GOP-Party of tolerance?
Melody Clark
Steve Gilliard wrote:
>
> For rather desperate and obscure reasons, I am forced to
> watch the GOP convention, an event where a skinned head and
> brown shirt might not go unnoticed.
>
> I say that someone should post the number of celebs at
> fascist-fest 96.
>
> If one more GOP drone says the platform is tolerant, someone
> should give them a copy of Mein Kampf and see if they notice
> the difference.
Well, how'd it have it? Say a lie often enough, it begins to sound like
the truth...at least to the stupid. I'm reminded of those oil companies
that have to mount their "we care about itty-bitty birdies" ads because
everyone knows damn well they don't.
At least, people are becoming aware of what the Fascicans have become.
They ought to come clean about the number of KKK and Aryan nationalists
that claim Republican party affiliation. I think that would be rather
interesting.
Melody
asgtrp#237
Steve Gilliard
For rather desperate and obscure reasons, I am forced to
watch the GOP convention, an event where a skinned head and
brown shirt might not go unnoticed.
I say that someone should post the number of celebs at
fascist-fest 96.
If one more GOP drone says the platform is tolerant, someone
should give them a copy of Mein Kampf and see if they notice
the difference.
I occasionally yell Auslander Raus (Foriegners Out) at the
TV to give the GOP convention an appropriate feel. Maybe
playing Deutschesland Uber Alles would complete the feeling
of joy I get.
J. David Eisenberg
Steve Gilliard (gill...@interport.net) wrote:
: For rather desperate and obscure reasons, I am forced to
: watch the GOP convention, an event where a skinned head and
: brown shirt might not go unnoticed.
: I say that someone should post the number of celebs at
: fascist-fest 96.
: If one more GOP drone says the platform is tolerant, someone
: should give them a copy of Mein Kampf and see if they notice
: the difference.
Given all the references to God and the Divine, I
would rather call them "The Party of God." Oops. Sorry.
That's been taken. I think that's the translation for "Hezbollah."
(May I pull my claws in now?)
: I occasionally yell Auslander Raus (Foriegners Out) at the
: TV to give the GOP convention an appropriate feel. Maybe
: playing Deutschesland Uber Alles would complete the feeling
: of joy I get.
--
J. David Eisenberg
http://www.best.com/~nessus
David Migicovsky
In article <4uorss$6...@nntp1.best.com>, nes...@nntp.best.com (J. David Eisenberg) opined to the huddled masses:
>Given all the references to God and the Divine, I
>would rather call them "The Party of God." Oops. Sorry.
>That's been taken. I think that's the translation for "Hezbollah."
>
>(May I pull my claws in now?)
>
worshippers of Abe Vigoda and drag queens.
And I'd just as soon you kept your claws out!
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| David Migicovsky, Jewish Atheist CompuFag, Official ASG Cartographer |
| My real email address is | http://www.interlog.com/~dmigicov |
| dmig...@interlog.com | Powered by Windows NT 4.0 and Diet Coke |
\___________________________|__________________________________________/
DBJ
In <4uorss$6...@nntp1.best.com> nes...@nntp.best.com (J. David Eisenberg) writes:
>Steve Gilliard (gill...@interport.net) wrote:
>: For rather desperate and obscure reasons, I am forced to
>: watch the GOP convention, an event where a skinned head and
>: brown shirt might not go unnoticed.
Morbid curiousity is about the only thing that I can saw causes me to watch it.
Though I must admit that's the same reason I watch ANY political conventions
anymore. They all reminds me of Vaudeville productions, where everything is
just a show and an act, and nothing is to be taken seriously except for the
insincerity of the whole thing.
>: I say that someone should post the number of celebs at
>: fascist-fest 96.
>: If one more GOP drone says the platform is tolerant, someone
^^^^^^^^
>: should give them a copy of Mein Kampf and see if they notice
>: the difference.
It's called lying the truth. You see, they really are tolerant . . . it's
just that they are only tolerant of THEIR ideals, and tolerant of the
INtolerance of OTHERSs ideals. It's a way to mislead, to "lie" without
REALLY lying ;^)
>Given all the references to God and the Divine, I
>would rather call them "The Party of God." Oops. Sorry.
>That's been taken. I think that's the translation for "Hezbollah."
Very appropriate. I HATE all the God references and religious undertones.
Let's keep religion and government separate, PLEASE, PLEASE!!
>(May I pull my claws in now?)
Oh no, by all means leave them out, they are beaoooootiful!!
Beverly
Joey M.
Steve Gilliard wrote:
>
> For rather desperate and obscure reasons, I am forced to
> watch the GOP convention, an event where a skinned head and
> brown shirt might not go unnoticed.
>
> fascist-fest 96.
>
> If one more GOP drone says the platform is tolerant, someone
> the difference.
Steve, Steve... the GOP *IS* tolerant!!!!!
Oh, and I'm straight. And LCM's sober. What else? David Magicovski
believes in God. It's true.
~~~~~~~~~~
Joey the asg 'hoey
ASGTRP# 3
Joey's Smug, Self-Satisfied Homepage
http://miso.wwa.com/~jmbomb/
David Migicovsky
In article <32111bcd...@news.wwa.com>, Joey opined to the huddled masses:
>
>
>Oh, and I'm straight. And LCM's sober. What else? David Magicovski
>believes in God. It's true.
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~
>Joey the asg 'hoey
>ASGTRP# 3
>
>Joey's Smug, Self-Satisfied Homepage
>http://miso.wwa.com/~jmbomb/
Joey, Joey, Joey.
Who is this poor soul with a name similar to mine who believes in God?
David, who thinks that Joey might as well be straight for all the business
that 'hoey's going to be getting from him for a while.
Joseph X
Steve Gilliard wrote:
>
> If one more GOP drone says the platform is tolerant, someone
> should give them a copy of Mein Kampf and see if they notice
> the difference.
Well, clearly you (and I) have a different definition of tolerance. For the
GOP tolerance means "No matter how much we disagree on the issues, we'll let
you vote for us."
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Words are only painted fire; a look is the fire itself."
deering
Steve Gilliard (gill...@interport.net) wrote:
: For rather desperate and obscure reasons, I am forced to
: watch the GOP convention, an event where a skinned head and
: brown shirt might not go unnoticed.
: I say that someone should post the number of celebs at
: fascist-fest 96.
Here's one--William Baldwin, who is a member of something called the
Creative Coalition, which from what little I heard sounded like a group
dedicated to trying to convince GOPers that a little culture isn't a
Threat To Life As We Know It (aka "doesn't just consist of those
troublesome liberal and gay folk"). . .
: If one more GOP drone says the platform is tolerant,
someone : should give them a copy of Mein Kampf and see if they notice
: the difference.
: I occasionally yell Auslander Raus (Foriegners Out) at the
: TV to give the GOP convention an appropriate feel. Maybe
: playing Deutschesland Uber Alles would complete the feeling
: of joy I get.
*snork* It's a good thing conventions only go for a few days--I would
hate to see what would happen when the GOPers get sick of keeping up this
tolerance pretense. Could get right ugly...g!
C.
**
EvelynR
Just to add some balance to this thread so it doesn't turn into a complete
liberal love-fest/group hug, I'd like to point out that there are a lot of
GOP moderates who are not represented at the convention ~ the Christian
Coalition was able to muscle most of the moderates aside during the
caucuses and primaries, because they're better organized, better financed,
and they have the true believers dedication to their cause. Unfortunately,
it'll take someone with a lot more backbone than Dole to stand up to them.
Maybe losing a few elections will get the message across that the
religious right does not represent the views of most voters.
The Dems went through a similar period in their recent history, in which
the more liberal elements of the party pushed the middle-of-the-roaders
aside ~ the result being that they kept losing presidential elections and
alienating large numbers of voters who had traditionally voted Democratic
( like union members & blue collar workers). Clinton has kept them on a
tight leash, but it remains to be seen if the party will return to its old
tax & spend ways once his influence wanes. Meanwhile, those of us who
believe the gov't. should keep its nose out of people's private lives and
who don't want to pay taxes up the wazoo have nowhere to go politically.
Evelyn
David Migicovsky
In article <4utb9k$24...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) wrote:
>
> I see. The Republican party is intolerant because it has KKK members, but
>the Democratic part is inclusive because it includes racists like Al Sharpton,
>Louis Farrkhan, and Jesse "HymieTown" Jackson.
> If you want to talk issues, fine. But it never ceases to amaze me at the
> number
>of liberals who believe THEIR viewpoint is the correct one, and who poo-poo
>anyone else who disagrees with them.
>
>Eric Pinnell
When the racists and homophobes take over the Democratic party, as they have
done with the Republicans, you'll certainly see *me* slamming them.
Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming apathy of the vast majority of people,
there is no way to prevent the hijacking of a political party, nor does there
seem to be a practical way to start a new one in your country.
There are a (very) few Republicans I could respect and vote for, but they
don't set the agenda in the party. Right now, if the Republican Party were a
thread in ASG, I would be screaming, "NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI"
A view that excludes my basic human rights is not one I am willing to accept
as a difference of opinion. There is no compromise to be made with the likes
of Louis Farrakan and Pat Buchanan.
Gregg P.
Oh no -- I feel a rant coming on!
EvelynR (eve...@aol.com) wrote:
[this n' that, deleted]
: Meanwhile, those of us who
: believe the gov't. should keep its nose out of people's private lives and
: who don't want to pay taxes up the wazoo have nowhere to go politically.
Sure you do -- it's called voting Libertarian. The fact that so many
people persist is maginalizing this party simply because it's not one of
the big two is part of what perpetuates all of the problems of our two
party system. I'm so tired of people telling me how they don't want
to "throw away their vote" by voting their conscience (and Libertarians
basically *define* the ideals of fiscal responsibility + personal privacy,
coupled with unflinching adherence to the Constitution) or that they feel
they don't have an option to vote for what *they* believe in when it's
been available to them for decades now.
I saw an item on CNN over the weekend (while cruising in the Bahamas ...
ahhhhhh....) that noted that recent studies of the "average" WWW/Internet
user reveal that the *vast* majority (something like 70-75%) fall very
strongly into a distinct Libertarian profile (in other words, they want
the Gov't to protect them from outsiders and from each other, to police
it's own spending in order to properly serve the people that pay for it,
to provide a reasonable amount of "cushioning" in case of financial or
health problems, and to otherwise simply butt the hell out of their
lives). With all of the people that are finding their way to the Internet
these days, this is a rather significant statistic, and sheds a lot of
light on the type of people that *really* make up the "middle."
Anyhow, Evelyn -- vote Libertarian next election. Get all your friends
that feel like you do to vote Libertarian next election. I mean, I don't
think *anyone* really thinks they'll win, but if enough of a margin of the
vote goes their way, maybe they'll start being taken seriously by the
media or at least by the "big 2."
I think one of the funniest things that we keep seeing *again* and *again*
in American politics is how both parties keep catering to the extremes --
like the Repubs sucking off the religious right every chance they get or
the Democrats trying so hard to appeal to environmentalists and idealists
of all shapes and sizes. What kills me is that they seem to think that
they *need* to satisfy the extreme. But come on, think about it: does
anyone think that, for a single second, a hard-core religious
God-n-country type would *ever* vote Democrat, simply because the
Republican candidate doesn't oppose abortion rights? Or that a
tree-hugger will suddenly jump the fence and vote Republican simply
because the Democratic candidate refused to step and pledge support to
save the three-eyed spotted jelly newt from extinction? I mean, come on.
The extremes simply *DO* *NOT* *MATTER* unless they become the vast
majority (and if they do, well, LCM -- I'm moving in and I'm bringing
Christine and the dogs with me...)?) -- what really matters is the
enormous middle which consists of Morally Enlightened Republicans and
Fiscally Conservative Democrats that feel they have no where to go on
Election Day because it seems their choices consist of either perpetuating
a welfare state and raising their own taxes or supporting a candidate that
probably rubs a Bible on his crotch whenever no one's looking and simply
can't wait to tell people what they're allowed to think, feel, or do in
their own homes.
In case anyone can;t tell, I *really* hate politics....
Feeling better, now,
-- Gregg P.
-- ASGTPR#71
-- Official ASG Media Whore
Eric Pinnell
In <320F55...@qnet.com>, Melody Clark <mel...@qnet.com> writes:
>Steve Gilliard wrote:
>>
>> For rather desperate and obscure reasons, I am forced to
>> watch the GOP convention, an event where a skinned head and
>> brown shirt might not go unnoticed.
>>
>> I say that someone should post the number of celebs at
>> fascist-fest 96.
>>
>> should give them a copy of Mein Kampf and see if they notice
>> the difference.
>
>the truth...at least to the stupid. I'm reminded of those oil companies
>that have to mount their "we care about itty-bitty birdies" ads because
>everyone knows damn well they don't.
>
>At least, people are becoming aware of what the Fascicans have become.
>
>They ought to come clean about the number of KKK and Aryan nationalists
>that claim Republican party affiliation. I think that would be rather
>interesting.
>
>Melody
>asgtrp#237
Melody,
Cynarae
gill...@interport.net (Steve Gilliard) writes:
>I occasionally yell Auslander Raus (Foriegners Out) at the
TV to give the GOP convention an appropriate feel. Maybe
playing Deutschesland Uber Alles would complete the feeling
of joy I get.>
It was pointed out to me yesterday that the chant of "Dole Kemp!" sounds
suspiciously like "Bullshit!" when heard on TV.
Should someone alert the delegates?
-- Elaine
Melody Clark
Gregg P. wrote:
>
> Oh no -- I feel a rant coming on!
>
> EvelynR (eve...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> [this n' that, deleted]
>
> : Meanwhile, those of us who
> : believe the gov't. should keep its nose out of people's private lives and
> : who don't want to pay taxes up the wazoo have nowhere to go politically.
>
> Sure you do -- it's called voting Libertarian.
Yup, Gregg, and there are also over 150 registered "third parties" (none
of which officially exist, according to the media). There are plenty of
choices.
Melody...still voting for Nader at asgtrp#237
Melody Clark
Eric Pinnell wrote:
> Melody,
>
> I see. The Republican party is intolerant because it has KKK members, but
> the Democratic part is inclusive because it includes racists like Al Sharpton,
> Louis Farrkhan, and Jesse "HymieTown" Jackson.
There's no such thing as a perfect party. You're always going to have a
few nasty crashers. I'm rather disturbed, though, that you've singled
out only African folk for your venom...there are plenty of European
dumbshits in the Democratic Party, too.
Besides, is Farrakhan a Dem? I'd rather doubt it. I'd expect him to
belong to whatever Wiggy party the $cientologists do...Earth-Bound
Divinely-Inspired Aliens of America<TM>.
That said, the Dems view their wild hairs as embarrassments, whereas the
wild hairs have taken over the Republican Party. They see their own
intolerance and extremism as virtues. In my teen years, I had great
respect for a number of Republicans...Jack Kemp, in his early years, for
instance. John Anderson, for another. All those moderate voices are
gone now, and all we have are the knuckle-walkers in charge.
> If you want to talk issues, fine. But it never ceases to amaze me at the number
> of liberals who believe THEIR viewpoint is the correct one, and who poo-poo
> anyone else who disagrees with them.
>
> Eric Pinnell
I don't have a single viewpoint - I have multitudes, all of which I hold
equally valid. That's the problem of "you conservatives" (although it's
not a truly conservative attitude in the least) -- thinking you know
what a "liberal" is and what "they" believe. BTW, "liberal" and
"conservative" are properly adjectives, not nouns. :-)
Melody
asgtrp#237
Linda F. Cauthen
Steve Gilliard wrote:
>
> For rather desperate and obscure reasons, I am forced to
> watch the GOP convention, an event where a skinned head and
> brown shirt might not go unnoticed.
>
> I say that someone should post the number of celebs at
> fascist-fest 96.
>
> If one more GOP drone says the platform is tolerant, someone
> should give them a copy of Mein Kampf and see if they notice
> the difference.
>>>>>Well, how'd it have it? Say a lie often enough, it begins to sound like
the truth...at least to the stupid. I'm reminded of those oil companies
that have to mount their "we care about itty-bitty birdies" ads because
everyone knows damn well they don't.
At least, people are becoming aware of what the Fascicans have become.
They ought to come clean about the number of KKK and Aryan nationalists
that claim Republican party affiliation. I think that would be rather
interesting.
