
you don't let party affiliation dictate your thoughts.
How about AC/DC?
CJ
news:384D0742...@mindspring.com...
> Mouldy, Genitals wrote:
>
> > Genitals Guy wrote
> >
> > > How about me?
> >
> > Looks like we're all complicated human beings, not labels. Will
> > Georgann be able to digest this information, or will the shock be too
> > great? Stay tuned...
>
>
> Let's see.
> Oh, now I get it.
>
> You're not really male or female! That's labeling.
> Unsure? Still forming? Evolving? Mutating?
You need to educate yourself as to the difference between a fact (i.e. male
or female) and an opinion (i.e. is he/she liberal or conservative).
CJ
news:19991206225733...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
> CJ wrote:
> >
> >Gun Control: I'm against it
> >Affirmative Action: I'm against it
> >Unions: I wouldn't support a union to save my life.
> >Abortion: Will never personally have to worry about it, but it is not my
> >place to tell a woman what to do with her body.
> >
> >There...that is only 4 examples....from that, what affiliation would you
say
> >I belong? Conservative, Liberal, or Moderate?....or something else?
> >
> >This ought to be interesting.
> >
>
to
> label you
No, the point is, there are 3 conservative views, and 1 liberal view I
expressed above. Yeah, I could state more liberal views, but the point
is......do you call me a conservative based on the percentage of views I
hold conservative, or liberal based on the same?
You can't, and for Georgann to assume otherwise.....well, is just that....an
ASSumption.
and I feel the same way that you do on all points.....and this group
> I bet thinks I'm a conserative person.
mrpotter
Prunelike Genitals wrote:
> Genitial Guy wrote
> > >Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> > >Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> > >Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
> > >Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
> > >Militias: proud member, California Condors.
> > >President Clinton: should have been removed from office.
> > >Unions: proud member, Industrial Workers of the World.
> > >
> > >Favorite politician, national: Pat Buchanan (reputed Nazi).
> > >Favorite politician, local: Tom Ammiano (reputed Marxist).
> > >
> > Moderate
> Yup, me and Gerald Ford. You sure figured me out proper. Can't pull
> the wool over your eyes, no ma'am.
LOL!!! I _knew_ your point would go zinging waaaaaay past Tina's head.
I'd classify Tina as a "Wobbly", btw, lol...
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Georgann Chenault
> Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:384D0742...@mindspring.com...
> > Mouldy, Genitals wrote:
> >
> > > Genitals Guy wrote
> > > > > Am I liberal, or conservative?
> > >
> > > Martha replied
> > > > How about me?
> > >
> > > Looks like we're all complicated human beings, not labels. Will
> > > Georgann be able to digest this information, or will the shock be too
> > > great? Stay tuned...
> >
> > Ummmm.
> >
> > Let's see.
> > Oh, now I get it.
> >
> > You're not really male or female! That's labeling.
> > Unsure? Still forming? Evolving? Mutating?
>
> You need to educate yourself as to the difference between a fact (i.e. male
> or female) and an opinion (i.e. is he/she liberal or conservative).
The point was about labels.
And are you stating that homosexuals have not introduced opinions to the
facts?
Just curious.
bigdlaura1
"Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > I agree with all of these*. Well, I'm not in a union, but I think
> > they're dandy. Especially the IWW. I'm a
>
> libertarian socialist,
>
> Out of curiously and a lack of understanding, how can one be both? The
> definition of libertarianism is not to rely upon government programs
and
> such.
Well, markets of the type that we see today don't develop
spontaneously. They're created and maintained through governmental
force. A removal of that force, it's hoped, would lead to a socialist
society. That's a little bit of an over-simplification, but I think it
explains the apparent contradiction.
bigdlaura1
"Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > Either you're an extremely complicated person who's so special and
> > unique that it's impossible to label you or there are more than two
> > possible ideologies. I think I know which one you think it is and
you
> > can probably guess which one I think it is
> >
> hehe, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck a libertarian
socialist
> is.
See, that kind of supports my point. You can come up with a label for
any set of positions as long as there's some consistent philosophy
behind them.
Bushman
<Chicken Fried Genitals> wrote in message
> Mouldy Genitals wrote:
> > > Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> > > Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> > > Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
> > > Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
>
> > I agree with all of these*. Well, I'm not in a union, but I think
> > as I keep trying to tell beldin, is not the same thing as a liberal.
