zxcvbob wrote:
Since everyone is having so much fun yacking political BS that doesn't
belong here, rather than start an argument about moderating the group
and censorship and all that, why don't we just open the barn door and
see what comes in.

The barn door was never closed. What you see is what you get.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Books for the Pacific Northwest gardener:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/nwgarden/index.html

Eenie Meenie Chili Beanie
zxcvbob is about to speak:

Vox Humana wrote:
"Zemedelec" wrote in message
...

Maybe this is much too off topic, but a friend of mine who is much
more of a political animal than I am told me HD is heavily
supported by rich Republicans such as Arthur Blank, the president
of Home Depot, who hosted a dinner in Atlanta that gave Bush $2.5
million. So any of you whose whole lives, including gardening, are
permeated with their political convictions might want to go to
Loew's, etc. if you need to buy at a big chain store. zemedelec


I wouldn't doubt this. I saw an interview with him a few days ago.
The guy came from the division of GE that made (bad) appliances and
other hard goods. He didn't know a nut from a bolt. I wanted to
throw a brick through the TV because everything that came out of his
mouth sounded like the hypnotic jargon that you would hear from a
sales seminar. I guess he never visits the stores, otherwise he
might see that all the feel-good "team building" bull shit and new
computer systems he promotes are worthless because the stores look
like a tornado hit them and the employees know less about the
products than he does. I seldom go to HD because I can get the same
thing for a little less in a better organized and maintained Lowe's
store across the street. I don't want to leave people with the
impression that Lowe's doesn't have their own set of problems. They
treated my mother very badly when she had them remodel her kitchen,
but that is another story.

For people interested in tracking contributions to political
campaigns, you might want to look at this site:
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php You can enter a street or a zip
code and see the contributions of the people around you. You can
also enter names. If you click on the name, it will show the
contributions of everyone with that name. If you click on the
address, it will show people in that area. There is interesting
mapping system that shows how red, blue, or purple an are is.



Since everyone is having so much fun yacking political BS that doesn't
belong here, rather than start an argument about moderating the group
and censorship and all that, why don't we just open the barn door and
see what comes in.

It'll be loads of fun.

*peep*


**
Captain Infinity

Eenie Meenie Chili Beanie
zxcvbob is about to speak:

Vox Humana wrote:
"Zemedelec" wrote in message
...

Maybe this is much too off topic, but a friend of mine who is much
more of a political animal than I am told me HD is heavily
supported by rich Republicans such as Arthur Blank, the president
of Home Depot, who hosted a dinner in Atlanta that gave Bush $2.5
million. So any of you whose whole lives, including gardening, are
permeated with their political convictions might want to go to
Loew's, etc. if you need to buy at a big chain store. zemedelec


I wouldn't doubt this. I saw an interview with him a few days ago.
The guy came from the division of GE that made (bad) appliances and
other hard goods. He didn't know a nut from a bolt. I wanted to
throw a brick through the TV because everything that came out of his
mouth sounded like the hypnotic jargon that you would hear from a
sales seminar. I guess he never visits the stores, otherwise he
might see that all the feel-good "team building" bull shit and new
computer systems he promotes are worthless because the stores look
like a tornado hit them and the employees know less about the
products than he does. I seldom go to HD because I can get the same
thing for a little less in a better organized and maintained Lowe's
store across the street. I don't want to leave people with the
impression that Lowe's doesn't have their own set of problems. They
treated my mother very badly when she had them remodel her kitchen,
but that is another story.

For people interested in tracking contributions to political
campaigns, you might want to look at this site:
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php You can enter a street or a zip
code and see the contributions of the people around you. You can
also enter names. If you click on the name, it will show the
contributions of everyone with that name. If you click on the
address, it will show people in that area. There is interesting
mapping system that shows how red, blue, or purple an are is.



Since everyone is having so much fun yacking political BS that doesn't
belong here, rather than start an argument about moderating the group
and censorship and all that, why don't we just open the barn door and
see what comes in.

It'll be loads of fun.

*peep*


**
Captain Infinity

I agree, wouldn't the HD stock holders have more influence over the CEO?


"Warren" wrote in message news:0oRNc.177875$IQ4.133533@attbi_s02...