Melody
asgtrp#237<<<<<
Isn't it cute the way they parade their most moderate and photogenic
delegates in prime time while hiding their right-wingers in the back of the
auditorium? Did you know that of the 2200 delegates, about 50 are
African-American and 50 Latino?
Linda
================================================
Sent via The Vine - The Entertainment Industry Online
http://www.vine.org for information
Darlene Foster
In article <anson-1408962245330001@news>, an...@ici.net. says...
>In article <32111bcd...@news.wwa.com>, Joey wrote:
>: Steve Gilliard wrote:
>: > If one more GOP drone says the platform is tolerant, someone
>: > should give them a copy of Mein Kampf and see if they notice
>: > the difference.
>: Steve, Steve... the GOP *IS* tolerant!!!!!
>: Oh, and I'm straight. And LCM's sober. What else? David
Magicovski believes in God. It's true.
>
> I think David Migicovsky believes he is god. Much the same way that
>Bill Clinton believes he is a Democrat.
>
>Anson, wondering what the parties do with those "planks"
Those planks are for hitting voters over the head with. This one
should hurt a lot.
Darlene
ASGTPR 34
David Migicovsky
In article <pdelgrosso-15...@pbs10407.pbs.org>, pdelg...@pbs.org (Paul DG) wrote:
>
>> There are a (very) few Republicans I could respect and vote for, but they
>> don't set the agenda in the party. Right now, if the Republican Party were a
>> thread in ASG, I would be screaming, "NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI"
>
>derailing Clinton's goal of ending the ban on gays in the military. As
>chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a Democrat, Nunn had more
>power than anyone else in fouling Clinton's plans. Nunn's views were
>extremely homophobic and based on fears rather than facts.
>
I certainly remember that.
>You may think gays in the military may not be that big an issue, but in
>the U.S. blacks first achieved full integration in the military before
>getting more rights in the general society. Being integrated into the
>military served as a crucial first step for black rights. Gay activists
>hoped for the same, but Nunn and others squashed that hope for now.
>
Interesting anaology, but I don't think it holds up. In every country
(including mine) that allows gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed
forces, it was a lot closer to a last step than a first step. Only after most
provinces had amended their human rights legislation to include sexual
orientation, and the federal government lost in court, were our rules changed.
By the way, it *wasn't* that big an issue here. After losing at yet another
level in the courts, the government settled with the soldier who was suing
them and changed the policy. It made the newspapers for all of one day--and
didn't make headlines on that day. BTW, women can serve in combat too.
>Conversely, Republican Governor William of Massachusetts was voted the
>most pro-gay governor in the country. He enacted laws protecting gay
>youth and has spoken publically against homophobia.
>
He's also one of those very few Republicans I was referring to
>The reality of American politics is that gay rights will never be achieved
>until enough moderated in _both_ parties embrace the concept. Shunning
>all Republicans, including those moderates who support gay rights, is a
>mistake too many gay activists continue to make.
>
It is an understandable mistake, if it is one. Right now moderate Republicans
have as much influence in the party as liberal priests and bishops have in the
church--none worth mentioning.
While I have the greatest of respect for the liberal priests in the Church, I
don't think they have any chance of changing things in the forseeable future,
and so I condemn the Church as an essentially evil institution. Same thing
with the Republican party. There are good people in both places, but they are
both bad places to be a good person.
>One does not have to agree with all of a candidates viewpoints (I have
>never personally agreed 100% with any candidate), but not giving some
>degree of credit and support to moderate Republicans will only give more
>power to the extreme right who will only be more than happy to join you in
>condemning the moderates.
>
Where did I condemn the moderates? You also have to remember that to a
middle-of-the-road Canadian, almost all American politicians count as
right-wing extremists. Things that are part of our core political beliefs,
such as medicare, are viewed as left-wing extremism in the U.S.
>If more moderates were elected and supported in the Republican party, they
>could have more of a say in setting agendas. Unfortunately, those who
>work the hardest in the party and give the most money are the
>conservatives. This should be seen as more of a commentary on what the
>moderate majority doesn't do with its time than it does on what the
>conservative minority does with there's.
>
>--Paul
What is the purpose of having political parties at all, if they support the
same issues? If I wanted a job in publishing, I wouldn't go to NBC and try to
convince them to start a publishing division. I think there is something
fundamentally wrong with a system where Ted Kennedy and Sam Nunn can be
members of the same party.
med...@io.org
Linda_F....@vine.org (Linda F. Cauthen) wrote:
>Steve Gilliard wrote:
>>
>> For rather desperate and obscure reasons, I am forced to
>> watch the GOP convention, an event where a skinned head and
>> brown shirt might not go unnoticed.
>>>>>They ought to come clean about the number of KKK and Aryan nationalists
>that claim Republican party affiliation. I think that would be rather
>interesting.
>
>Melody
>asgtrp#237<<<<<
>
>Isn't it cute the way they parade their most moderate and photogenic
>delegates in prime time while hiding their right-wingers in the back of the
>auditorium? Did you know that of the 2200 delegates, about 50 are
>African-American and 50 Latino?
>
>Linda
As a mildly curious Canuck who knows little about Yank politics (yet,
sadly, this seems to be a heck of a lot more than the average Yank
knows) I have to ask -- WHAT'S WITH YOUR TOOTHLESS MEDIA SLOW-PITCHING
THE FASCISTI EVER SINCE MARCIA BRADY WAS A SEX SYMBOL? Sorry to yell,
but Jesus H. Murphy, I've never seen such a lame-ass collection of
fraidy cats. Do they really buy the Dittohead position of liberal bias
if anyone dares call out a Repulsivecan or are they still feeling guilty
about unpantsing the Nixon administration?
Why doesn't anyone ask Jack Kampf about his neo-nazi <--- (accurate
description, not a judgement) supporters? Why weren't George Bush's
infidelity/unsavoury financial transactions publicised the way Clinton's
have been? Why isn't Bob Dole made to defend his blatantly
unconstitutional positions relating to Everyone But Straight Rich White
Men? What happened to the separation of Church and State -- until very
recently, a solid small-r republican value? Why do all Republican
conventions look like the '78 Sears Catalogue come to life -- who
*dresses* these people, anyway!?!?! Why did Larry King practically go
down on Robin Dole and her elderly aunts, who vaguely resembled the
Snoop Sisters from the old TV series? Someone clue me, please.
Incidentally, I have to laugh at what a conservative cartoon Bob Dole
is. Even his name is a caricature of a Republican's self-image: "Hi, I'm
long-suffering Mr. Dole, a handout waiting to happen. Hoardes of needy,
greedy poor people are trying to be on me. Ewwwww -- GET -- THEM -- THE
-- FUCK -- OFF!"
And just to be bitchy, doesn't Jack Kampf's hair make him look like a
big cappuccino?
______________________________________
________| med...@io.org |_______
\ | http://www.io.org/~medusa | /
\ | *a woman's place is in your face* | /
/ |______________________________________| \
/__________) (_________\
David Migicovsky
In article <anson-1408962245330001@news>, an...@ici.net (Anson Turner) opined to the huddled masses:
>: Oh, and I'm straight. And LCM's sober. What else? David Magicovski
>: believes in God. It's true.
>
> I think David Migicovsky believes he is god. Much the same way that
>Bill Clinton believes he is a Democrat.
>
>Anson, wondering what the parties do with those "planks"
If I were God
a) I wouldn't believe in myself
b) I'd be all-knowing, so I'd have an idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Which, I believe, would make one of us.
PRINCESSPK
>Oh, and I'm straight. And LCM's sober. What else? David Magicovski
>: believes in God. It's true.
>
> I think David Migicovsky believes he is god.
Does this mean he is not? You mean I've been lighting all those
candles for *nothing?!?!? Hecky puddles!
Pink wishes
The Princess \*****/
Marla Brunker
Eric Pinnell <epi...@ibm.net > writes:
> If you want to talk issues, fine. But it never ceases to amaze me at the number
>of liberals who believe THEIR viewpoint is the correct one, and who poo-poo
why it's my viewpoint. Since so many soi-disant conservatives seem to
take positions based on defending a party line rather than doing their own
thinking, I can see how one might have a bit of trouble with this
concept.
Centre of the Known Universe
princ...@aol.com (PRINCESSPK) wrote:
I *know* darling - I too was devastated - it sent me reeling for the
bar, and I haven't been away from it since.
Noticing He Too Has Hecky Puddles All About, But Is Too Upset To Give
It A Second Thought,
LCM
Centre of the Known Universe
"A ray of sunshine amidst all this melanoma."
LCM - Mid-Bolly-Stoli, 1996
ASGTRP#01 & Co-Welcome Wagoneer
Joey M.
On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 19:01:51 GMT, med...@io.org wrote:
>As a mildly curious Canuck who knows little about Yank politics (yet,
>sadly, this seems to be a heck of a lot more than the average Yank
>knows) I have to ask -- WHAT'S WITH YOUR TOOTHLESS MEDIA SLOW-PITCHING
>THE FASCISTI EVER SINCE MARCIA BRADY WAS A SEX SYMBOL? Sorry to yell,
>but Jesus H. Murphy, I've never seen such a lame-ass collection of
>fraidy cats. Do they really buy the Dittohead position of liberal bias
>if anyone dares call out a Repulsivecan or are they still feeling guilty
>about unpantsing the Nixon administration?
Conservatives in this country are notoriously the biggest group of
fucking cry-babies. Anytime the media puts forth an opinion that's
even mildly to the left of ...say...Pat Robertson, tons of irate right
wingers come out of the woodwork belly-aching about how there's a
"Liberal Bias" and how unfair it is that the Repubs get such a bad
shake, image-wise. Never mind that there are far more Conservative
commentators, both in radio and newsprint, not to mention TV. All
Conservatives know how to do is talk about how much Liberals whine,
yet curiously do nothing but. They are also very good at laying on
one, big guilt-trip to anyone who disagrees.
>Incidentally, I have to laugh at what a conservative cartoon Bob Dole
>is. Even his name is a caricature of a Republican's self-image: "Hi, I'm
>long-suffering Mr. Dole, a handout waiting to happen. Hoardes of needy,
>greedy poor people are trying to be on me. Ewwwww -- GET -- THEM -- THE
>-- FUCK -- OFF!"
I've said it before, Medusa. I believe the automatronic Abraham
Lincoln robot at Disney Land orates with more flair and charisma. I
always have the distinct feeling the man is gonna fall asleep
mid-sentence. Or at least break a hip.
>And just to be bitchy, doesn't Jack Kampf's hair make him look like a
>big cappuccino?
More like a big fag. But it's the latest style for Leather Queens,
not that I'd know...
Melody Clark
pdelg...@pbs.org (Paul DG) wrote:
>In article <4utk6r$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cyn...@aol.com (Cynarae) wrote:
>> It was pointed out to me yesterday that the chant of "Dole Kemp!" sounds
>> suspiciously like "Bullshit!" when heard on TV.
>Really? I thought it sounded like "Dole Hemp!" which made me wonder if
>the Dole company had started making canned pot and all these uptight
>conservatives were clamoring to get high.
>--Paul
When you think about it, "Dole Kemp" also sounds like an old, flat
tire gallumping down the road...which may be the most apt metaphor of
all.
Bev
PRINCESSPK wrote:
> In article <anson-1408962245330001@news>, an...@ici.net (Anson Turner)
> writes:
>
> >Oh, and I'm straight. And LCM's sober. What else? David Magicovski
> >: believes in God. It's true.
> > I think David Migicovsky believes he is god.
> Does this mean he is not? You mean I've been lighting all those
> candles for *nothing?!?!? Hecky puddles!
Hey!! Do you mean candles, but NO INCENSE!! Now, these things MUST be
done properly you know!! ;^)
Beverly
Matt and Miriam Moore
an...@io.com (Anima) wrote:
>gill...@interport.net (Steve Gilliard) writes:
>>I say that someone should post the number of celebs at
>>fascist-fest 96.
>I thought the official name was Fuherfest '96?
I was call it the Pukathon.
MM-Teardrop City
David Migicovsky
In article <4v7nns$4f...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) opined to the huddled masses:
>>Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming apathy of the vast majority of people,
>>there is no way to prevent the hijacking of a political party, nor does there
>>seem to be a practical way to start a new one in your country.
>
> I'm a Canadian too ;-)
Well thank goodness you've left the country!
>
>>There are a (very) few Republicans I could respect and vote for, but they
>>don't set the agenda in the party. Right now, if the Republican Party were a
>>thread in ASG, I would be screaming, "NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI"
>
> I don't think Dole is such a great man. However, Clinton is a lying
> untrustworthy
>weasel. I wouldn't vote for him.
>
>>
>>A view that excludes my basic human rights is not one I am willing to accept
>>as a difference of opinion. There is no compromise to be made with the likes
>>of Louis Farrakan and Pat Buchanan.
>>
> The term "basic human rights" is a misnomer. If you are talking about the
> right
>for homosexuals to marry, then the answer is no, this is not a right. It is a
>privilege.
> And traditionally, while many societies have tolerated homosexuality
> and/or
>bisexuality (vis Romans, Greeks), not one has allowed for homosexual
> "marriages".
>The argument being, I suppose that the purpose of marriage is to provide a
> social
>and economic union for the express purpose of creating and raising children.
> Since a homosexual couple, is, by defintion, incapable of bearing children
> within
>the group, then marriage is not required. Whether or not there is "commitment"
> or
>a need for staying together over long periods of time is not relevant. As
> there
>are no children, there is nothing preventing a homosexual couple of splitting
> up
>at any time (other than, of course, the emotional factor). In the case of
>a married man and woman, you may have childern (hence child support, divorce
>laws, etc).
>
You are of course well aware that the views of Louis Farrakan and Pat Buchanan
on gay people go far beyond the simple denial of marriage.
Your opinions are so full of shit they are barely worth responding to. I will
accept the idea of marriage as a union for the express purpose of creating and
raising children as soon as:
Couples are required to prove their fertility before marriage.
Couples that remain childless have their marriage disolved.
Marriage be forbidden to people over childbearing age.
And of course it goes without saying that many gay and l______ couples do have
children, and here in Ontario, the non-biological parent can adopt the child
or children, making both parents the legal parents.
Gee, so what we have therefore is a union for the express purpose of creating
and raising children in which child support, custody, and divorce become
necessary.
Finally, marriage has always been considered by the courts to be a basic human
right. However if it will make you feel better, I do not accept, even as a
premise for argument, that I am entitled to anything less than the full rights
and *privileges* granted to heterosexuals. And no, that doesn't mean equally
allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex or equally allowed to serve in
the armed forces as long as I only have heterosexual relations. That's like
saying it's perfectly all right to fire pregnant women from their jobs because
all pregnant men would be fired too.
No matter how your ilk tries to pretty it up, what it comes down to is you
don't like homosexuals and believe you have the right to act on those beliefs
whether or not their actions have any consequence to you.
NBlomgren
epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) wrote:
>is that they have a certain intellectual snobbishness. They believe that the
>masses are nothing more than peasents, and require mollycoddling by the
>leftist intellectual elite.
I'm I the only one who sees the irony in the previous paragraph?
> Of course, anyone who makes a lot of money (by say, starting a business) is
>of course, THE ENEMY. Perhaps it is because those who have made a success
>of their life make a mockery of the entire liberal agenda. Or perhaps it's because
>wealth is power.
No, the problem with people who "make a lot of money" is that more and
more they don't recognize that it's their employees who play a huge part
in making that possible -- a CEO doesn't "produce" anything, his/her
workers do, and it's only fair to spread the wealth around a little. No
one is against a capitalist making a fair profit, but not at the expense
of the workers who _also_ take risks in being part of a company. Admiring
the rich while kicking those who made such riches possible is hardly a
formula for a fair society.
And yes, wealth is power, and most liberals think that's a BAD idea -- to
base one's ability to influence the political system on accumulated wealth
is hardly democratic -- instead, as history has shown over and over, it
allows wealth to be increasingly concentrated and social instability to
become more widespread. That's why almost all the industrial democracies
regulate their corporations far more than we do, and suffer less crime,
domestic violence, teen pregnancy, etc, than we do here in the US.
Here's my biggest problem with the current GOP (I can't believe Barry
Goldwater and I agree on something!): It claims to be for individual
freedom, but then wants to get involved in defining "family values."