> >
> > GISP
> > *but I still think you're a jerk
>
> IWW dues are reasonable; consider yourself invited. There are lots of
> libertarian socialists at every meeting (but few liberals or
> conservatives).
>
> Improves the circulation.
Can you point to a website to learn more? I've heard libertarians of many
stripes and haven't been impressed by any - they're worse than the repubs.
Libertarian socialist sounds more promising. Hell, actually I'll just search
on it, but if yu think there's a site which does an especially good job of
explaining the workings, shoot me one.
Bushman
Ouch.
Bushman
> Bushman <jiml...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:82hjpp$q2k$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> >
> > CJ <csj...@illicom.net> wrote in message
> > news:s4of4h6...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > <clari...@hotSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:384a8502....@news.zebra.net...
> > > > I don't like the word liberal because thanks to people like Laura
and
> > > > Rush when you use that word to describe your beliefs people get the
> > > > impression that you're a extreme. The other reason is that when you
> > > > label yourself you're held accountable by the Rushes and Lauras for
> > > > all the stupid things other people who use that same label for
> > > > themselves do and say. When it comes to beliefs it's better to stop
> > > > trying to fit everyone into a small tight little box because not
> > > > everyone is going to fit.
> > >
> > > EXACTLY....take me for example...Here are a few of my views:
> > >
> > > Affirmative Action: I'm against it
> > > Unions: I wouldn't support a union to save my life.
> > > Abortion: Will never personally have to worry about it, but it is not
> my
> > > place to tell a woman what to do with her body.
> > >
> > > There...that is only 4 examples....from that, what affiliation would
you
> > say
> > > I belong? Conservative, Liberal, or Moderate?....or something else?
> > >
> > > This ought to be interesting.
> >
> > Gun control - against it.
> > Affirmative action - for it.
> > Unions - they are the only answer to WTO, GATT, NAFTA.
> > Abortion - between the woman and her doctor.
> >
> > When you find time to classify CJ, try mine.
>
>
> Why, I'm not the one who is doing the pigeonholing. I wouldn't really
> classify you as anything. Maybe an independently thinking person because
> you don't let party affiliation dictate your thoughts.
>
> How about AC/DC?
Gay issues? Guess I forgot it, but I decided years ago that gays should have
every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone is
denied rights, we're all in danger, and that gays have always existed in
every type of culture and have consistently made valuable contributions to
the culture.
Bushman
>
>
Georgann Chenault
> Gay issues? Guess I forgot it, but I decided years ago that gays should have
> every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone is
> denied rights, we're all in danger,
Bushman
Are you going to similarly stand up for the rights of pedophiles?
Theirs is also a "sexual preference".
Georgann Chenault
> Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:384AD214...@mindspring.com...
> > Jitpring wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps it's because such black-and-white characterizations seem to come
> > > primarily from rather simple-minded folk who cannot deal with
> > > contradiction and ambiguity, though precisely this - contradiction and
> > > ambiguity - is the way of the world.
> > > Jitpring
> >
> > I see your point.
> > But longer definitions somehow seem to fail miserably:
> >
> > Like instead of saying liberal vs conservative we might say "The people
> who
> > want to take away one guys stuff so they can decide how to generously give
> > it to the folks they think are weak, stupid and/or unfortunately lazy." VS
> > "The people who think individuals are self-sufficient and largley generous
> > enough to do both for themselves and to help others less-fortunate on a
> > pretty-much voluntary basis."
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA.....yeah, ok....thats rich.
>
> To see you write such biased BS....why do you think anyone would try to have
> a decent conversation on the topic?
I guess you think its unfair if a devout conservative does ONCE just what you
guys do with regularity.
You don't see any irony in that?
Guess the very conspicuous approach was too subtle for you!
> Why don't you just pat yourself on the back and say, "Me good, you bad!"
Would that have been as interesting?
Would anyone have posted their opinions?
> And if you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, the term "less-fortunate" is BS
> according to him.
I see you've been listening!
Why can't I use the language of the land?
> So I guess you aren't as good of a conservative as you think.
Guess that shows how much you know about conservatives.