A boycott of Home Depot to the level that it even attracts the attention
of the CEO is going to hurt many, many working Americans long before it
has any effect on the CEO, or his political beliefs. I hardly think
that's the desired affect.

I agree, wouldn't the HD stock holders have more influence over the CEO?


"Warren" wrote in message news:0oRNc.177875$IQ4.133533@attbi_s02...

A boycott of Home Depot to the level that it even attracts the attention
of the CEO is going to hurt many, many working Americans long before it
has any effect on the CEO, or his political beliefs. I hardly think
that's the desired affect.

I liked Revy and Lansing, too. I feel worse about White Rose. HD
isn't Can Tire's problem though, I've worked for Can Tire and boy, do
they have inventory problems!

We've got our own evil imperialists, too. Remember Cruikshanks -- the
wonderful folks who sold rare and premium bulbs on Mt. Pleasant?
Besides, I only buy plants from Walmart and HD when they're marked for
clearance. It's the thriftyness of customers that actually kills
retail stores in Canada. Why am I so cheap? Because I am ...


Shirley Hicks wrote in message . ..

Heh. How about Home Depot as the incarnation of the Evil American
Imperialist Empire, coming to Canada to outcompete local hardware
companies, forcing the big boxization of several home grown chains
like Reno Depot, Revvie, and ye old Canadian Tire Corp.? grin

It's not just about Republicans and Democrats, dontcha know.

Shirley Hicks, in Toronto

I liked Revy and Lansing, too. I feel worse about White Rose. HD
isn't Can Tire's problem though, I've worked for Can Tire and boy, do
they have inventory problems!

We've got our own evil imperialists, too. Remember Cruikshanks -- the
wonderful folks who sold rare and premium bulbs on Mt. Pleasant?
Besides, I only buy plants from Walmart and HD when they're marked for
clearance. It's the thriftyness of customers that actually kills
retail stores in Canada. Why am I so cheap? Because I am ...


Shirley Hicks wrote in message . ..

Heh. How about Home Depot as the incarnation of the Evil American
Imperialist Empire, coming to Canada to outcompete local hardware
companies, forcing the big boxization of several home grown chains
like Reno Depot, Revvie, and ye old Canadian Tire Corp.? grin

It's not just about Republicans and Democrats, dontcha know.

Shirley Hicks, in Toronto

On 28 Jul 2004 22:31:44 GMT, (Wishy13764) wrote:

I suppose 'same sex' marriage is the cause of over 50% divorce rate? Needn't
worry about same sex marriage, those 'legally married' are doing a better job
of tainting the meaning of 'marriage'.

Aw, c'mon. I was just getting ready to nominate Brittney Spears as the poster
girl for the Sanctity of Marriage.

On 28 Jul 2004 22:25:37 -0700, (Pen) wrote:

I liked Revy and Lansing, too. I feel worse about White Rose.

Note: I was being flip in my original post.

I don't. Their stock was pretty middle-of-the-road, they were all over
the map as to retail direction, and their prices were high for what
they were selling. I've seen better from the independents at their
price point.

HD
isn't Can Tire's problem though, I've worked for Can Tire and boy, do
they have inventory problems!

Really? Pray tell.... (one of the co-workers is moving over to their
flyer production department)

We've got our own evil imperialists, too. Remember Cruikshanks -- the
wonderful folks who sold rare and premium bulbs on Mt. Pleasant?

Yeah, I do. Got some nice stock from them. They were pricey - had
things that no one else had.

Besides, I only buy plants from Walmart and HD when they're marked for
clearance. It's the thriftyness of customers that actually kills
retail stores in Canada. Why am I so cheap? Because I am ...

Well, (eyes dancing) if you're _really_ cheap, you start your own
plants from seed, and do most of your gardening with pass-alongs, and
bits tossed over the fence from your neighbours. Oh, and pick nice
hardy spreaders.

I have a weakness for Richter's. Plant World up on Eglington is
_extremely_ dangerous to my wallet as they have luscious lovely,
relatively rare stock (not to mention gorgeous pots, benches, and
other garden frippery) For any canucks reading, www.icangarden.com has
links to all those fine independent Canadian bulb and regionally
specialized plant stock providers. Gardens North in Ottawa was
seriously tempting too for many years.