Personally, I want the government OUT of my personal decisions!
I won't get into the GOP's absolute lack of any historical consciousness
-- I feel a rant coming on... But I will say, those who remember the past
are condemned to watch others repeat it.
So Eric, maybe you need to talk to an actual liberal once in a while,
instead of believing those caricatures the right-wingers toss about so
easily.
--nb
Eric Pinnell
In <321371e8...@news.io.org>, med...@io.org writes:
>Why doesn't anyone ask Jack Kampf about his neo-nazi <--- (accurate
>description, not a judgement) supporters?
Why doesn't anyone ask Bill Clinton about Jackson, Sharpe, Farrakhan, et al?
>Why weren't George Bush's
>infidelity/unsavoury financial transactions publicised the way Clinton's
>have been?
Because in the case of Bush, no evidence of wrongdoing was ever found. In
the case of Clinton, we have his intimate friends who have been convicted. Indeed
there may yet be an indictment of Clinton.
>Why isn't Bob Dole made to defend his blatantly
>unconstitutional positions relating to Everyone But Straight Rich White
>Men?
And which positions are these? Anything like Clinton's blatantly unconstituonal
views on guns?
>What happened to the separation of Church and State -- until very
>recently, a solid small-r republican value?
This is a doctrine created by the liberals in the Supreme Court. The constituion
doesn't require separation of church and state (to the extent of banning
prayer in school). It does require that the state not prohibit or promote any
religion.
Eric Pinnell
NBlomgren
epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) wrote:
----------->much trimmed
>
>>What happened to the separation of Church and State -- until very
>>recently, a solid small-r republican value?
>
> This is a doctrine created by the liberals in the Supreme Court. The constituion
>doesn't require separation of church and state (to the extent of banning
>prayer in school). It does require that the state not prohibit or promote any
>religion.
>
>Eric Pinnell
No, it's not a doctrine created by liberals, though I'd be willing to be
convinced otherwise if you could come up with some evidence. Actually,
it's been a given since the early days of the nation, with Madison's
"Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" of 1785 written
in response to Patrick Henry's 1784 bill which requested tax support for
religious institutions. And don't forget Jefferson's "Bill for
Establishing Religious Freedom" in 1786.
And prayer isn't banned in school -- only prayer organized by school
officials. Private prayer, or those organized by individuals is indeed
protected, and even the ACLU has come to the defense of these exercises of
religion.
My question to you is this: How would you solve the practical problem of
not having the State promote a particular religion WITHOUT having a
separation of Church and State?
Patricia Greig
Please be advised that this is a lengthy posting, with heavy emphasis on
economics.
Eric Pinnell (epi...@ibm.net) writes:
> In <BpCwhAv...@delphi.com>, Marla Brunker <bru...@delphi.com> writes:
>>Eric Pinnell <epi...@ibm.net > writes:
>>
>>> If you want to talk issues, fine. But it never ceases to amaze me
>>>at the number of liberals who believe THEIR viewpoint is the correct
>>>one, and who poo-poo
>>
>> Well, yes. I believe my viewpoint is the correct one. That's
>>why it's my viewpoint. Since so many soi-disant conservatives seem to
>>take positions based on defending a party line rather than doing their own
>>thinking, I can see how one might have a bit of trouble with this
>>concept.
>
> Once again you resort to ad hominem attacks. The real trouble
> with liberals is that they have a certain intellectual snobbishness.
> They believe that the masses are nothing more than peasents, and require
> mollycoddling by the leftist intellectual elite.
> Of course, anyone who makes a lot of money (by say, starting a
> business) is of course, THE ENEMY. Perhaps it is because those who
> have made a success of their life make a mockery of the entire liberal
> agenda. Or perhaps it's because wealth is power.
>
> Eric Pinnell
(epi...@ibm.net)
IBM is under investigation in, I believe, the United States,
for violation of that country's anti-trust laws. This violation concerns
the business of computer mainframes.
A monopoly is exclusive possession or control of trade in a
commodity or service.
Lewis Lapham, in his book, "The Wish for Kings", writes:
"During the recession year of 1991 corporate profits fell
by an estimated 21 percent, and the firing of common workers took
place at the rate of twenty-six hundred a day, but over the same
period of time the chief executives of the country's largest
corporations improved the value of their holdings of the company's
stock (shares, bonuses, and options) by an average sum of $2.63
million. As published in 'The Crystal Report' for 1991, the
comparison of executive pay with company performance also provided
the following gloss on the rigors of the free market:
Company Losses for 1991 C.E.O. Total Compensation for 1991
(totals in billons U.S.) (totals in millions U.S.)
General Motors: $4.5 Robert C. Stempel: $1.6
IBM: $2.8 John F. Akers: $4.9
Ford: $2.3 Harold A.Poling: $1.6
Westinghouse: $1.1 Paul E. Lego: $3.3
United Technologies: $1.1 Robert F. Daniell: $1.5"
In his book, "The Doubter's Companion", John Ralston Saul
writes:
"MARXIST: The only serious functioning Marxists left in the
West are the senior management of large, usually transnational
corporations. The only serious Marxist thinkers are neo-
conservative.
"Marxism is primarily an analysis of how society works -
or rather, how it must work. This dialectic is based upon the
struggle of the classes and the battle of the unregulated
market-place in which the strongest win. It is a market-place
which cannot be tempered, according to Marx. It must and will
run free and so function as a battleground between those who
have power and those who don't. The marketplace will seek to
maximise profits even if this is to the disadvantage of most.
Profits and power are the truth of the economic struggle and
economic determinism will decide the social structure.
"Most functioning Marxists had stopped believing
this sort of stuff by the end of the Second World War. They
had come around to the ideology of stable bureaucratic
management. In that they resembled the technocrats of
Western governmental and corporate bureaucracies.
"But these Western corporate managers and their
academic acolytes were in fact thrown into a state of
confusion by the collapse of 1929. It seemed as if the pure
capitalist analysis, of which they were the official
inheritors, had failed. An unrestricted marketplace had
not lead to ongoing growth and prosperity, but to total
economic collapse. The ideology of a natural and general
equilibrium produced by competition had been given a chance
and had self-destructed for all to see and suffer the
consequences.
"A good thirty-five years passed before the
corporate leaders were able to erase from their own memory
and from that of the public this failure. They then
rediscovered with a virginal ideologic enthusiasm the
virtues of the unregulated market.
"This time they were supported by an intellectually
sophisticated explanation for the dialectic provided by a
group of economists centred at the CHICAGO SCHOOL. They
were able to dispense with the idea that public institutions
could achieve social stability, protect the weak or encourage
a wider distribution of wealth. Their new argument would have
made Marx proud. It was not that they did not wish to help
the weak or promote fairness. It was the natural rules of
the market-place - the dialectic - which made the class
struggle inevitable.
"The only disagreement between the Neo-conservatives
and Marx is over who wins the battle in the end. This is a
small detail. Far more important is their agreement that
society must function as a wide-open struggle.
"Some people are surprised that Marxism should have
re-emerged on the Right. However, ideas, once launched,
become public property. And they often reappear in several
disguises before discovering their true form."
"It is very tiring making yourself important." - Victoria dels Angels
Melody Clark
David Migicovsky wrote:
> You can slam Eric without slamming Canada. I am forced to point out that:
>
> Concurrently with American presidential elections, the Gallup organization
> conducts a poll in Canada asking who Canadians would vote for, if they could
> vote in American elections. In my memory, a Republican has never "won."
> that's right, if it was up to us, President McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter
> (twice).
>
> Our "sad sense of civil rights" has given us:
>
> A unanimous Supreme Court ruling that sexual orientation is a prohibited
> ground for discrimination under the constititution, like race and sex (one of
> which still isn't protected under yours).
>
> Gay and l______ members serving openly in the armed forces, and full benefits
> for their partners.
>
> Sexual orientation in the Human Rights acts of 8/20 provinces, and federally.
>
> Sexual orientation in federal hate crimes sentencing legislation.
>
> Adoption of children by their mother's l______ partner. Yup, in Canada,
> Heather can *legally* have two mommies.
>
> Immigration of same sex partners.
>
> Come back when you have a clue what you're talking about.
Canada will have something else, too, David, should Bob Dole somehow
conspire to win this election...it'll have my multi-generation American
family applying to come in to stay.
Melody...sick to death of the far-right and all fascists
Eric Pinnell
In <4uth4l$6...@news.interlog.com>, dmigicov@_interlog.com.is.not.my.correct.address.see.sig.file (David Migicovsky) writes:
>>When the racists and homophobes take over the Democratic party, as they have
>done with the Republicans, you'll certainly see *me* slamming them.
>
>Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming apathy of the vast majority of people,
>there is no way to prevent the hijacking of a political party, nor does there
>seem to be a practical way to start a new one in your country.
I'm a Canadian too ;-)
>There are a (very) few Republicans I could respect and vote for, but they
>don't set the agenda in the party. Right now, if the Republican Party were a
>thread in ASG, I would be screaming, "NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI"
I don't think Dole is such a great man. However, Clinton is a lying untrustworthy
weasel. I wouldn't vote for him.
>
>A view that excludes my basic human rights is not one I am willing to accept
>as a difference of opinion. There is no compromise to be made with the likes
>of Louis Farrakan and Pat Buchanan.
>
The term "basic human rights" is a misnomer. If you are talking about the right
for homosexuals to marry, then the answer is no, this is not a right. It is a
privilege.
And traditionally, while many societies have tolerated homosexuality and/or
bisexuality (vis Romans, Greeks), not one has allowed for homosexual "marriages".
The argument being, I suppose that the purpose of marriage is to provide a social
and economic union for the express purpose of creating and raising children.
Since a homosexual couple, is, by defintion, incapable of bearing children within
the group, then marriage is not required. Whether or not there is "commitment" or
a need for staying together over long periods of time is not relevant. As there
are no children, there is nothing preventing a homosexual couple of splitting up
at any time (other than, of course, the emotional factor). In the case of
a married man and woman, you may have childern (hence child support, divorce
laws, etc).
Eric Pinnell
Marla Brunker
Joey M. <jmb...@wwa.com> writes:
>You know, I kinda like it up here on this soapbox. Nice view.
Ain't it just? You forgot to mention that that blithe and
unexamined assumption that the sole and only purpose of sexuality for
our species was reproduction...a bedrock belief of the religious
right, I do believe.
David Migicovsky
In article <4v7nd7$4f...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) opined to the huddled masses:
>
> This is a doctrine created by the liberals in the Supreme Court. The
> constituion
>doesn't require separation of church and state (to the extent of banning
>prayer in school). It does require that the state not prohibit or promote any
>religion.
>
>Eric Pinnell
Please explain how school prayer is not promoting a religion. Any school
prayer violates *my* freedom of religion. Some religions require prayer to
take place at certain times of day, or in certain circumstances only, or in
segregated male/female groups. School prayer cannot accomodate these religious
differences, nor can it accomodate agnostics and atheists.
In any case, why *should* there be prayer in schools? What possible interest
does the state have in forcing me to pray?
Eric Pinnell
Centre of the Known Universe
epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) wrote:
>In <BpCwhAv...@delphi.com>, Marla Brunker <bru...@delphi.com> writes:
>>Eric Pinnell <epi...@ibm.net > writes:
>>
>>> If you want to talk issues, fine. But it never ceases to amaze me at the number
>>>of liberals who believe THEIR viewpoint is the correct one, and who poo-poo
>>
>> Well, yes. I believe my viewpoint is the correct one. That's
>>why it's my viewpoint. Since so many soi-disant conservatives seem to
>>take positions based on defending a party line rather than doing their own
>>thinking, I can see how one might have a bit of trouble with this
>>concept.
> Once again you resort to ad hominem attacks. The real trouble with liberals
>is that they have a certain intellectual snobbishness. They believe that the
>masses are nothing more than peasents, and require mollycoddling by the
>leftist intellectual elite.
Oh please. What evidence do you have for this, hmmm? I would hazard
that like *some* conservatives I've known, you tend to rail at the
fact that liberals seem to enjoy an embarrassment of riches when it
comes to functioning synapses, and will try to get beyond bland
generalities or outright lies. Of course this is only MY opinion,
darling.
> Of course, anyone who makes a lot of money (by say, starting a business) is
>of course, THE ENEMY.
I have nothing against business owers. I *do* have a problem with
exploitation, however. The free market is not a sacred cow - the
greater good should over ride individual greed - and if I see some
bastard raking in millions, while unwilliing to pay the people who DO
the work a living wage, then I'm sorry - I will not just admire him
from afar for being able to get away with it.
> Perhaps it is because those who have made a success
>of their life make a mockery of the entire liberal agenda.
They do, do they? I suppose they *try* - but I'd be careful with my
words here, darling. And who are you to say that a liberal agenda and
success are mutually exclusive? I trust you'll enjoy your money once
you're in the grave - but what a hell of a way to make the journey.
Here's a rose, darling - smell it, appreciate it, then piss off.
> Or perhaps it's because
>wealth is power.
No, darling - *knowledge* is power, and because I *know* you're an
asshole, I believe I'll go leap a tall building now.
>Eric Pinnell
Eat The Rich, Sweeties!
Joseph X
Eric Pinnell wrote:
[chat about political parties snipped]
> I'm a Canadian too ;-)
>
>>There are a (very) few Republicans I could respect and vote for, but they
>>don't set the agenda in the party. Right now, if the Republican Party were
>>a thread in ASG, I would be screaming, "NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI"
>
> I don't think Dole is such a great man. However, Clinton is a lying
> untrustworthy
> weasel. I wouldn't vote for him.
Well guess what --- you can't! Why? Because you belong to some little faux
nation. Which explains why you'd prefer Dole.
>>A view that excludes my basic human rights is not one I am willing to
>>accept as a difference of opinion. There is no compromise to be made with
>>the likes of Louis Farrakan and Pat Buchanan.
> >
> The term "basic human rights" is a misnomer. If you are talking about the
> right for homosexuals to marry, then the answer is no, this is not a right.
> It is a privilege.
It is? How so? The vast majority of people are free to marry their partner.
Only a few are denied this right. That's not a privilige.
Of course how would you know? You still have a queen and her horse face
printed on your money. What would you know about rights?
> And traditionally, while many societies have tolerated homosexuality and/or
> bisexuality (vis Romans, Greeks), not one has allowed for homosexual
> "marriages".
> The argument being, I suppose that the purpose of marriage is to provide a
> social and economic union for the express purpose of creating and raising
> children.
Suppose what you like. If we ran government based on what past governments
and cultures did, women would not have the vote. Hell, no one would. And
we'd have that same lousy pretend money you have up in Canada.
> Since a homosexual couple, is, by defintion, incapable of bearing children
> within the group, then marriage is not required. Whether or not there is
> "commitment" or a need for staying together over long periods of time is
> not relevant. As there are no children, there is nothing preventing a
> homosexual couple of splitting up at any time (other than, of course, the
> emotional factor).
How about shared property? How about adopted children, or children from
previous relationships?
> In the case of
> a married man and woman, you may have childern (hence child support,
> divorce laws, etc).
What are you, 10? Do you even have a clue what goes into a relationship?
You seem to think that marriage exists exclusively for those who have
children. Women past menopause are also unable to bear children. Shall we
not allow them to marry either? How about quadraplegics? How about those
born sterile? Or those who are made sterile? Shall we have them all be not
allowed to marry? All those people are allowed to marry, to enjoy the rights
and responsibilities, regardless of their reproductive ability.
If you are true to your argument, you ought to support a position in which
people are only allowed to marry after they've had a child.
Ah, what did I expect from a Canadian. You have a decent health care system,
but a sad sense of civil rights.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Words are only painted fire; a look is the fire itself."
David Migicovsky
In article <3217F...@eskimo.com>, Joseph X <Jos...@eskimo.com> opined to the huddled masses:
>Eric Pinnell wrote:
>
>[chat about political parties snipped]
>
>> I'm a Canadian too ;-)
>>
>> untrustworthy
>> weasel. I wouldn't vote for him.
>
>Well guess what --- you can't! Why? Because you belong to some little faux
>nation. Which explains why you'd prefer Dole.
>
>
>but a sad sense of civil rights.