We don't live by those narrow PC rules.
CJ
> > > Mouldy, Genitals wrote:
> > >
> > > > Genitals Guy wrote
> > > > > > Am I liberal, or conservative?
> > > >
> > > > Martha replied
> > > > > How about me?
> > > >
> > > > Looks like we're all complicated human beings, not labels. Will
> > > > Georgann be able to digest this information, or will the shock be
too
> > > > great? Stay tuned...
> > >
> > > Ummmm.
> > >
> > > Let's see.
> > > Oh, now I get it.
> > >
> > > You're not really male or female! That's labeling.
> > > Unsure? Still forming? Evolving? Mutating?
> >
> > You need to educate yourself as to the difference between a fact (i.e.
male
> > or female) and an opinion (i.e. is he/she liberal or conservative).
>
> The point was about labels.
> And are you stating that homosexuals have not introduced opinions to the
> facts?
Really? I did? Care to cite where my discussion had anything to do with
homosexuals? Do you even know what you are talking about?
The post and discussion are about the labels of "conservative" and "liberal"
when labels don't typically apply to those who hold more than one type of
political view.
I think you need to learn how to read before making false statements.
>
> Just curious.
>
>
CJ
have
> every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone is
> every type of culture and have consistently made valuable contributions to
> the culture.
No not gay issues....geez.....
Yes I know AC/DC is a slang referring to homosexuals, but it is used in
other areas as well. In this case I was referring to swinging to either
side of the political spectrum.
>
>
> Bushman
> >
> >
>
>
>
kelly england
--
An anti-porn "feminist" is asking
by her words and deeds for a good,
old-fashioned raping.
And every one of them will get one
when Zionism is defeated and
Freedom resurrected.
Fuhrer Daedra
Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:384E5F23...@mindspring.com...
| Bushman wrote:
|
| > Gay issues? Guess I forgot it, but I decided years ago that gays should
have
| > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone is
| > denied rights, we're all in danger,
|
| Bushman
|
| Are you going to similarly stand up for the rights of pedophiles?
|
| Theirs is also a "sexual preference".
Pedophiles bash gays for not standing with them. They claim they should have
as many rights as gays.
They claim (and have some "psychoologists" backing them up) that it really
is only a sexual preference.
I wonder if anyone really does draw the line pedophilia. I haven't seen much
against it here. I haven't seen much against racism either....but then
again, it takes so much time to bash Christians, there's little time to bash
anyone else.
|
Eric da Red
Bushman <jiml...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>Can you point to a website to learn more? I've heard libertarians of many
>stripes and haven't been impressed by any - they're worse than the repubs.
>Libertarian socialist sounds more promising. Hell, actually I'll just search
>on it, but if yu think there's a site which does an especially good job of
>explaining the workings, shoot me one.
See: http://tigerden.com/~berios/libertarians.html
happy_genitals
> Can you point to a website to learn more? I've heard libertarians of many
> stripes and haven't been impressed by any - they're worse than the repubs.
> Libertarian socialist sounds more promising. Hell, actually I'll just search
> on it, but if yu think there's a site which does an especially good job of
> explaining the workings, shoot me one.
I don't know any websites on the topic, but here's my brief, biased
history of the term:
For many, many years, "libertarian" has meant communal anarchist. It
still does. It's a term heard mostly in Europe, though, so when a
bunch of hard-core American capitalists started a political party 30
or so years ago, they were either unaware the term libertarian already
existed (and meant exactly the opposite of their philosophy), or they
thought they could successfully appropriate the word. Whatever the
intent, the word has been largely appropriated by now, at least on the
American side of the Atlantic. After decades of confusion, many people
who fancy communal anarchism now use the term "libertarian socialist"
to avoid hearing long boring monologues about the gold standard.
My apologies in advance to anyone who disputes my definitions. I've
worn both labels, though.
happy_genitals
> > Gay issues? Guess I forgot it, but I decided years ago that gays should have
> > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone is
> > denied rights, we're all in danger,
Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Are you going to similarly stand up for the rights of pedophiles?
> Theirs is also a "sexual preference".
Two adults choosing to have sex is not the moral equivalent of raping
a young girl. When you claim that it is, one suspects that your brief
burst of intellectual honesty yesterday may have been merely a fluke.