>
>
You can slam Eric without slamming Canada. I am forced to point out that:
Concurrently with American presidential elections, the Gallup organization
conducts a poll in Canada asking who Canadians would vote for, if they could
vote in American elections. In my memory, a Republican has never "won."
that's right, if it was up to us, President McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter
(twice).
Our "sad sense of civil rights" has given us:
A unanimous Supreme Court ruling that sexual orientation is a prohibited
ground for discrimination under the constititution, like race and sex (one of
which still isn't protected under yours).
Gay and l______ members serving openly in the armed forces, and full benefits
for their partners.
Sexual orientation in the Human Rights acts of 8/20 provinces, and federally.
Sexual orientation in federal hate crimes sentencing legislation.
Adoption of children by their mother's l______ partner. Yup, in Canada,
Heather can *legally* have two mommies.
Immigration of same sex partners.
Come back when you have a clue what you're talking about.
Centre of the Known Universe
Joseph X <Jos...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>Eric Pinnell wrote:
>[chat about political parties snipped]
>
>> I'm a Canadian too ;-)
>>
>>>There are a (very) few Republicans I could respect and vote for, but they
>>>don't set the agenda in the party. Right now, if the Republican Party were
>>>a thread in ASG, I would be screaming, "NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI, NAZI"
>>
>> I don't think Dole is such a great man. However, Clinton is a lying
>> untrustworthy
>> weasel. I wouldn't vote for him.
>Well guess what --- you can't! Why? Because you belong to some little faux
>nation. Which explains why you'd prefer Dole.
Careful, darling - this "little faux nation" has some sweetiedarings
here who might not appreciate your "little faux witticisms."
Puttin' On The Stompin' Tom & Scowling Furiously,
Eric Pinnell
In <4v7qbu$c...@news.interlog.com>, dmig...@interlog.com.see.sig.for.proper.email (David Migicovsky) writes:
>>
>> I'm a Canadian too ;-)
>
>
>>
>
>You are of course well aware that the views of Louis Farrakan and Pat Buchanan
>on gay people go far beyond the simple denial of marriage.
>
>Your opinions are so full of shit they are barely worth responding to. I will
>raising children as soon as:
My. Once again, the liberals resort to the ad hominem attack because their
debating skills suck. Let's try to keep this civil.
>
>Couples are required to prove their fertility before marriage.
>Couples that remain childless have their marriage disolved.
>Marriage be forbidden to people over childbearing age.
1) It's rather tough to prove fertility until, in fact, you conceive. Since many
religions frown on premarital sex, this can create problems. Further, heterosexual
couples can have children, homosexuals never can within a homosexual union.
2) After what time period? In my parents case, it took 7 years before the
first child was born, then the second a year later, and the third 5 years after that.
>
>And of course it goes without saying that many gay and l______ couples do have
>children, and here in Ontario, the non-biological parent can adopt the child
>or children, making both parents the legal parents.
Ah, but by definition, a homosexual or lesbian couple has to go OUTSIDE the
marriage in order to conceive a child.
>
>Gee, so what we have therefore is a union for the express purpose of creating
>and raising children in which child support, custody, and divorce become
>necessary.
>
>Finally, marriage has always been considered by the courts to be a basic human
>right. However if it will make you feel better, I do not accept, even as a
>premise for argument, that I am entitled to anything less than the full rights
>and *privileges* granted to heterosexuals. And no, that doesn't mean equally
>allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex or equally allowed to serve in
>the armed forces as long as I only have heterosexual relations. That's like
>saying it's perfectly all right to fire pregnant women from their jobs because
>all pregnant men would be fired too.
You can marry a woman anytime you want to, David. Just like any other man.
In point of fact, the heterosexual society does not approve of homosexual
marriages at all (polls support this). From a legal perspective, if you put the
"sexual orientation" into the Fed Charter, then this will require the government
to allow homosexual marriages. However, note two things: 1) this has not been
done at a federal level and 2) if there weren't tremendous grassroots opposition
to the idea, don't you think the politcians would approve of homosexual marriages
in order to appease homosexual voters?
>No matter how your ilk tries to pretty it up, what it comes down to is you
>don't like homosexuals and believe you have the right to act on those beliefs
>whether or not their actions have any consequence to you.
No, what I don't like is the militant homosexual agenda. You seem to feel that
society somehow owes you something, and that you should be able to dictate to
society how the laws of the land will be. You claim to want equality, but what
you really want is for society to recognize homosexuality as a perfectly normal
acceptable "alternate lifestyle". It's not going to happen.
Eric Pinnell
Joey M.
On 18 Aug 1996 18:34:36 GMT, epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) wrote:
> I don't think Dole is such a great man. However, Clinton is a lying untrustworthy
>weasel. I wouldn't vote for him.
True, but we aren't talking about each man individually, rather whole
parties. Clinton will never vie for the "Honorable & Ethical" ribbon
and the Dems will never be the perfect party, but compared those kooky
Repubs, they're a nation of Gandhi's.
> The term "basic human rights" is a misnomer. If you are talking about the right
>for homosexuals to marry, then the answer is no, this is not a right. It is a
>privilege.
> And traditionally, while many societies have tolerated homosexuality and/or
>bisexuality (vis Romans, Greeks), not one has allowed for homosexual "marriages".
Not true. There is mounting evidence that many ancient societies DID
allow gay marriages. Turn off Rush for a second and actually think
about what you type.
>The argument being, I suppose that the purpose of marriage is to provide a social
>and economic union for the express purpose of creating and raising children.
> Since a homosexual couple, is, by defintion, incapable of bearing children within
>the group, then marriage is not required. Whether or not there is "commitment" or
>a need for staying together over long periods of time is not relevant. As there
>are no children, there is nothing preventing a homosexual couple of splitting up
>at any time (other than, of course, the emotional factor). In the case of
>a married man and woman, you may have childern (hence child support, divorce
>laws, etc).
Big, big problems with this argument.
1. No one bothers to ask straight couples, when they are about to get
married, if they plan to bear children. It's assumed. Yet many
choose not to. Should said marriages be annulled (like the Dole's)?
2. Gays can and do bear children. They also (you may want to sit
down for this one, Eric) raise them rather well.
3. What we are REALLY talking about here is how the American Govt.
should view marriage - Christian vs. Secular.
If they choose to view it in Christian terms, not only are they in
great danger of violating separation of Church and State, several
alarming hypocrisies emerge. If the Govt. is to deny recognition of
gay unions allowing to a strict Christian view of marriage, why is
divorce allowed? Didn't the Bible point out quite clearly that
divorce was considered adultery? And isn't adultery a pretty big sin?
The Bible also comes down pretty harshly on premarital sex,
interracial marriage, birth control, etc. If gays are going to be
denied marriage for Christian moral reasoning, why the double
standard? Enforce those values across the board. Which results in
the Govt. basically laying down moral judgement on everything we do.
I don't want that, and I should think neither do you.
If they choose to view it in Secular terms (man-and-woman unions
maintain the status quo, it's how it's always been), they are in great
danger of discriminating on basis of gender. One must come up with a
logical, factual argument why the State has a compelling interest to
deny the recognition, which arguers against gay marriage do not have.
All they can do is merely fall back on the same, tired "It's immoral,
destructive to the "Family", don't want to codone any icky behavior"
arguments they use for just about anything to do with gays.
No offense, but heteros have done a good enough job fucking up the
institution of marriage without it all being blamed on gays. If 2
people love each other and wish to form a couple to contribute to the
greater wealth of a certain country, so be it. If that union is to be
subjected to petty suspicions, self-rightous judgements and faulty
logic, why, it'll come right back at'cha.
You know, I kinda like it up here on this soapbox. Nice view.
-=JR=-
In article <4varqd$42...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net says...
In response to David's reply
> No, what I don't like is the militant homosexual agenda.
Damn it all, David!
I *told* you militant was out!
Now, hie thyself to the Stationers and purchase a nice brocade agenda,
or even a pastel suede one, but the Cami agenda has *got* to go!
Sheesh!
-=Judith=-
Your agenda fashion consultant
Marc Lostracco
In article <4varqd$42...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net (Eric
Pinnell) wrote:
> You seem to feel that society somehow owes you something, and
> that you should be able to dictate to society how the laws of
> the land will be.
Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
> You claim to want equality, but what you really want is for society
> to recognize homosexuality as a perfectly normal acceptable
> "alternate lifestyle". It's not going to happen.
The last I heard, at least in my country, it's already happening. It is
foolish and cruel to deny human beings the freedom to love whom they wish
-- those who love the same sex include members of your family, your
friends, and co-workers. If you think you can make it go away, "it's not
going to happen". And by the way, please note that bringing up this
argument in ASG is futile. You'll lose. Big time.
Love between people is as a normal lifestyle as you can get. It's so
unfortunate you'll never experience the full extent of that.
They seeing, see not; and hearing, they hear not, neither do they
understand." Matthew 13:13
--
Marc Lostracco | If you fake the funk,
ef...@interlog.com | Your nose will grow.
www.interlog.com/~efar | - George Clinton
Melody Clark
Eric Pinnell wrote:
> You can marry a woman anytime you want to, David. Just like any other man.
> In point of fact, the heterosexual society does not approve of homosexual
> marriages at all (polls support this). From a legal perspective, if you put the
> "sexual orientation" into the Fed Charter, then this will require the government
> to allow homosexual marriages.
Certain segments of the American south didn't believe in the humanity of
blacks either, just a few decades ago. The concept of democracy is
*not* about up-holding the bully pulpit of the masses...that's
communism. Democracy is *supposed* to be about protecting individuals
from the totalitarian mind of the majority.
Happily, evolution tends to suppress those who oppose diversity, and to
uphold diversity. Bigots limit themselves with their own backward
beliefs.
> However, note two things: 1) this has not been
> done at a federal level and 2) if there weren't tremendous grassroots opposition
> to the idea, don't you think the politcians would approve of homosexual marriages
> in order to appease homosexual voters?
Again, how does the right of an individual to marry the person of
her/his choosing have *anything* to do with you? Are you now going to
go around and stomp out all the people your religion disagrees with? A
good number of people think Jewish people killed Jesus...should we then
espouse second class citizenship for them?
> No, what I don't like is the militant homosexual agenda. You seem to feel that
> society somehow owes you something, and that you should be able to dictate to
> society how the laws of the land will be.
Excuse me? What about the militant heterosexual fascism which your
arguments support? Why is it you feel society owes *you* a special
place, and that you not only have the right to tell private citizens how
they should live, but you also the right to dictate that all laws follow
according to your narrow-minded religious beliefs?
>You claim to want equality, but what
> you really want is for society to recognize homosexuality as a perfectly normal
> acceptable "alternate lifestyle". It's not going to happen.
Spoken like a good 1920's southerner about integration... And look what
happened.
Melody
"This nation is in no manner based upon the Christian religion."
George Washington
"I can find in orthodox Christianity not one redeeming feature."
Thomas Jefferson
Melody Clark
Jimbo wrote:
> If I remember correctly, the concept of American democracy is not as
> stated above but in reality about:
>
> "The majority must rule, but the minority must be heard."
> The concept of a democracy is about upholding the belief of the majority,
> while protecting the right of the minority to be heard.
This is simply not the case. Nowhere is there any reference to
democracy (viz-a-viz, the writings of Jefferson, Adams or any of the
architects of *this* democracy) to support the notion of "upholding the
belief of the majority". *That* is Elizabethan-era monarchy. "Yes,
we'll listen to you, my pet. Now, go sit in the stockade. There's a
good lad."
>
> Communism on the other hand is a totalitarian regime ruled by a minority
> (the Communist party officials in power {read dictators}) in which all
> opposing viewpoints (minority or majority) are silenced.
That's an emotional reinterpretation to make democracy look better.
Communism is merely a collectivist system...setting aside Stalinism and
all that. Collectivism holds that the central thesis (i.e. philosophy,
religion, etc) of the "people" must have primary importance over
individual rights to life, liberty, etc. There's all sorts of lofty
epiphanies to "the People" in proletariat speeches from the Bolshevik
era. Look it up, bunky.
Your definition of democracy, to wit --
> The concept of a democracy is about upholding the belief of the majority,
> while protecting the right of the minority to be heard.
Is much closer to classic communism than democracy.
>
> Note:This definition of communism is communism as physically practiced in
> the totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and Cuba.
Well, there is no Soviet Union any longer, nor any real, looming
communism in Eastern Europe. Cuba, for what it does, has its good
points and bad points. Naturally, we'd hope for democracy, but...
>
> Jimbo
> Who still believes the majority must rule, no matter how stupidly.
Melody
who doesn't know why anyone has to rule, and thinks we ought live in
terror of some small group's definition of "the majority"...and who
recommends we take this to e-mail, certain that no one gives a flying
fuck about this whole exchange but us...
Melody Clark
NBlomgren wrote:
>
> jsl...@asmusa.org (Jimbo) wrote:
> >In article <321864...@qnet.com>, mel...@qnet.com says...
> >> The concept of democracy is
> >>*not* about up-holding the bully pulpit of the masses...that's
> >>communism. Democracy is *supposed* to be about protecting individuals
> >>from the totalitarian mind of the majority.
> >>
> >
> >stated above but in reality about:
> >
> >"The majority must rule, but the minority must be heard."
> >
> >The concept of a democracy is about upholding the belief of the majority,
> >while protecting the right of the minority to be heard.
> >
> >(the Communist party officials in power {read dictators}) in which all
> >opposing viewpoints (minority or majority) are silenced.
> >
> >the totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and Cuba.
> >
> >Who still believes the majority must rule, no matter how stupidly.
> >
>
> The American political system is set up as a series of checks and balances
> to make sure that the majority doesn't run around trampling on individual
> liberties -- the Founders were extremely worried about the majority ever
> gaining too much power (they didn't trust the masses very much), so the
> Constitution guarantees individual rights that cannot be easily usurped by
> a majority -- many Supreme Court decisions are unpopular because they are
> based on the Constitution rather than on majority opinion.
Exactly. Another comparable concept would be mob rule. That's why the
ACLU draws such flack...it goes against the widespread "acceptances" of
the faceless majority (which doesn't exist anyway, beyond the
reiteration of certain mass media pundits).
The Founders were, at least on paper (all the slaves with Jefferson as
their last name would belie this for old Tom), very concerned about
protective individual rights against the rule of the mob. The chief
concern was to respect the general rights of all whilst protecting the
specific rights of individuals.(That's a direct quote, I believe, from
John Adams, who is - IMHO - the great, unrecognized hero of the
Founders...as he was an avowed opponent of slavery and proponent of the
rights of women and minorities...and no, he wasn't obnoxious and
disliked<g>)
Melody...boring herself at...
asgtpr#237
David Migicovsky
In article <4varqd$42...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) opined to the huddled masses:
>1) It's rather tough to prove fertility until, in fact, you conceive. Since
> many
>religions frown on premarital sex, this can create problems.
Fertility tests don't require sex. While the man would have to masturbate,
that's surely not too much to ask to preserve the sanctity of marriage.
Further,
> heterosexual
>couples can have children, homosexuals never can within a homosexual union.
>
Your definition of marriage includes children. Mine doesn't.
>2) After what time period? In my parents case, it took 7 years before the
>first child was born, then the second a year later, and the third 5 years after
> that.
>>
In the case of your parents, 6 years.
>>And of course it goes without saying that many gay and l______ couples do have
>
>>children, and here in Ontario, the non-biological parent can adopt the child
>>or children, making both parents the legal parents.
>
> Ah, but by definition, a homosexual or lesbian couple has to go OUTSIDE the
>marriage in order to conceive a child.
>>
So what? Shall we now forbid people with children born out of wedock to marry
too?
>>Gee, so what we have therefore is a union for the express purpose of creating
>>and raising children in which child support, custody, and divorce become
>>necessary.
>>
>>Finally, marriage has always been considered by the courts to be a basic human
>
>>right. However if it will make you feel better, I do not accept, even as a
>>premise for argument, that I am entitled to anything less than the full rights
>
>>and *privileges* granted to heterosexuals. And no, that doesn't mean equally
>>allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex or equally allowed to serve in
>>the armed forces as long as I only have heterosexual relations. That's like
>>saying it's perfectly all right to fire pregnant women from their jobs because
>
>>all pregnant men would be fired too.
>
> You can marry a woman anytime you want to, David. Just like any other man.