Please don't disappoint us, Georgann.
kelly england
--
Pornonationalists demand that respect for childrens' rights, including
sexual rights,
be strengthened, that criminal ageism* be proscribed, that child pornography
and
child prostitution be legalized, and that child slavery, extermination,
sterilization, repatriation, and relocation be instituted as ways to deal
with mentally deficient,deluded, or otherwise quasi-Christian children that
prove to incorrigibly hamper the freedom of other children and of the
nation.
Fuhrer Daedra
<Happy Genitals> wrote in message
news:384e8b81...@news.mindspring.com...
Pedophiles think it IS the equivalent. They are fighting for the same
rights.
|
|
|
Beldin the Sorcerer
> In article <82j8d0$ibo$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> > > they're dandy. Especially the IWW. I'm a
> >
> > libertarian socialist,
> >
> > definition of libertarianism is not to rely upon government programs
> and
> > such.
>
> Well, markets of the type that we see today don't develop
> spontaneously.
They're created and maintained through governmental
> force.
False. Governments create no markets.
They regulate them once they exist.'
You flunk economics yet again.
A removal of that force, it's hoped, would lead to a socialist
> society.
Yes, total anarchy which would be replaced by tyranny.
That's a little bit of an over-simplification, but I think it
> explains the apparent contradiction.
>
Explains not much.
Georgann Chenault
> Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:384DC57E...@mindspring.com...
> > CJ wrote:
> >
> > > Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Your last line if one I could have said to you.
YOU said male or female was "fact" and lib/cons was opinion.
Your trying to evade the example I gave does mpt now help your argument.
Georgann Chenault
> Bushman wrote:
> > > Gay issues? Guess I forgot it, but I decided years ago that gays should have
> > > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone is
> > > denied rights, we're all in danger,
>
> Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Are you going to similarly stand up for the rights of pedophiles?
> > Theirs is also a "sexual preference".
>
> Two adults choosing to have sex is not the moral equivalent of raping
> a young girl.
snip for relevance
Pedophiles often seduce their victims. It is not always rape.
And pedophiles create a large market for child porn.
Are you suggesting the discussion of pedophiles does not warrant airing in a
discussion of Bushman's claim that "I feel that if anyone is denied rights, we're
all in danger".
Is he going to stand up for the rights of pedophiles? Are you?
Their sexual preferences for children are just as "natural" to them as a
homosexuals.
You cannot prove that statement wrong.
CJ
What example did I evade? None. Just how does the fact that having a penis
makes you a male, and a vagina makes you a female have anything to do with
homosexuality?
AGAIN....Care to cite where my discussion had anything to do with
homosexuals?
Martha Hughes
> In article <82j8d1$ibo$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Either you're an extremely complicated person who's so special and
> > > unique that it's impossible to label you or there are more than two
> > > possible ideologies. I think I know which one you think it is and
> you
> > > can probably guess which one I think it is
> > >
> > hehe, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck a libertarian
> socialist
> > is.
>
> See, that kind of supports my point. You can come up with a label for
> any set of positions as long as there's some consistent philosophy
> behind them.
>
don't understand how you can combine the two. Can you enlighten me?
Martha Hughes
> have
> > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone is
> > every type of culture and have consistently made valuable contributions
to
> > the culture.
>
> No not gay issues....geez.....
>
> Yes I know AC/DC is a slang referring to homosexuals, but it is used in
> other areas as well. In this case I was referring to swinging to either
> side of the political spectrum.
>
Martha
(who thinks AC/DC still rocks)
> >
> >
> > Bushman
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Martha Hughes
kelly england <crystal...@home.com> wrote in message
news:NSw34.3627$t7.4...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>
>
> --
> Pornonationalists demand that respect for childrens' rights, including
> sexual rights,
> be strengthened, that criminal ageism* be proscribed, that child
pornography
> and
> child prostitution be legalized, and that child slavery, extermination,
> sterilization, repatriation, and relocation be instituted as ways to deal
> with mentally deficient,deluded, or otherwise quasi-Christian children
that
> prove to incorrigibly hamper the freedom of other children and of the
> nation.
>
> Fuhrer Daedra
> <Happy Genitals> wrote in message
> news:384e8b81...@news.mindspring.com...