>In point of fact, the heterosexual society does not approve of homosexual
>marriages at all (polls support this).
If heterosexuals don't approve of homosexual marriage, they are of course free
not to have one.
From a legal perspective, if you put the
>"sexual orientation" into the Fed Charter, then this will require the
> government
>to allow homosexual marriages. However, note two things: 1) this has not been
>done at a federal level and 2) if there weren't tremendous grassroots
> opposition
>to the idea, don't you think the politcians would approve of homosexual
> marriages
>in order to appease homosexual voters?
>
If you are talking about the Federal Human Rights Act, it was done earlier
this year. If you are talking about the Charter of Rights in the constitution,
it was read in (unanimously) by the Supreme Court over a year ago.
>>No matter how your ilk tries to pretty it up, what it comes down to is you
>>don't like homosexuals and believe you have the right to act on those beliefs
>>whether or not their actions have any consequence to you.
>
> No, what I don't like is the militant homosexual agenda. You seem to feel
> that
>society somehow owes you something, and that you should be able to dictate to
>society how the laws of the land will be. You claim to want equality, but what
>you really want is for society to recognize homosexuality as a perfectly normal
>acceptable "alternate lifestyle". It's not going to happen.
>
>Eric Pinnell
No one wants to take away your right to dislike or disapprove of us. Just your
right to dictate how we lead or lives. And in case you haven't noticed, it's
happening all around you, with every victory we gain in Parliament, the
provincial legislatures, and the courts.
Centre of the Known Universe
epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) wrote:
<Darlings - I'm going to try and snip a bit here and there, but
numbnuts here has made it rather difficult to know who he's quoting,
so if I mix it all up, please don't letter bomb me or anything>
>In <4v7qbu$c...@news.interlog.com>, dmig...@interlog.com.see.sig.for.proper.email (David Migicovsky) writes:
>Sorry, I'm still living in Canada.
Not half as sorry as the rest of us, darling. Sweeties - can we take
up a collection and have Eric here sent to some fabulously exotic
local - say Mars?
<I *think* Eric wrote this next paragraph, and David responded in
typically eloquent fashion>
>>You are of course well aware that the views of Louis Farrakan and Pat Buchanan
>>on gay people go far beyond the simple denial of marriage.
>>
>>Your opinions are so full of shit they are barely worth responding to. I will
>>accept the idea of marriage as a union for the express purpose of creating and
>>raising children as soon as:
> My. Once again, the liberals resort to the ad hominem attack because their
>debating skills suck. Let's try to keep this civil.
Ad hominem? What's this - your phrase of the week? You're in over
your head, sweetie - can someone heave him a rock, please?
<David - I think...>
>>Couples are required to prove their fertility before marriage.
>>Couples that remain childless have their marriage disolved.
>>Marriage be forbidden to people over childbearing age.
<I believe these are his itemized responses to David>
>1) It's rather tough to prove fertility until, in fact, you conceive. Since many
>religions frown on premarital sex, this can create problems. Further, heterosexual
>couples can have children, homosexuals never can within a homosexual union.
This is NOT a response to what he's just said, it's just a load of
right wingy horseshit. If you're going to hang around amusing us with
your fabulousness, at least *TRY* to remain focussed, darling -
otherwise, drag those knuckles elsewhere.
>2) After what time period? In my parents case, it took 7 years before the
>first child was born, then the second a year later, and the third 5 years after that.
Judging from your mental prowess, I'd say they must have married at
60. AND, my darling, it has *nothing* to do whatsoever with what
David has just said. Focus, sweetie, focus!
>>And of course it goes without saying that many gay and l______ couples do have
>>children, and here in Ontario, the non-biological parent can adopt the child
>>or children, making both parents the legal parents.
> Ah, but by definition, a homosexual or lesbian couple has to go OUTSIDE the
>marriage in order to conceive a child.
Darling, a marriage is not some sort of tool shed you can just pop in
and out of - one does NOT become single simply because they popped out
for a kid.
<David?>
>>Gee, so what we have therefore is a union for the express purpose of creating
>>and raising children in which child support, custody, and divorce become
>>necessary.
>>
>>Finally, marriage has always been considered by the courts to be a basic human
>>right. However if it will make you feel better, I do not accept, even as a
>>premise for argument, that I am entitled to anything less than the full rights
>>and *privileges* granted to heterosexuals. And no, that doesn't mean equally
>>allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex or equally allowed to serve in
>>the armed forces as long as I only have heterosexual relations. That's like
>>saying it's perfectly all right to fire pregnant women from their jobs because
>>all pregnant men would be fired too.
<Numbnuts>
> You can marry a woman anytime you want to, David. Just like any other man.
>In point of fact, the heterosexual society does not approve of homosexual
>marriages at all (polls support this).
Oh dear god, the polls. What polls, darling? Quotes, please. Not
that it would matter - such things can be twisted to say *anything*
one wants them to. If you're trying to reinforce your argument, you'd
be better off just putting your hands over your ears and begin
screaming "I can't hear you!" over and over - it would lend the same
amount of credibility.
> From a legal perspective, if you put the
>"sexual orientation" into the Fed Charter, then this will require the government
>to allow homosexual marriages. However, note two things: 1) this has not been
>done at a federal level and 2) if there weren't tremendous grassroots opposition
>to the idea, don't you think the politcians would approve of homosexual marriages
>in order to appease homosexual voters?
Oh now he's Matlock, darlings! Get lost, you condescending little
asshole - you do NOT speak for anyone but yourself, and all things
considered, that shrill little squeal is far from convincing.
>>No matter how your ilk tries to pretty it up, what it comes down to is you
>>don't like homosexuals and believe you have the right to act on those beliefs
>>whether or not their actions have any consequence to you.
> No, what I don't like is the militant homosexual agenda.
Oh - they've given you a copy, have they? These gross
generalizations, and TOTAL refusal to answer anything directly speak
volumes, darling - shut up and go away.
> You seem to feel that
>society somehow owes you something, and that you should be able to dictate to
>society how the laws of the land will be. You claim to want equality, but what
>you really want is for society to recognize homosexuality as a perfectly normal
>acceptable "alternate lifestyle". It's not going to happen.
What is *really* NOT going to happen is ANYONE being convinced that
you are anything but a bigot and a creep, charging in where you will
NEVER be welcomed, and bursting into a rather banal example of right
wing hysterics. You're an idiot, Eric, really you are. Do yourself a
favour - go find a new phrase of the week and practice your sad little
tantrums somewhere else - you're as transparent as you are vapid - a
true intellectual vacuum.
>Eric Pinnell
And You Really, Really Suck,
Hellokit99
Eric Pinnell wrote:
>But it never ceases to amaze me at the number of<
>liberals who believe THEIR viewpoint is the correct one,<
>and who poo-poo<
Listen, bud, the conservatives are FAR worse at this, and they do a lot
worse than just poo-poo. Moe and Shemp OOPS! I mean, Dole and Kemp, were
in Pittsburgh for a rally yesterday and I went as part of a pro-Democratic
counter-rally. All I was doing was holding a "Clinton/Gore '96" sign up,
and I got pushed, kicked, and spit on. Nice values there, eh?
Sandy
ASGTPR #89
Joey M.
Eric Pinnell wrote:
>
>> You can marry a woman anytime you want to, David. Just like any other man.
>> In point of fact, the heterosexual society does not approve of homosexual
>> "sexual orientation" into the Fed Charter, then this will require the government
>> to allow homosexual marriages.
There were times when polls supported:
1. Slavery
2. Woman disallowed from voting
3. Republicans
Can we honestly say that the majority was right in these situations.
I don't think so. (Oh boy, did I resort to an ad hominy grits attack?
Whatever that is, maybe that's when Flo told Mel to shove off on
*Alice*?)
>> However, note two things: 1) this has not been
>> done at a federal level
Yet. When it does happen, what argument will you use?
> and 2) if there weren't tremendous grassroots opposition
>> to the idea, don't you think the politcians would approve of homosexual marriages
>> in order to appease homosexual voters?
Polls regarding gay marriages are very much against, true. But they
are changing, along with attitudes about every other aspect of gay
rights. Meanwhile, you stand still.
>> No, what I don't like is the militant homosexual agenda. You seem to feel that
>> society somehow owes you something, and that you should be able to dictate to
>> society how the laws of the land will be.
Well, you certainly are perceptive! You're goddamn right society owes
me something. Mainly - the same respect, trust and understanding it
gives heteros. And as long as "society" refuses, our agenda will
continue to be Militant (whatever the fuck that means - Visible?
Angry? Logical?).
Personally, I wouldn't THINK of dictating how the laws of the land
should be, Eric, between you and the rest of the Right doing it so
well, I really don't think that I or the rest of the homosexuals would
get a word in edge-wise.
>>You claim to want equality, but what
>> you really want is for society to recognize homosexuality as a perfectly normal
>> acceptable "alternate lifestyle".
Right. "Affirm me, Eric!" That's exactly it, we're all just bored
and self-conscious. Why didn't I see that?
>It's not going to happen.
Actually, yes it will. All those Young Republican Meet-N-Greets have
lulled you into a really false sense of Christian security. An
entertaining one, at any rate...
Michael S Ritchie
In article <32192fd...@news.wwa.com>, Joey M. <Joey> wrote:
Eric Pinnell wrote:
>>No, what I don't like is the militant homosexual agenda.
>
>All those Young Republican Meet-N-Greets have
>lulled you into a really false sense of Christian security. An
>entertaining one, at any rate...
As David has been kind enough to show us, in a separate thread
called "Bastion of Heterosexual Morality" (or something close),
Eric's hateful little meetings seem to be taking place at the
raunchiest strip clubs in Toronto. He lets us know that he was man
enough to hang around even during some S&M stuff that drove lesser
Young Christian Men out of the club pronto. In the same thread, Eric
gives advice about the building of a "dildo fucking machine"
(Thanks, Eric, but I already have one; it's called "my left hand";
unless, of course, I misunderstand him and he's talking about
fucking a dildo, in which case all I have to say is, "Huhhh??").
Eric, if you're *really* interested in discussing dildos (dildoes?),
S&M, golden showers, and such, you've finally found the right group
right here!
--M.
Morgan Dhu
epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) wrote:
<lots of stuff snipped>
> No, what I don't like is the militant homosexual agenda. You seem to feel that
>society somehow owes you something, and that you should be able to dictate to
>society how the laws of the land will be. You claim to want equality, but what
>you really want is for society to recognize homosexuality as a perfectly normal
>acceptable "alternate lifestyle". It's not going to happen.
Has it not yet occurred to persons who spout nonsense like this that
when one wants equality, that means being able to live one's own life
in peace just as anyone else does. That means not having the state
check out one's sweetheart's gender to see if you can be a licenced
couple. That means being able to assume legal parenthood for all
children brought into one's family, regardless of the biological
source of the sperm or ova involved. These things are not a *militant
homosexual agenda*. They constitute equal rights in the arena of
family law!
Arrgggghhhhhhhh!
--Morgan Dhu, who normally doesn't get this serious, but some things
are worth breaking character for.
Jimbo
Craig Smith
epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) wrote:
> What I don't like is the militant homosexual agenda. You seem to feel that
> society somehow owes you something, and that you should be able to dictate to
> society how the laws of the land will be. You claim to want equality, but what
> you really want is for society to recognize homosexuality as a perfectly normal
> acceptable "alternate lifestyle". It's not going to happen.
>
> Eric Pinnell
No, what you prefer, Eric m'boy, is the S and M agenda. Sadomasochism
is hardly a more acceptable "alternate lifestyle" than a homosexual
orientation.
The gig is up, Eric. We're outing you as the S/M freak you are (see
David's posts re: Eric's secret predilections elsewhere in a.s.g.).
Craig
who hates intolerance, but hates hypocrisy even more
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Rev. Craig R. Smith (ULC), ASGTPR#23
(aka Maito Sewa Yoleme, aka El Milador de Milagros)
"Falling Tits-over-Teacups into the Unknown Since 1955"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bill Slattery
> > Once again you resort to ad hominem attacks. The real trouble
> > with liberals is that they have a certain intellectual snobbishness.
> > They believe that the masses are nothing more than peasents, and require
> > mollycoddling by the leftist intellectual elite.
> > Of course, anyone who makes a lot of money (by say, starting a
> > business) is of course, THE ENEMY. Perhaps it is because those who
> > have made a success of their life make a mockery of the entire liberal
> > agenda. Or perhaps it's because wealth is power.
> >
> > Eric Pinnell
> (epi...@ibm.net)
>
Gregg P.
Eric Pinnell (epi...@ibm.net) wrote:
[a bunch of half-baked, pinheaded, homophobic, faux-religious, childish,
poorly conceived, badly executed points that featured his recently
purchased Latin-phrase-of-the-day, "ad hominem" prominently, albeit used
incorrectly. These points have been removed as they were overshadowed so
completely by Eric's biggest point, that being the one on his head.
Please note that, while most people look foolish with a big, pointed head,
in Eric's case it does a very nice job of keeping that pointy white hood
he wears standing at attention during all of those fashionable Klan
meetings. So, it's refreshing to see that not only does he actually
*have* a point, he's managed to find a way to put it to good use.]
Hello Fellow ASGers,
As one of the few, the proud, the straight minority among the ASG
regulars, I appeal to other straights hereabouts to back me up on this.
Eric may be straight, but WE DON'T WANT HIM.
I propose a vote whereby we can immediately revoke his Straight People
Every Where (SPEW -- I know it's clumsy, but it works...) membership.
There's no time to waste! If we revoke his membership *now* he will be
forced to follow his own rules about marriage and reproduction, thereby
rendering himself incapable of reproducing and getting those nasty little
ignorance-and-hate genes out of the gene pool before it's too late.
And besides, without his SPEW membership card, he won't be able to get
into those strip clubs and SM/BD strip shows up there in Canada where he
tries so desperately to suffocate the raging need for touch of a big,
hairy, sweat-stinking *man* that threatens to consume him. It'll only be
a matter of time before he's cruising alt.sex.construction-workers....
-- Gregg P. (reminding you to vote early and vote often)
-- ASGTPR#71
-- Official ASG Media Whore
NBlomgren
Eric Pinnell
In <3217b0ba...@news.wwa.com>, jmb...@wwa.com (Joey M.) writes:
>> I don't think Dole is such a great man. However, Clinton is a lying untrustworthy
>>weasel. I wouldn't vote for him.
>
>True, but we aren't talking about each man individually, rather whole
>parties. Clinton will never vie for the "Honorable & Ethical" ribbon
>and the Dems will never be the perfect party, but compared those kooky
>Repubs, they're a nation of Gandhi's.
>
reason. If you believe that the Democratic agenda is the better one, you should
vote for a Democratic congressman or Senator, since it is the Congress that
controls the legislative process.
>> The term "basic human rights" is a misnomer. If you are talking about the right
>>for homosexuals to marry, then the answer is no, this is not a right. It is a
>>privilege.
>
>> And traditionally, while many societies have tolerated homosexuality and/or
>>bisexuality (vis Romans, Greeks), not one has allowed for homosexual "marriages".
>
>Not true. There is mounting evidence that many ancient societies DID
>allow gay marriages. Turn off Rush for a second and actually think
>about what you type.
Name one.
>
>>The argument being, I suppose that the purpose of marriage is to provide a social
>>and economic union for the express purpose of creating and raising children.
>> Since a homosexual couple, is, by defintion, incapable of bearing children within
>>the group, then marriage is not required. Whether or not there is "commitment" or
>>a need for staying together over long periods of time is not relevant. As there
>>are no children, there is nothing preventing a homosexual couple of splitting up
>>at any time (other than, of course, the emotional factor). In the case of
>>a married man and woman, you may have childern (hence child support, divorce
>>laws, etc).
>
>Big, big problems with this argument.
>
>1. No one bothers to ask straight couples, when they are about to get
>married, if they plan to bear children. It's assumed. Yet many
>choose not to. Should said marriages be annulled (like the Dole's)?
While there are some straight couples that choose not to bear children,
they are biologically capable of doing so.
>
>2. Gays can and do bear children. They also (you may want to sit
>down for this one, Eric) raise them rather well.
No. Gays can't bear children unless they go outside of the marriage for either
a sperm donor or a rent a womb.
>
>3. What we are REALLY talking about here is how the American Govt.