> | Bushman wrote:
> should have
> | > > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone
> is
> | > > denied rights, we're all in danger,
> |
> | > Are you going to similarly stand up for the rights of pedophiles?
> | > Theirs is also a "sexual preference".
> |
> | Two adults choosing to have sex is not the moral equivalent of raping
> | burst of intellectual honesty yesterday may have been merely a fluke.
> | Please don't disappoint us, Georgann.
>
> Pedophiles think it IS the equivalent. They are fighting for the same
> rights.
> |
> |
> |
>
>
bigdlaura1
"Bushman" <jiml...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Can you point to a website to learn more? I've heard libertarians of
many
> stripes and haven't been impressed by any - they're worse than the
repubs.
> Libertarian socialist sounds more promising. Hell, actually I'll just
search
> on it, but if yu think there's a site which does an especially good
job of
> explaining the workings, shoot me one.
Peter Kropotkin, wrote an entry for Encyclopedia Brittanica (not the
current one) that sums it up pretty good:
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/kropotkin/defanarchy.html
Bertrand Russell wrote a pretty good book on alternatives to capitalism
that's also available online, if you can stand to read a whole book on
a computer screen, called Proposed Roads to Freedom:
ftp://uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu/pub/etext/gutenberg/etext96/rfree10.txt
There's a bunch of crap about "Project Gutenberg" to start it off. Zmag
has a left-libertarian bent (you've posted a link to it before).
bigdlaura1
"Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> Socialism IS big government. Libertarianism hates big goverment. I
still
> don't understand how you can combine the two. Can you enlighten me?
The problem is your misunderstanding of the term "socialism". Socialism
isn't "big government"; it's worker ownership of the means of
production or an extension of democracy into the economic sphere. Big
government prevents that in practice. Some socialists believe that the
government is too powerful a tool to get rid of and that it should be
used to help the transition to socialism. It should be noted, though,
that taking over the state is intended as a means to achieve socialism
and not actual socialism. Libertarian socialists believe that people in
power tend to want to stay in power so a strong state will never wither
away, that it will, in fact, get stronger and more oppressive. Mikhail
Bakunin (one of the most influential early libertarians), reflected the
libertarian position when he said in late 19th century that state
socialism would be "the most vile lie of the 20th century" and that
Marx's (his main political rival) ideas would lead to the creation
of "a terrible red beaucracy".
GISP
Who's not even reading beldin's inevitable and inevitably stupid
response to this
Chris Nelson
Martha Hughes <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:82hsdi$n1r$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>
> <Mouldy Genitals> wrote in message
> news:384c5ebb...@news.mindspring.com...
> > Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> For it
For it. More suffering would be caused by outlawing it than
by keeping it legal - it's a lesser of 2 evils.
> > Affirmative action: ambivalent.
> Against it
For it, to a certain extent. Discrimination does limit the
opportunities of certain minorities - affirmative action
levels the playing field.
> > Death penalty: wholeheartedly against it.
> Wholeheartedly for it
Against it. For many reasons.
> > Gun control: wholeheartedly against it.
> For it - to certian extants
For it - to certain extents. I want to keep guns out of the
hands of children, criminals and loonies as much as humanly
possible, without depriving responsible, sane, law-abiding
adults of their choice to own a gun (not an assault weapon,
mind you) for protection or hunting. Guns confiscated from
felons by police should be destroyed. Gun buyback programs
should be implemented. Assault weapons sales should be
banned - you don't need an Uzi to protect your family or hunt
deer.
> > Militias: proud member, California Condors.
> disdain militias, unelss I start my own
Against militias. Like vigilantes they are groups that take
the law into their own hands.
> > President Clinton: should have been removed from office.
> I like Clinton and don't give a shit what he does under his
desk
Best president in my living memory (I'm 34). Reagan should
have been removed from office.
> > Unions: proud member, Industrial Workers of the World.
> I hate unions
Unions are good.
> > Favorite politician, national: Pat Buchanan (reputed
Nazi).
> fav politician? don't have one
Jesse Ventura! Right on the money when it comes to religion.
> > Favorite politician, local: Tom Ammiano (reputed
Marxist).
Lee Clancey (our mayor). The only Republican I've ever voted
for. Supports gay rights.