>should view marriage - Christian vs. Secular.
>
>If they choose to view it in Christian terms, not only are they in
>great danger of violating separation of Church and State, several
>alarming hypocrisies emerge. If the Govt. is to deny recognition of
>gay unions allowing to a strict Christian view of marriage, why is
>divorce allowed? Didn't the Bible point out quite clearly that
>divorce was considered adultery? And isn't adultery a pretty big sin?
>The Bible also comes down pretty harshly on premarital sex,
>interracial marriage, birth control, etc. If gays are going to be
>denied marriage for Christian moral reasoning, why the double
>standard? Enforce those values across the board. Which results in
>the Govt. basically laying down moral judgement on everything we do.
>I don't want that, and I should think neither do you.
I do not view it as a Christian issue. Of course, not being a devout Christian,
I'm the wrong one to ask. Traditionally, all societies have had some sort of
marriage ceremony, binding man and woman together in both civil and religious
unions.
>
>If they choose to view it in Secular terms (man-and-woman unions
>maintain the status quo, it's how it's always been), they are in great
>danger of discriminating on basis of gender.
How is there discrimination? Since any man can marry any woman, there is
no gender discrimination.
> One must come up with a
>logical, factual argument why the State has a compelling interest to
>deny the recognition, which arguers against gay marriage do not have.
>All they can do is merely fall back on the same, tired "It's immoral,
>destructive to the "Family", don't want to codone any icky behavior"
>arguments they use for just about anything to do with gays.
Simple. Homosexual marriages do not provide the benefits to the society
that a heterosexual marriage does. Of course, if you believe that it is not
important to encourage the creation of the next generation of human beings,
the marriage has no real significance except for community property. And then
there's the issue of a child's right to have both a father and mother. Should a
child be told that no one knows who his or her father is, because it was done
from a random sample at a sperm bank?
>You know, I kinda like it up here on this soapbox. Nice view.
Such is the power of the Internet.
Eric Pinnell
Gregg P.
Eric Pinhead (epi...@ibm.net) blathered:
: In <4vck1f$k...@herald.concentric.net>, Gre...@cris.com (Gregg P.) writes:
: >Eric Pinnell (epi...@ibm.net) wrote:
: >
: >[a bunch of half-baked, pinheaded, homophobic, faux-religious, childish,
: >poorly conceived, badly executed points that featured his recently
: >purchased Latin-phrase-of-the-day, "ad hominem" prominently, albeit used
: >incorrectly. These points have been removed as they were overshadowed so
: >completely by Eric's biggest point, that being the one on his head.
: My, spoken like a true intellectual.
Well, let's see: in *my* dictionary, intellectualism is defined as
"devotion to the exercise of intellect or to intellectual pursuits" or,
in more simple terms (wouldn't want to confuse you *too* much -- the whole
concept of intellectualism seems to have thrown you for a definite loop
already) "given to using your brain." Yeah, I do that on occasion.
Also, an intellectual is someone that is "chiefly guided my the intellect
rather than by emotion." Again, in simple words with not *too* many
syllables, this roughly translates to "uses his/her brain to examine
things rather than just babbling incoherently about what they feel is
right or wrong." Well, OK, that is a bit of a rough translation, but I
think it's close enough. Anyhow, I guess I've been known to do *that* on
occasion, too.
Well, apparently intellectuals are defined in your dictionary as "anyone
that disagrees with me and that can express themselves better than I can"?
If so, thanks! I guess I'm an intellectual (although if I were to
apply just *your* definition the average Border Collie would qualify
for Cambridge. But we digress...).
: >Please note that, while most people look foolish with a big, pointed head,
: >in Eric's case it does a very nice job of keeping that pointy white hood
: >he wears standing at attention during all of those fashionable Klan
: >meetings. So, it's refreshing to see that not only does he actually
: >*have* a point, he's managed to find a way to put it to good use.]
: >
: >Hello Fellow ASGers,
: >
: >As one of the few, the proud, the straight minority among the ASG
: >regulars, I appeal to other straights hereabouts to back me up on this.
: >
: >Eric may be straight, but WE DON'T WANT HIM.
: No, *YOU* don't want me. Too bad. I'm here to stay. You can either read
: my posts or not. Respond to them or not. But for a liberal, you
: really do seem to have a problem with freedom of expression.
Y'know, Eric, for someone with such an inflated (and unjustified) opinion
of themselves, you have the most astonishing way of completely missing the
point.
You see, the "we don't want him" bit was being spoken from the point of
view of lots of straight people that are deeply embarrassed by people like
*you*. You make us look bad. We don't want to be associated with you on
any level. You're an ill-informed, ignorant irritant with little to bring
into any level-headed discussion besides opinions that serve only to make
you look desperate. You don't discuss or listen to opposing argument, you
just spout your opinions again and again. If you actually managed to
construct a reasonable and well thought out argument that defended your
opinion then I (and others here) would respect and consider) your
opinions. You're not the first "conservative" to go this route on ASG,
but there are others that have managed to approach this issue without
making a complete horse's ass of themselves.
Anyhow, as for your being "here to stay," what can I say? I'm thrilled!
You make so many of the other folks here look so good in comparison.
Everyone's style and wit quotient just went up a few points -- thanks for
contributing to the curve.
: What can I say? This from a man who admits he's a "whore".
I imagine this was meant to be clever or something, but let's just write
it off as another example of you trying desperately to make some sort of
statement and failing miserably. I think this is what you'd like to refer
to as an "ad hominem" attack -- which, incidentally, isn't quite the same
thing as out-and-out name calling, which is what you seem to think it
means. Just a friendly clarification from your favorite "intellectual"
"liberal" "whore."
-- Gregg P.
-- ASGTPR#71
-- Official ASG Media Whore (in other words, someone that will do anything
to get ASG or their own name in print. It goes back to an interview I
gave relating to ASG and it grew from there. So, it's a little ASG
in-joke you see: of course, not nearly the joke *you're* becoming, but at
least it's got some history...)
Eric Pinnell
In <4vck1f$k...@herald.concentric.net>, Gre...@cris.com (Gregg P.) writes:
>Eric Pinnell (epi...@ibm.net) wrote:
>
>[a bunch of half-baked, pinheaded, homophobic, faux-religious, childish,
>poorly conceived, badly executed points that featured his recently
>purchased Latin-phrase-of-the-day, "ad hominem" prominently, albeit used
>incorrectly. These points have been removed as they were overshadowed so
>completely by Eric's biggest point, that being the one on his head.
My, spoken like a true intellectual.
>Please note that, while most people look foolish with a big, pointed head,
>in Eric's case it does a very nice job of keeping that pointy white hood
>he wears standing at attention during all of those fashionable Klan
>meetings. So, it's refreshing to see that not only does he actually
>*have* a point, he's managed to find a way to put it to good use.]
>
>Hello Fellow ASGers,
>
>As one of the few, the proud, the straight minority among the ASG
>regulars, I appeal to other straights hereabouts to back me up on this.
>
>Eric may be straight, but WE DON'T WANT HIM.
No, *YOU* don't want me. Too bad. I'm here to stay. You can either read
my posts or not. Respond to them or not. But for a liberal, you really do seem
to have a problem with freedom of expression.
>
>I propose a vote whereby we can immediately revoke his Straight People
>Every Where (SPEW -- I know it's clumsy, but it works...) membership.
>There's no time to waste! If we revoke his membership *now* he will be
>forced to follow his own rules about marriage and reproduction, thereby
>rendering himself incapable of reproducing and getting those nasty little
>ignorance-and-hate genes out of the gene pool before it's too late.
>
>And besides, without his SPEW membership card, he won't be able to get
>into those strip clubs and SM/BD strip shows up there in Canada where he
>tries so desperately to suffocate the raging need for touch of a big,
>hairy, sweat-stinking *man* that threatens to consume him. It'll only be
>a matter of time before he's cruising alt.sex.construction-workers....
>
>-- Gregg P. (reminding you to vote early and vote often)
>-- ASGTPR#71
>-- Official ASG Media Whore
>
What can I say? This from a man who admits he's a "whore".
Eric Pinnell
Dezbot
In article <4v7nd7$4f...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net (Eric
Pinnell) writes: >>>Because in the case of Bush, no evidence of wrongdoing
was ever found. In the case of Clinton, we have his intimate friends who
have been convicted.
Indeed there may yet be an indictment of Clinton.<<
oh give it a rest! the American people have shown an overwhelming
indifference to Whitewhatever. just like we don't care about what that
moistened bint, Paula "I- swear-I'm-not-a-Repiglican-puppet" Jones, has to
say. Gingrich, Dole, and their cronies are a bunch of blithering
brain-cramps, IMNERHO.
dez
contentedly watching a Discovery channel special on leopards and
pretending that every animal they rip to shreds is Pat Buchanan........
"and you will know my name is the Lord when i lay my vengeance upon
thee!"--Jules in _Pulp Fiction_
a pistol-hot cup of Dez....
Marla Brunker
Paul DG <pdelg...@pbs.org> writes:
>As a recovering Catholic, I take solace in the notion that the only sexual
>activity officially sanctioned by the Church is sex in the missionary
>position for reproductive purposes _only_. Now, you tell me that Pat
>Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert (oops!
>I guess I shouldn't have mentioned him!) and the others _never_ have sex
>for pleasure or _never_ engage in oral sex or _never_ use contraception or
>_never_ secretly do their wives doggy style in the back of their station
>wagons while at a Heritage Foundation family picnic? I think not.
Actually, with the exception of Swaggart, I have trouble
imagining any of these people taking pleasure in this sort of activity -
yes, I think they're THAT perverse. And therefore incapable of recognizing
what a good thing it is, how it stabilizes and fertilizes our relationships
(and by extension, our society), and how much most people resent their
most innocent enjoyments being characterized as improper.
They've had the GOP by the short-and-curlies for 16 years
now, but I suspect that, come next election, the Republicans may
recognise what a liability the religious right has become.
David Migicovsky
In article <4vd7c4$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dez...@aol.com (Dezbot) opined to the huddled masses:
>In article <3217b0ba...@news.wwa.com>, jmb...@wwa.com (Joey M.)
>writes:
>
>>You know, I kinda like it up here on this soapbox. Nice view.
>
>a conniption fit and condemns you to hell--again ;)
>
>dez
>wondering if fig leaves grow big enough to cover those magnificent 8-1/2"
>of Joey's :)~~~~
>
Well it certainly won't be Eric. He just *loves* public nudity.
-=JR=-
In article <4vd4u0$4a...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net says...
> What can I say? This from a man who admits he's a "whore".
>
>Eric Pinnell
Ah, but his toes remain un thudded!
NBlomgren
epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) wrote:
>In <4v86eh$k...@nw101.infi.net>, NBlomgren <nb...@nc5.infi.net> writes:
>>
>>And prayer isn't banned in school -- only prayer organized by school
>>officials. Private prayer, or those organized by individuals is indeed
>>protected, and even the ACLU has come to the defense of these exercises of
>>religion.
>
> Not strictly true. A recent Supreme Court decision upheld the right of a school
>to ban a group of students from organizing a prayer meeting after school but
>using the school facilities.
Could you provide a citation for that? I'm not sure what case you're
referring to -- generally a ruling like this will come down if there is a
determination that the school district is "excessively entangled" in the
prayer meeting -- usually translated to mean that there is some indication
that the school administration is sanctioning it, rather than simply
providing a space.
>
>>
>>My question to you is this: How would you solve the practical problem of
>>not having the State promote a particular religion WITHOUT having a
>>separation of Church and State?
>>
>
> It's easy. Since the state cannot enact a law prohibiting or establishing a
>religion, it need not get involved in religious affairs. If a given school wants to
>have a "Christian Prayer Day" it can, as long is it is prepared to have a "Muslim
>Prayer Day" or a "Jewish Prayer Day" or a "Buddhist Prayer Day".
But then isn't this getting involved in religious affairs, if for no
other reason than it is promoting belief in a supreme being? And how many
parents do you think would stand by while their children are asked to pray
to a god not their own? Or maybe I'm missing your point.
And I don't think it's the Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists clamoring for
organized prayer in schools -- identifying oneself as other than the
mainstream religion can be extremely dangerous in many parts of the
country -- which is exactly the reason Jefferson and Madison were so hotly
against the state sanctioning religion. (Note, too, that the First
Amendment to the Bill of Rights was insisted upon by "conservatives,"
especially the religious, as a way of keeping religion untainted by
politics.)
It also misses the point that prayer for many people isn't something for
public consumption -- several of my Christian friends take Christ's words
to heart when he said that prayer is to be private (Matt 6:6-15), or among
a group of believers (several episodes when Christ and his followers
retire to pray). They believe public prayer in civic settings to be
unbiblical.
So it isn't that simple, after all.
nb
Dezbot
>You know, I kinda like it up here on this soapbox. Nice view.
yeah, but you really should put some clothes on before some Republican has
a conniption fit and condemns you to hell--again ;)
dez
wondering if fig leaves grow big enough to cover those magnificent 8-1/2"
of Joey's :)~~~~
"and you will know my name is the Lord when i lay my vengeance upon
Papaleonardos
In article <4vd4pf$4a...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
Eric Pinnell <epi...@ibm.net> wrote:
[bunch o' stupid crap snipped]
>>1. No one bothers to ask straight couples, when they are about to get
>>married, if they plan to bear children. It's assumed. Yet many
>>choose not to. Should said marriages be annulled (like the Dole's)?
>
> While there are some straight couples that choose not to bear children,
>they are biologically capable of doing so.
Should sterile heteros be barred from marrying? I.e., *IF* Tom Cruise were
straight, and *IF* he shot blanks, by your argument he should not be allowed to
marry Nicole?
>>2. Gays can and do bear children. They also (you may want to sit
>>down for this one, Eric) raise them rather well.
>
> No. Gays can't bear children unless they go outside of the marriage for ei
ther
>a sperm donor or a rent a womb.
So what? Quite a few heteros also have to go outside of the marriage for sperm
or ova. No one said they shouldn't be allowed to get married.
>> One must come up with a
>>logical, factual argument why the State has a compelling interest to
>>deny the recognition, which arguers against gay marriage do not have.
>>All they can do is merely fall back on the same, tired "It's immoral,
>>destructive to the "Family", don't want to codone any icky behavior"
>>arguments they use for just about anything to do with gays.
As you can all see below, he can't come up with a logical, factual argument
for why the state has a compelling interest against gay marriage.
> Simple. Homosexual marriages do not provide the benefits to the society
>that a heterosexual marriage does.
Sure they do. It provides stability for the individuals involved and
contributes to social stability. It can provide loving homes to raise
children. [A year or so ago, I recall reading an article in NYT or WP about
children raised in gay families; in the last 20 years or so, quite a large
number of children have been raised in gay/l______ families, so we can now look
at them to see what were the results. And guess what? These
gay/l______-raised children were indistinguishable in nearly all regards in
terms of psychological makeup, socioeconomic success, educational attainment,
even sexual orientation - the old homophobic fears that gay parents leads to
gay children appear to be baseless, as the % of gays or l______s among these
children was about 7-8%. There was only one significant way in which these
gay/l______-raised kids differed from kids raised in straight households: they
wre significantly more tolerant and less bigoted than their straight-raised
counterparts.]
>Of course, if you believe that it is not important to encourage the creation
>of the next generation of human beings, the marriage has no real significance
>except for community property.
Sure it does! Ever notice why your auto insurance goes down when you get
married? It's because when two people commit to each other in a legally-
binding and socially recognized union, they tend to become more mature. They
settle down, become more productive workers, drive more carefully, become more
involved in community, etc. In short, they are a lesser risk than unmarried
folks. (And notice how the same insurance company doesn't even ask if you have
children?)
>And then there's the issue of a child's right to have both a father and
>mother. Should a child be told that no one knows who his or her father is,
>because it was done from a random sample at a sperm bank?
I assume the same applies to the straight couple with infertile husband or wife
who is not biologically capable of reproduction and who must resort to using
donated eggs or sperm... Or to the adopted child who may never know her "true
parents"... Or to the child of a single mother who may not know who his father
is... Just what exactly is your point?
BTW, donating a cell does not a parent make. My dad is not my father 'caused
he fucked my mother and got her pregnant; he's my father because he raised me,
cared for me, loved me.