> > Am I liberal, or conservative?
> >
> How about me?
I guess I'm a liberal!!
Chris Nelson
Bushman
>
>
> --
> An anti-porn "feminist" is asking
> by her words and deeds for a good,
> old-fashioned raping.
> And every one of them will get one
> when Zionism is defeated and
> Freedom resurrected.
> Fuhrer Daedra
> | Bushman wrote:
> |
> | > Gay issues? Guess I forgot it, but I decided years ago that gays
should
> have
> | > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone
is
> | > denied rights, we're all in danger,
> |
> |
> | Are you going to similarly stand up for the rights of pedophiles?
> |
> | Theirs is also a "sexual preference".
>
have
> as many rights as gays.
> They claim (and have some "psychoologists" backing them up) that it really
> is only a sexual preference.
> I wonder if anyone really does draw the line pedophilia. I haven't seen
much
> against it here. I haven't seen much against racism either....but then
> again, it takes so much time to bash Christians, there's little time to
bash
> anyone else.
You're the only one worrying about it so I guess I'm not too concerned.
Bushman
Bushman
> have
> > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone is
> > every type of culture and have consistently made valuable contributions
to
> > the culture.
>
> No not gay issues....geez.....
>
> Yes I know AC/DC is a slang referring to homosexuals, but it is used in
> other areas as well. In this case I was referring to swinging to either
> side of the political spectrum.
>
Oh shit, I'm sorry. Dated myself. Worse, Georgann found a way to twist that
into support for pedophiles. I let others pick up the cudgel because I have
a rule about insane people.
I try to stay pretty independent, politically.
Bushman
Martha Hughes
OK, I'd like to look into this further. Have any suggested websites? Because
I like the idea of libertarianism in many aspects of society, although not
all, and this sounds like it may be more along my line of thinking.
Thanks.
kelly england
--
Pornonationalists demand that respect for childrens' rights, including
sexual rights,
be strengthened, that criminal ageism* be proscribed, that child pornography
and
child prostitution be legalized, and that child slavery, extermination,
sterilization, repatriation, and relocation be instituted as ways to deal
with mentally deficient,deluded, or otherwise quasi-Christian children that
prove to incorrigibly hamper the freedom of other children and of the
nation.
Fuhrer Daedra
Martha Hughes <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:82n3cl$gt3$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
|
| kelly england <crystal...@home.com> wrote in message
| news:NSw34.3627$t7.4...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
| >
| >
| > --
| > Pornonationalists demand that respect for childrens' rights, including
| > sexual rights,
| > be strengthened, that criminal ageism* be proscribed, that child
| pornography
| > and
| > child prostitution be legalized, and that child slavery, extermination,
| > sterilization, repatriation, and relocation be instituted as ways to
deal
| > with mentally deficient,deluded, or otherwise quasi-Christian children
| that
| > prove to incorrigibly hamper the freedom of other children and of the
| > nation.
| >
| > Fuhrer Daedra
| > <Happy Genitals> wrote in message
| > news:384e8b81...@news.mindspring.com...
| > | Bushman wrote:
| > | > > Gay issues? Guess I forgot it, but I decided years ago that gays
| > should have
| > | > > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if
anyone
| > is
| > | > > denied rights, we're all in danger,
| > |
| > | Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
| > | > Are you going to similarly stand up for the rights of pedophiles?
| > | > Theirs is also a "sexual preference".
| > |
| > | Two adults choosing to have sex is not the moral equivalent of raping
| > | a young girl. When you claim that it is, one suspects that your brief
| > | burst of intellectual honesty yesterday may have been merely a fluke.
| > | Please don't disappoint us, Georgann.
| >
| > Pedophiles think it IS the equivalent. They are fighting for the same
| > rights.
| > |
| > |
| Wouldn't that be "Fuhrette"?
Nope it's a guy...sort of.
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
kelly england
| > Pedophiles bash gays for not standing with them. They claim they should
| have
| > as many rights as gays.
| > They claim (and have some "psychoologists" backing them up) that it
really
| > is only a sexual preference.
| > I wonder if anyone really does draw the line pedophilia. I haven't seen
| much
| > against it here. I haven't seen much against racism either....but then
| > again, it takes so much time to bash Christians, there's little time to
| bash
| > anyone else.
|
| You're the only one worrying about it so I guess I'm not too concerned.