I'm sure that Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher's [is that her name?] child
will grow up with 2 loving parents in a warm and supportive household. That's
more than can be said for the children of many a straight couple whose kids
are the results of busted condoms or accidents resulting from raging hormones
with no thought for consequences, etc.
>You know, I kinda like it up here on this soapbox. Nice view.
Don't get dizzy, you're in for a big fall.
>Such is the power of the Internet.
>
>Eric Pinnell
Chris
Eric Pinnell
In <4v86eh$k...@nw101.infi.net>, NBlomgren <nb...@nc5.infi.net> writes:
>
>And prayer isn't banned in school -- only prayer organized by school
>officials. Private prayer, or those organized by individuals is indeed
>protected, and even the ACLU has come to the defense of these exercises of
>religion.
Not strictly true. A recent Supreme Court decision upheld the right of a school
to ban a group of students from organizing a prayer meeting after school but
using the school facilities.
>
>My question to you is this: How would you solve the practical problem of
>not having the State promote a particular religion WITHOUT having a
>separation of Church and State?
>
It's easy. Since the state cannot enact a law prohibiting or establishing a
religion, it need not get involved in religious affairs. If a given school wants to
have a "Christian Prayer Day" it can, as long is it is prepared to have a "Muslim
Prayer Day" or a "Jewish Prayer Day" or a "Buddhist Prayer Day".
Eric Pinnell
JanetSpncr
In article <4vd4u0$4a...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net (Eric
Pinnell) writes:
>>-- Gregg P. (reminding you to vote early and vote often)
>>-- ASGTPR#71
>>-- Official ASG Media Whore
>>
> What can I say? This from a man who admits he's a "whore".
Do you have a problem with whores? The sex industry wouldn't exist if it
weren't for folks like yourself - after all, you are an avid consumer of
strip shows and who knows what else! And besides, I'm sure that whores
would much rather claim Gregg among their numbers than you.
Janet (who isn't quite a "whore" herself....but who has an awful lot in
common with them)
================================================
For more information about me and my line of dungeon gear, check out my
website at: http://www.webcom.com/jspencer/store/.
Email me if you'd like to receive my email newsletter - it's fun *and*
informative!
Janet Spencer: A controlled flight from reality in Boston MA.
Melody Clark
Gregg P. wrote:
>
> Eric Pinnell (epi...@ibm.net) wrote:
>
> [a bunch of half-baked, pinheaded, homophobic, faux-religious, childish,
> poorly conceived, badly executed points that featured his recently
> purchased Latin-phrase-of-the-day, "ad hominem" prominently, albeit used
> incorrectly. These points have been removed as they were overshadowed so
> completely by Eric's biggest point, that being the one on his head.
LOL, Greggy! Good one!
<Gregg's other wonderful points snipped for brevity>
> Hello Fellow ASGers,
>
> As one of the few, the proud, the straight minority among the ASG
> regulars, I appeal to other straights hereabouts to back me up on this.
>
> Eric may be straight, but WE DON'T WANT HIM.
>
> I propose a vote whereby we can immediately revoke his Straight People
> Every Where (SPEW -- I know it's clumsy, but it works...) membership.
> There's no time to waste! If we revoke his membership *now* he will be
> forced to follow his own rules about marriage and reproduction, thereby
> rendering himself incapable of reproducing and getting those nasty little
> ignorance-and-hate genes out of the gene pool before it's too late.
Well, I'm straight and perpendicular, but I'll cast my vote anyway. I
second Eric's revocation of his SPEW rights. All in favor?
>
> And besides, without his SPEW membership card, he won't be able to get
> into those strip clubs and SM/BD strip shows up there in Canada where he
> tries so desperately to suffocate the raging need for touch of a big,
> hairy, sweat-stinking *man* that threatens to consume him. It'll only be
> a matter of time before he's cruising alt.sex.construction-workers....
Whilst listening to his complete recordings of the Village People
(1974-1981, their seminal...<g>...period)
Rev. Melody "Runs with Scissors" Clark
asgtpr#237
po' white trailer trash/Native American/ordained minister in the ULC
David Migicovsky
In article <pdelgrosso-20...@pbs10407.pbs.org>, pdelg...@pbs.org (Paul DG) opined to the huddled masses:
>As long as the religious right feels they are entitled to dictate how the
>government will run, plenty of others, including gay advocates will be
>around to provide a different perspective. Welcome to democracy. The
>main difference between the two groups, however, is the Bill of Rights and
>our judicial system, which both prevent discrimination. For this reason,
>the tide is against you and your ilk, Eric. You may be able to enjoy the
>discriminatory practices against gays for the rest of your lifetime, but
>your children will see a different and better world. I have no doubt they
>will.
>
>--Paul
Assuming he ever gets out of the strip club long enough to reproduce.
deering
Eric Pinnell (epi...@ibm.net) wrote:
: Once again you resort to ad hominem attacks. The real trouble with
: liberals
: is that they have a certain intellectual snobbishness. They believe that the
: masses are nothing more than peasents, and require mollycoddling by the
: leftist intellectual elite.
Now, now--lamebrain generalizations aren't helping your already
weak-as-dirt, inconsistent case one bit.
: Of course, anyone who makes a lot of money (by say, starting a business)
is
: of course, THE ENEMY. Perhaps it is because those who have made a success
: of their life make a mockery of the entire liberal agenda. Or perhaps
it's because
: wealth is power.
No--perhaps it's because too many of those who have made a "success" of
their lives/made a lot of money see that as a license to abuse the power
that gives them over people in order to hoard more money. And perhaps it
is because they and people who support them think that the
accumulation of wealth should set the standards for _everything_,
including moral and ethical discourse.
As much as too many rich conservatives (and liberals) hate to admit it,
having
money does not give one the "priviledge" of holing up from the rest of the
world and acting like what one does doesn't affect other people. The
Republicans, however, have failed to convince anyone that they even have a
_clue_ about this basic reality--much less that they care how this
attitude affects the national sense of communities and values they claim
to cherish so dern much.
C.
**
Zorak
Eric Pinnell wrote:
> >2. Gays can and do bear children. They also (you may want to sit
> >down for this one, Eric) raise them rather well.
>
> No. Gays can't bear children unless they go outside of the marriage for either
> a sperm donor or a rent a womb.
As is also the situation with many infertile straight couples. Are you
insinuating that they also shouldn't be allowed to marry since they have
to "go outside of the marriage" to procreate?
> How is there discrimination? Since any man can marry any woman, there is
> no gender discrimination.
Unless, of course, your wish is to marry a person of your own gender.
> Homosexual marriages do not provide the benefits to the society
> that a heterosexual marriage does.
Well, oh great and powerful Oz, *you* obviously know all.
*You* know what best benefits society, *you* know who should be able to
be legally married, *you* know what the best situation is for raising
children, etc., etc.
So tell me, what's it like having delusions of grandeur? Is it a real
power trip or is it a horrifying feeling of inadequacy which
necessitates overcompensation?
> And then
> there's the issue of a child's right to have both a father and mother. Should a
> child be told that no one knows who his or her father is, because it was done
> from a random sample at a sperm bank?
So you obviously have a problem with single mothers too. In addition,
your objections according to your logic ("a child's right to have both a
father and mother") would also include divorcees -- since some will have
no contact with the fathers of their children.
Why do I think that the only type of person you don't have an issue with
is someone exactly like you?
- Kathy, ASGTPR #79
PaulX
On 20 Aug 1996 19:50:24 GMT, epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) wrote:
>In <4vck1f$k...@herald.concentric.net>, Gre...@cris.com (Gregg P.) writes:
>>Eric Pinnell (epi...@ibm.net) wrote:
>>Eric may be straight, but WE DON'T WANT HIM.
>
> No, *YOU* don't want me. Too bad. I'm here to stay. You can either read
>my posts or not. Respond to them or not. But for a liberal, you really do seem
>to have a problem with freedom of expression.
>
Well, Eric as another straight man let me say I don't want you either.
You're an embarrassment to heterosexuals. It's not a problem with
freedom of expression, it's just that you whine too much. Always the
victim . . . the liberals did this to me . . . the dominant liberal
media did that to me . . . always has to blame every percieved problem
on the those awful nameless, facelss liberals . . . can't take any
personal responsiblity. "I'm over taxed" . . . "I'm over regulated"
.. . . stop the goddamn whining and deal with it you little wimp.
PaulX (a heterosexual)
Marc Lostracco
In article <4vd4pf$4a...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net (Eric
Pinnell) wrote:
> Simple. Homosexual marriages do not provide the benefits to the society
> that a heterosexual marriage does. Of course, if you believe that it
> is not important to encourage the creation of the next generation of
> human beings, the marriage has no real significance except for community
> property.
We live on a planet that has become vastly overcrowded, to the point that
we are overusing our resources. Normally, natural selection would take
care of this problems with diseases and death, but humans have discovered
ways of living longer and fighting sickness. THIS IS NOT NATURAL. Don't
use a stupid argument of "benefits to society" unless you are willing to
forgo the "benefits" of medical science or resource-depleting technology.
Human beings will *always* procreate, and human beings will always sleep
with whomever they wish.
> And then there's the issue of a child's right to have both a father
> and mother. Should a child be told that no one knows who his or her
> father is, because it was done from a random sample at a sperm bank?
As an adopted person, I take particular offense to this. I don't know who
my biological father or mother are. A child has *no more right* to both a
father and a mother than he does to be born healthy into an affluent
household without the risk of violence, hatered, or the parents ever
divorcing. I would rather a child be born or placed into a home where his
or her guardians provide love, serenity, support, and understanding.
*That's* what children have rights to, not the sex of his or her
guardians.
--
Marc Lostracco | If you fake the funk,
ef...@interlog.com | Your nose will grow.
www.interlog.com/~efar | - George Clinton
Eric Pinnell
In <321864...@qnet.com>, Melody Clark <mel...@qnet.com> writes:
>Certain segments of the American south didn't believe in the humanity of
>blacks either, just a few decades ago. The concept of democracy is
>*not* about up-holding the bully pulpit of the masses...that's
>communism. Democracy is *supposed* to be about protecting individuals
>from the totalitarian mind of the majority.
Wrong. Democracy is about consensus. One man = 1 vote, majority rules.
>
>Happily, evolution tends to suppress those who oppose diversity, and to
>uphold diversity. Bigots limit themselves with their own backward
>beliefs.
What does genetic diversity have to do with bigotry? Oops, sorry, yet another
liberal ad hominem attack to cover up weak debating skills.
>
>Again, how does the right of an individual to marry the person of
>her/his choosing have *anything* to do with you? Are you now going to
>go around and stomp out all the people your religion disagrees with? A
>good number of people think Jewish people killed Jesus...should we then
>espouse second class citizenship for them?
Do not confuse the rights of the individual with what best serves a society's
interests. And what does this have to do with religion? You're wandering all
over the map here.
>Excuse me? What about the militant heterosexual fascism which your
>arguments support? Why is it you feel society owes *you* a special
>place, and that you not only have the right to tell private citizens how
>they should live, but you also the right to dictate that all laws follow
>according to your narrow-minded religious beliefs?
You're hysterical. First you call me a fascist, and then talk to me about
my religious beliefs, which, quite frankly, I don't have (i suppose I'm somewhere
between agnostic and atheist).
>
>Spoken like a good 1920's southerner about integration... And look what
>happened.
>
>Melody
>
>"This nation is in no manner based upon the Christian religion."
> George Washington
>"I can find in orthodox Christianity not one redeeming feature."
> Thomas Jefferson
More ad hominem. Plus demeaning Christianity. Gee, if I didn't know better,
I'd say you were pretty prejudiced, Melody.
Eric Pinnell
Patricia Greig
All from (epi...@ibm.net) writes:
> In <4v7qbu$c...@news.interlog.com>, dmig...@interlog.com.see.sig.for.proper.email (David Migicovsky) writes:
>>>
>>> I'm a Canadian too ;-)
>>
> Sorry, I'm still living in Canada.
>>>
>>
> My. Once again, the liberals resort to the ad hominem attack because their
> debating skills suck. Let's try to keep this civil.
The word 'liberal' is an adjective, meaning, among other twists
and turns, 'abundant; giving freely; generous; open-minded; (of studies)
general broadening of mind; (Politics) favouring moderate reforms'.
There appears to be nothing shameful or slanderous in the word.
Doubtless you are aware that the governing party in Canada is
Liberal, although the party itself has gone through many incarnations
over its history. One would defy you to point to them as a illustration
of the above definition. Their fiscal policies have been even more
restrained than those of the Conservatives that preceeded them.
This is alt.showbiz.gossip, and contained within this group
are people from a multitude of backgrounds and opinion. Many in this
newsgroup have been more than civil towards you. Your writing is lazy,
with heavy emphasis on a few pet phrases to carry your sentences
through and underline your points.
One day, gay couples, women and men, will simply take a copy
of a marriage contract to a family law solicitor, and draw up a copy
for themselves, with subtle wording changes to reflect their situations.
A contract, in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, 'til
death do them part. Those that wish such a contract, that stability,
that "mowing the lawn/propane barbeque" life, will have it.
"It is very tiring making yourself important." - Victoria dels Angels
Centre of the Known Universe
Du...@msn.com (Christopher & Hollie Myers) wrote:
>This is completely off-topic, but I have been lurking here for a few
>weeks, being completely entertained by all these posts, well, *most*
>of them, especially all of your trailer park humor! I have to say
>that I now know what I want to be when I grow up. I want to be just
>like LCM, "Centre of the Known Universe". Please, tell me, do you
>accept Ladies in Waiting, or shall I just worship at your feet in
>blind adoration? How can anyone match wits with you? I am truly
>impressed. I thank you and your TP neighbors for the hours of
>entertainment!
>Hollie
Bravo, sweetie - you've already learned an important ASG lesson - when
faced with a choice between endless troll posts and flying wildly
off-topic, break open the Stoli and flap them darling wings! As for
Ladies in Waiting, I've been meaning to suggest this my very own self
- except we would be Sweetiedarlings In Waiting for our own dear
Princess. *She* is the one we should be really be bowing for - I
simply fumble about in my horrific yet platformed manner, but she's
the one true Pinkness. And thank you for the compliment, darling -
it's made a good day fabulous!
Big Hugs! (And drop me a note any old time at all, sweetie!)
LCM
Centre of the Known Universe
"A ray of sunshine amidst all this melanoma."
LCM - Mid-Bolly-Stoli, 1996
ASGTRP#01 & Co-Welcome Wagoneer
Marla Brunker
Melody Clark <mel...@qnet.com> writes:
>Eric Pinnell wrote:
>
>> You can marry a woman anytime you want to, David. Just like any other man.
I don't suppose it's occured to Eric that heterosexuality might
be something women usually consider to be a minimal requirement in a
husband.
Michael S Ritchie
In article <4vck1f$k...@herald.concentric.net>,
Gregg P. <Gre...@cris.com> wrote:
>Eric Pinnell (epi...@ibm.net) wrote:
>
>[a bunch of half-baked, pinheaded, homophobic, faux-religious, childish,
>poorly conceived, badly executed points that featured his recently
>purchased Latin-phrase-of-the-day, "ad hominem" prominently, albeit used
>incorrectly.
Amen, Gregg. You should be writing Cliff Notes.
>As one of the few, the proud, the straight minority among the ASG
>regulars, I appeal to other straights hereabouts to back me up on this.
>
>Eric may be straight, but WE DON'T WANT HIM.
I applaud your sentiment, but the gay majority doesn't want him
either, unless he'd be willing to be our official "Cum-Rag Boy" at the
weekly Crisco parties.
>I propose a vote whereby we can immediately revoke his Straight People
>Every Where (SPEW -- I know it's clumsy, but it works...) membership.
Your acronym is not clumsy, but it makes me think of gay porn movie
climaxes, which may not be the image straight guys want to portray
in the trailer park; it's hard enough to get me and Joey and David,
et.al., to stop thinking about sex long enough to post, without
using a word like "SPEW" (in capital letters, even!) constantly. But
if you're committed to that word, I'm comitted to reading it as often
as I can.
>And besides, without his SPEW membership card, he won't be able to get
>into those strip clubs and SM/BD strip shows up there in Canada where he
>tries so desperately to suffocate the raging need for touch of a big,
>hairy, sweat-stinking *man* that threatens to consume him. It'll only be
>a matter of time before he's cruising alt.sex.construction-workers....