Maybe in here...well, Cyn is with me. But in other NG's there's a lot of
outrage.
You don't get around a lot do you?
|
|
| Bushman
|
|
|
Beldin the Sorcerer
bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:82od7p$2m8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <82n2pd$eeb$5...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:82ljnd$2c9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Socialism IS big government. Libertarianism hates big goverment. I
> still
> > don't understand how you can combine the two. Can you enlighten me?
>
> The problem is your misunderstanding of the term "socialism". Socialism
> isn't "big government"; it's worker ownership of the means of
> production or an extension of democracy into the economic sphere>
>
> Who's not even reading beldin's inevitable and inevitably stupid
> response to this
>
>
And of course, it isn't stupid.
The problem is, you're ignorant.
You CANNOT have a society such as we have without a government.
Therefore the only form of socialism even possible involves big governtment.
Just because you are totally outside reality doesn't change that.
>
mrpotter
I have to intrude here and say that the "to-and-fro" betwixt you two
guys is most entertaining -- I'm reminded of "Itchy and Scratchy" on
the Simpsons; and I'm very tempted to drag out my old copies of Marx,
Hegel, Bertrand Russell, etc...
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
dk
Georgann Chenault wrote:
> Happy, Genitals wrote:
>
> > Bushman wrote:
> > > > Gay issues? Guess I forgot it, but I decided years ago that gays should have
> > > > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone is
> > > > denied rights, we're all in danger,
> >
> > Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > Are you going to similarly stand up for the rights of pedophiles?
> > > Theirs is also a "sexual preference".
> >
> > Two adults choosing to have sex is not the moral equivalent of raping
> > a young girl.
>
> snip for relevance
>
> Pedophiles often seduce their victims. It is not always rape.
> And pedophiles create a large market for child porn.
>
> Are you suggesting the discussion of pedophiles does not warrant airing in a
> discussion of Bushman's claim that "I feel that if anyone is denied rights, we're
> all in danger".
>
> Is he going to stand up for the rights of pedophiles? Are you?
Ignoring many of the other ridiculous statements in this thread, I am positive that
Bushman's statement was not in reference to illegal acts or those actions perpetrated
by those with mental disorders that inflict harm upon others. It's sad that this
clarification needs to be made for you but then again, you seem to be having problems
with the concept of "sexual orientation" and the skewing of a mental disorder as a
simple "preference."
>
> Their sexual preferences for children are just as "natural" to them as a
> homosexuals.
>
> You cannot prove that statement wrong.
"To them". What exactly does this statement prove? Are you in fact, drawing a direct
parallel between homosexuals and pedophiles? If it is, stop beating around the bush
and just get on with it. Your statement above is an illogical argument and does not
deserve rebuttal as it stands.
Lord dk the Courteous
Wishing for the day that the alt-dl Homosexual Assault Squad could go the way of the
Maytag repairman.
Cyn
>From: "Bushman" jiml...@compuserve.com
>Date: Thu, 09 December 1999 09:08 AM EST
>Message-id: <82o64u$gc1$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>
>>
>
>Oh shit, I'm sorry. Dated myself. Worse, Georgann found a way to twist that
>into support for pedophiles. I let others pick up the cudgel because I have
>a rule about insane people.
>
I'm really hurt, Bushman. Does this mean you're not speaking to me?
iamsamsamiam
Alias Cyn
Have you mocked a bigot today?
Contact http://www.hatewatch.org to combat hate on the net.
high-tech_genitals
> Yes I know AC/DC is a slang referring to homosexuals, but it is used in
> other areas as well. In this case I was referring to swinging to either
> side of the political spectrum.
AC/DC means the gate is oiled in both directions. Bisexuality, not
homo.
An informational brochure is handed out upon entering San Francisco.
high-tech_genitals
> > > > Gay issues? Guess I forgot it, but I decided years ago that gays should have
> > > > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone is
> > > > denied rights, we're all in danger,
Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > Are you going to similarly stand up for the rights of pedophiles?
> > > Theirs is also a "sexual preference".
Genitals Guy responded
> > Two adults choosing to have sex is not the moral equivalent of raping
> > a young girl.
Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Pedophiles often seduce their victims. It is not always rape.
> And pedophiles create a large market for child porn.
>
> Are you suggesting the discussion of pedophiles does not warrant airing in a
> discussion of Bushman's claim that "I feel that if anyone is denied rights, we're
> all in danger".
>
> Is he going to stand up for the rights of pedophiles? Are you?
>
> Their sexual preferences for children are just as "natural" to them as a
> homosexuals.
>
> You cannot prove that statement wrong.
Please explain how pedophilia is relevent to a discussion of whether
homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
high-tech_genitals
<snipped Kelly's billboard for hate>
Bushman wrote
> | > > Gay issues? Guess I forgot it, but I decided years ago that gays should have
> | > > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if anyone is
> | > > denied rights, we're all in danger,
Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> responded
> | > Are you going to similarly stand up for the rights of pedophiles?
> | > Theirs is also a "sexual preference".
Genitals Guy wrote
> | Two adults choosing to have sex is not the moral equivalent of raping
> | a young girl. When you claim that it is, one suspects that your brief
> | burst of intellectual honesty yesterday may have been merely a fluke.
> | Please don't disappoint us, Georgann.
Kelly responded
> Pedophiles think it IS the equivalent. They are fighting for the same rights.
Please explain how this is relevent to a discussion of whether
Tinas49ers
>I wonder if anyone really does draw the line pedophilia. I haven't seen much
>against it here. I haven't seen much against racism either....but then
>again, it takes so much time to bash Christians, there's little time to bash
>anyone else.
True, of course it isn't PC to be racist and I doubt any pedophile would stand
up and be proud. While us Christians proudly state who we are and what we stand
for.
Tina
Jesus is the reason for the season
#1 49ER FAN!!!!!!!!
THERE'S NO WHINING IN FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!
Look, I have my own troll~~>> sleep...@my-deja.com
Gary DeWaay
> > > Abortion: wholeheartedly for it.
> > For it
>
> For it. More suffering would be caused by outlawing it than
> by keeping it legal - it's a lesser of 2 evils.
There it is. My motto is... I'm not pro-choice or pro-life, I'm anti-
stupidity.
Gary
(Dr. DeWaay)
Purveyor of degenerates (now offseason).
Required ARTD-L reading:
FAQ: http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire/faq.html
(thanx to Hell Toupee)
CAL: http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire/Corpus.htm
(thanx to Dr. Charlie)
Bushman
dk <dkin...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:38502065...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> Georgann Chenault wrote:
>
> > Happy, Genitals wrote:
> >
> > > > > Gay issues? Guess I forgot it, but I decided years ago that gays
should have
> > > > > every right heteros enjoy, including marriage. I feel that if
anyone is
> > > > > denied rights, we're all in danger,
> > >
> > > Georgann Chenault <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > > Are you going to similarly stand up for the rights of pedophiles?
> > > > Theirs is also a "sexual preference".
> > >
> > > a young girl.
> >
> >
> > Pedophiles often seduce their victims. It is not always rape.
> > And pedophiles create a large market for child porn.
> >
> > Are you suggesting the discussion of pedophiles does not warrant airing
in a
rights, we're
> > all in danger".
> >
> > Is he going to stand up for the rights of pedophiles? Are you?
>
> Ignoring many of the other ridiculous statements in this thread, I am
positive that
> Bushman's statement was not in reference to illegal acts or those actions
perpetrated
> by those with mental disorders that inflict harm upon others. It's sad
that this
> clarification needs to be made for you but then again, you seem to be
having problems
> with the concept of "sexual orientation" and the skewing of a mental
disorder as a
> simple "preference."
>
> >
> > homosexuals.
> >
> > You cannot prove that statement wrong.
>
drawing a direct
> parallel between homosexuals and pedophiles? If it is, stop beating
around the bush
> and just get on with it. Your statement above is an illogical argument
and does not
> deserve rebuttal as it stands.
>
> Lord dk the Courteous
> Wishing for the day that the alt-dl Homosexual Assault Squad could go the
way of the
> Maytag repairman.
Thank you for the support, dk, and for explaining, correctly, my position.
And she knew better than that - she's just out of control.
Bushman
>