Have you noticed a strange silence on ol' Eric's part concerning
his checkered past? Hey, if I could give advice on making a
"dildo-fucking" machine, I'd be so proud it would be part of my
sig file!
--
Michael Ritchie | "Being natural is simply a pose, and the most
ritc...@osu.edu | irritating pose I know"
| --Oscar Wilde
Michael S Ritchie
In article <frnklin-2108...@user-168-121-138-68.dialup.mindspring.
com>, Frank M. Miller <frn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, a plan like this might pass constitutional muster (might, I
>say), but do you really think the little Christian neo-Nazis will sit
>still for "Jewish Prayer Day," or "Native American Prayer Day," or "Wiccan
>Prayer Day," or "Satanist Prayer Day."
And heaven knows *what* they would do with "Bette Davis Prayer Day"
or "Judy Garland Prayer Day" or "Joey Stefano Prayer Day" or my
own personal favorite, "Matthew Perry Prayer Day" (where I get to
spend the whole dang day on my knees in front of my Chandler Bing
icons).
--M., whose mother got him a "Friends" t-shirt for his birthday,
the one with the photo of the all six sipping sodas; sometimes, mother
knows just what her little boy needs! (Oooh, did I just sound like
Norman Bates?)
David Migicovsky
In article <h3CQRfT...@delphi.com>, Marla Brunker <bru...@delphi.com> opined to the huddled masses:
>
>>Eric Pinnell wrote:
>>
>>> You can marry a woman anytime you want to, David. Just like any other
> man.
>
> I don't suppose it's occured to Eric that heterosexuality might
>be something women usually consider to be a minimal requirement in a
>husband.
How could it? The only requirement the women Eric "dates" have is a valid
credit card.
Robert Matthews
In article <3211FF...@qnet.com>, mel...@qnet.com wrote:
> Eric Pinnell wrote:
>
> > If you want to talk issues, fine. But it never ceases to amaze me
at the number
> > of liberals who believe THEIR viewpoint is the correct one, and who poo-poo
> > anyone else who disagrees with them.
> >
> > Eric Pinnell
>
> I don't have a single viewpoint - I have multitudes, all of which I hold
> equally valid. That's the problem of "you conservatives" (although it's
> not a truly conservative attitude in the least) -- thinking you know
> what a "liberal" is and what "they" believe. BTW, "liberal" and
> "conservative" are properly adjectives, not nouns. :-)
I think that "liberal" and "conservative" are essentially meaningless
terms nowadays, and I'm not the only one. Miss Manners, as usual, has it
exactly right:
"Miss Manners has come to believe that the basic political division
in the society is not between liberals and conservatives, but between
those who believe that they should have a say in the love lives of
strangers, and those who do not."
--Syndicated newspaper columnist "Miss Manners" (Judith Martin).
Robert Matthews
--
jim...@mis.ca
"[Even] the dullest person, after all, has gleaned from mere observation that
highly intelligent parents often produce offspring so stupid that they can
barely breathe. (And, much more interesting from the eugenic point of view,
that the opposite is also true.)" --Christopher Hitchens
Christopher & Hollie Myers
Frank M. Miller
In article <4vd47u$4a...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net (Eric
Pinnell) wrote:
=In <4v86eh$k...@nw101.infi.net>, NBlomgren <nb...@nc5.infi.net> writes:
=>
=>And prayer isn't banned in school -- only prayer organized by school
=>officials. Private prayer, or those organized by individuals is indeed
=>protected, and even the ACLU has come to the defense of these exercises of
=>religion.
=
= Not strictly true. A recent Supreme Court decision upheld the right
of a school
=to ban a group of students from organizing a prayer meeting after school but
=using the school facilities.
=
=>
Not true at all. The Supremes have ruled that if a school opens its
facilities to other outside groups for meetings it cannot deny a student
prayer group the right to meet outside of school hours either. What I
love about you prayer in school Christians is the way you misrepresent
facts to prove your points. Are you lying, which is a sin in case you
hadn't noticed, or just colossally misinformed?
=>My question to you is this: How would you solve the practical problem of
=>not having the State promote a particular religion WITHOUT having a
=>separation of Church and State?
=>
=
= It's easy. Since the state cannot enact a law prohibiting or
establishing a
=religion, it need not get involved in religious affairs. If a given
school wants to
=have a "Christian Prayer Day" it can, as long is it is prepared to have a
"Muslim
=Prayer Day" or a "Jewish Prayer Day" or a "Buddhist Prayer Day".
Actually, a plan like this might pass constitutional muster (might, I
say), but do you really think the little Christian neo-Nazis will sit
still for "Jewish Prayer Day," or "Native American Prayer Day," or "Wiccan
Prayer Day," or "Satanist Prayer Day." And what do you do about the
athiests, or are they as devoid of rights as homosexuals in this little
dream world of yours?
+==============================+
Frank Miller, ASGTPR #18
frn...@mindspring.com
Atlanta, Georgia
"I want to be a women's prison warden"
+==============================+
Elizabeth McCracken
epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) writes:
> Wrong. Democracy is about consensus. One man = 1 vote, majority rules.
>>
> What does genetic diversity have to do with bigotry? Oops, sorry, yet another
>liberal ad hominem attack to cover up weak debating skills.
>>
> Do not confuse the rights of the individual with what best serves a society's
>interests. And what does this have to do with religion? You're wandering all
>over the map here.
> You're hysterical. First you call me a fascist, and then talk to me about
>my religious beliefs, which, quite frankly, I don't have (i suppose I'm somewhere
>between agnostic and atheist).
>>
>>Melody quotes:
>>
>>"This nation is in no manner based upon the Christian religion."
>> George Washington
>>"I can find in orthodox Christianity not one redeeming feature."
>> Thomas Jefferson
Eric:
> More ad hominem. Plus demeaning Christianity. Gee, if I didn't know better,
>I'd say you were pretty prejudiced, Melody.
>Eric Pinnell
I don't usually respond to idiots on Usenet, but I can't help
myself.
First of all, clearly Melody is not demeaning Christianity--she's
simply pointing out that Christianity is not the official religion
of the United States.
Many people here have eloquently argued that legally there's
no reason that people of the same sex shouldn't marry. I agree,
but I'd like to add another argument: many of of the loveliest
love stories I know are between people of the same sex. Read
_Borrowed Time_ by Paul Monette, or _Heaven's Coast_ by Mark
Doty, or anything by Gertrude Stein. How do you define a marriage?
Sure, there are arranged marriages, and those of convenience, but
don't we all love a good love story? I'm a straight girl, but I
take heart in the same sex love stories I know.
Don't we all think marriage should be borne of love?
Finally, the idea that "what best serves society" is at odds with
"the rights of the invidual" is repellent, anti-
American, and just plain silly. What best serves society *is*
the rights of the individual, and my rights end where your nose
begins. We don't vote on morals. Which is why--and I'm glad!
--there are strip clubs.
Eliz McC
--
Elizabeth McCracken
mccr...@world.std.com
Eric Pinnell
In <4vboc0$3...@earth.superlink.net>, dee...@superlink.net (deering) writes:
>No--perhaps it's because too many of those who have made a "success" of
>their lives/made a lot of money see that as a license to abuse the power
>that gives them over people in order to hoard more money. And perhaps it
>is because they and people who support them think that the
>accumulation of wealth should set the standards for _everything_,
>including moral and ethical discourse.
No. The problem is that liberals feel it's unfair for anyone to make a lot of
money. Witness the recent calls for a special tax on CEO and professioanal
athletes.
>
>As much as too many rich conservatives (and liberals) hate to admit it,
>having
>money does not give one the "priviledge" of holing up from the rest of the
>world and acting like what one does doesn't affect other people. The
>Republicans, however, have failed to convince anyone that they even have a
>_clue_ about this basic reality--much less that they care how this
>attitude affects the national sense of communities and values they claim
>to cherish so dern much.
So some people are selfish. This is basic human nature. Why should any man
or woman be required by law to give up a dispropotionate share of his or her
income to help out the welfare state? I would point out that the principal of
wealth redistribution is the central tenant of communism.
Eric Pinnell
C. Campbell
On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Joey M. wrote:
>
> 1. No one bothers to ask straight couples, when they are about to get
> married, if they plan to bear children. It's assumed. Yet many
> choose not to. Should said marriages be annulled (like the Dole's)?
Wonderful! Why don't he and Libby have kids, anyway?
> >
> 3. What we are REALLY talking about here is how the American Govt.
> should view marriage - Christian vs. Secular.
>
> No offense, but heteros have done a good enough job fucking up the
> institution of marriage without it all being blamed on gays. If 2
Well, I would guess that if gays can marry, they would, in time,
have the same problems heteros do. The thing that has long gotten to me
in the marriage argument and claims that gays are ruining families is
this: Where do the vast majority of gay people come from? I'll bet it's
from heterosexual marriages. This leaves me with: if being gay is so bad
and these heterosexual marriages create people who "choose the gay
lifestyle" (i.e., immoral individuals), there must be something wrong with
heterosexual marriage!
Eric Pinnell
In <4vbqsf$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, hello...@aol.com (Hellokit99) writes:
>>Listen, bud, the conservatives are FAR worse at this, and they do a lot
>worse than just poo-poo. Moe and Shemp OOPS! I mean, Dole and Kemp, were
>in Pittsburgh for a rally yesterday and I went as part of a pro-Democratic
>counter-rally. All I was doing was holding a "Clinton/Gore '96" sign up,
>and I got pushed, kicked, and spit on. Nice values there, eh?
>
>Sandy
>ASGTPR #89
Sandy,
Did it ever occur to you that you might be asking for trouble going to a poltical
rally being held by a party with opposing views? Not that I approve of violence
in that circumstance, but surely you must realize that some people might find your
protest to be rude and offensive?
Eric Pinnell
lea bob (again!)
Gre...@cris.com (Gregg P.) wrote:
>Eric Pinnell (epi...@ibm.net) wrote:
>[a bunch of half-baked, pinheaded, homophobic, faux-religious, childish,
>poorly conceived, badly executed points
(snip)
>Eric may be straight, but WE DON'T WANT HIM.
(snip)
>I propose a vote whereby we can immediately revoke his Straight People
>Every Where (SPEW -- I know it's clumsy, but it works...) membership.
(further snipping of Gregg's crisp & elegant words)
yeah! what *he* said! TWICE!!
lea (and so's yer old man!) bob
scuffing up the dust in #39
Centre of the Known Universe
jan...@mit.edu wrote:
>Marriage originated as a way to keep property "in the family" and to
>"ensure" that a man's heir was really *his* heir. In a way it is still
>very much that -- about economics -- although we now usually prefer love
>as a reason. Bonding rituals were another issue entirely. Gay couples
>simply do not have the same economic benefits as married couples. Surely
>they deserve them??
>--
>Janet from Another Planet
Darling - I agree 99.33% with what you've said. My one that I would
add? This isn't about "economics" - it's about patriarchy.
Get Rid Of IT And You'll See The World Improve Rather Quickly,
LCM
Centre of the Known Universe
Papaleonardos
In article <4vicv5$3c...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
Well, when Clinton spoke on my college campus last year, there were some
College Republicans there, not only with placards but also trying to drown out
his speech by shouting. But I didn't notice anyone spitting on them, rude and
offensive as they were.
Chris
David Migicovsky
In article <4vi61c$2j...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) opined to the huddled masses:
>In <3219cf86...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, crs...@ix.netcom.com (Craig Smith)
> writes:
>>No, what you prefer, Eric m'boy, is the S and M agenda. Sadomasochism
>>is hardly a more acceptable "alternate lifestyle" than a homosexual
>>orientation.
>>
>>The gig is up, Eric. We're outing you as the S/M freak you are (see
>>David's posts re: Eric's secret predilections elsewhere in a.s.g.).
>>
>>Craig
>>who hates intolerance, but hates hypocrisy even more
>>
> In point of fact, I do not practice any sort of S&M behavior. Period. Of
> course,
>Mr. Migicovsky can say anything he wants.
>
>Eric Pinnell
I have said nothing of the kind. I let you speak for yourself and, honey, your
words spoke volumes.
mor...@usa1.com
med...@io.org wrote:
[snip - many amusing observations on the convention]
> Why did Larry King practically go
>down on Robin Dole and her elderly aunts, who vaguely resembled the
>Snoop Sisters from the old TV series? Someone clue me, please.
This is a late clue, I've been out of town but here it is.....
Larry King has gone down on everyone he's ever met, with the exception
of those who could out-run him after his heart surgery and the Mormon
Tabernacle Choir (Larry had time constraints that day).
morisot
PRINCESSPK
In article <4vf43d$8...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mrit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael S Ritchie) writes:
>--M., whose mother got him a "Friends" t-shirt for his birthday,
>the one with the photo of the all six sipping sodas; sometimes, mother
>knows just what her little boy needs! (Oooh, did I just sound like
>Norman Bates?)
That depends, why not take the easy, at-home, "Psycho", test, and be
sure.
#1. For Mother's Day, you gave mom:
a. A big box of candy
b. Flowers
c. Formaldehyde, sawdust and some fresh straw
#2. The last time you kissed your mom, it was on:
a. Her birthday
b. Christmas
c. The base of her spine
#3 You still live at home because:
a. You are saving for a new car
b. You are helping out with the mortgage
c. It is so covenient to the swamp
#4. When cleaning the shower, you always check for:
a. mold and mildew
b. soap scum and bathtub ring
c. eyeballs in the drane
#5. About historical characters you think:
a. Einstein was the smartest man who lived
b. Edison was the most useful inventor we've had
c. Oedipus was way too hard on himself
#6. Your favorite movie is:
a. Cassablanca
b. Citizen Kane
c. Fear Strikes Out
#7. The thing you like best about your mother is:
a. She makes a great apple pie
b. Her pot roast is superb
c. You wear the same dress size
Pink wishes
The Princess \*****/
Lee Weiser
In article <4vi69v$2j...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell) writes:
>From: epi...@ibm.net (Eric Pinnell)
>Subject: Re: GOP-Party of tolerance?
>Date: 22 Aug 1996 17:44:31 GMT
>In <4vboc0$3...@earth.superlink.net>, dee...@superlink.net (deering) writes:
>>No--perhaps it's because too many of those who have made a "success" of
>>their lives/made a lot of money see that as a license to abuse the power
>>that gives them over people in order to hoard more money. And perhaps it
>>is because they and people who support them think that the
>>accumulation of wealth should set the standards for _everything_,
>>including moral and ethical discourse.
> No. The problem is that liberals feel it's unfair for anyone to make a lot of
>money. Witness the recent calls for a special tax on CEO and professioanal
>athletes.
Such a grand, sweeping statement to makem there Eric. Care to prove to the
people in asg audience how every liberal feels this way by sowing us studies?
>>As much as too many rich conservatives (and liberals) hate to admit it,
>>having
>>money does not give one the "priviledge" of holing up from the rest of the
>>world and acting like what one does doesn't affect other people. The
>>Republicans, however, have failed to convince anyone that they even have a
>>_clue_ about this basic reality--much less that they care how this
>>attitude affects the national sense of communities and values they claim
>>to cherish so dern much.
> So some people are selfish. This is basic human nature.
Hmmmm...basic human nature yet only *some* people are like selfish. If only
"some", then it ain't basic human nature.
> Why should any man
>or woman be required by law to give up a dispropotionate share of his or her
>income to help out the welfare state? I would point out that the principal of
>wealth redistribution is the central tenant of communism.
And by your question you just posed, you're one of those selfish people.
--Lee
PRINCESSPK
In article <4vftgb$h...@thor.atcon.com>, ccro...@atcon.com@MAIL.ATCON.COM
(Centre of the Known Universe) writes:
>As for
>Ladies in Waiting, I've been meaning to suggest this my very own self
>- except we would be Sweetiedarlings In Waiting for our own dear
>Princess. *She* is the one we should be really be bowing for - I
>simply fumble about in my horrific yet platformed manner, but she's
>the one true Pinkness. And thank you for the compliment, darling -
>it's made a good day fabulous!
>
>Big Hugs! (And drop me a note any old time at all, sweetie!)
>LCM
Dahling!
How *perfectly* sweet! Do drop by, so that I can look up *both*
sleeves!