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario

On 28 Jul 2004 22:25:37 -0700, (Pen) wrote:

I liked Revy and Lansing, too. I feel worse about White Rose.

Note: I was being flip in my original post.

I don't. Their stock was pretty middle-of-the-road, they were all over
the map as to retail direction, and their prices were high for what
they were selling. I've seen better from the independents at their
price point.

HD
isn't Can Tire's problem though, I've worked for Can Tire and boy, do
they have inventory problems!

Really? Pray tell.... (one of the co-workers is moving over to their
flyer production department)

We've got our own evil imperialists, too. Remember Cruikshanks -- the
wonderful folks who sold rare and premium bulbs on Mt. Pleasant?

Yeah, I do. Got some nice stock from them. They were pricey - had
things that no one else had.

Besides, I only buy plants from Walmart and HD when they're marked for
clearance. It's the thriftyness of customers that actually kills
retail stores in Canada. Why am I so cheap? Because I am ...

Well, (eyes dancing) if you're _really_ cheap, you start your own
plants from seed, and do most of your gardening with pass-alongs, and
bits tossed over the fence from your neighbours. Oh, and pick nice
hardy spreaders.

I have a weakness for Richter's. Plant World up on Eglington is
_extremely_ dangerous to my wallet as they have luscious lovely,
relatively rare stock (not to mention gorgeous pots, benches, and
other garden frippery) For any canucks reading, www.icangarden.com has
links to all those fine independent Canadian bulb and regionally
specialized plant stock providers. Gardens North in Ottawa was
seriously tempting too for many years.

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario

"Warren" wrote in message
news:s%YNc.48987$eM2.44420@attbi_s51...
Vox Humana wrote:
I think that marriage is an institution that has changed with time
and will continue to change. The religious right will tell you that
for
5000 years, marriage has been between one man and one woman. However,
the
Bible details how people like David had many wives and even more
concubines.
Marriage wasn't even adopted as a sacrament of the Catholic Church
until the
Council of Trent in 1563. That makes it a rather new institution.
The
ultimate challenge to the stability of marriage is easy divorce, but
no one
proposes to prohibit divorce in the Constitution.

Marriage has changed even over the past 100 years. A century ago many
churches wouldn't recognize marriages with partners outside the faith.
Some allowed a conversion of sorts, but they still would look down on
the folks who dared to challenge the sanctity of marriage.

Of course many ethnic groups still prefer marriages within their own
ethnic group, but it wasn't that long ago that if the ethnic group was
of another race, in some states it wasn't just shunned -- it was
illegal.

Whatever happens with the legal view of same-sex marriages, it's not
going to make a lick of difference to who lives with who, and who loves
who. There always has been love across the boundaries, and always will
be.

The problem is that marriage is more than what happens after a
certificate is obtained at the courthouse. Marriage is a legal contract
much like a business partnership. And marriage is the foundation of a
"traditional" family. Partners in marriage sometimes love each other.
Sometimes they don't -- or they stop loving each other. And some
marriages (common law marriages) never had a legal piece of paper
signifying the start of the union.

Before we can have a rational dialog as to whether same-sex marriage is
appropriate, we have to define what marriage really is, and what is the
state's roll in marriage.

If one believes in the separation of church and state, then a marriage
is simply a partnership with certain rights given to each partner. It's
only when religious definitions of marriage are brought into the picture
that we start seeing restrictions on which adults may enter into these
contracts, and with who they may enter into those contracts.

Ultimately, church and state need to be separated. Churches have no
business imposing their narrow view upon everyone else, and states have
no business imposing broader guidelines upon churches than what the
churches will accept. And the only way to do this is for one or the
other to get out of the whole marriage thing.

Since churches seem to be grabbing onto the term "marriage" as being
something defined in the eyes of their God (or the guy who says he's
God's voice on Earth), let's go ahead and let the churches have whatever
they want to call a "marriage". Take "marriage" entirely out of the
secular law. Replace it with some other term for purposes of the state,
and legal issues, and then look solely to the constitution and the state
constitutions to decide what kind of discrimination is allowed, if any.
Churches would be free to recognize or not recognize whatever they want,
and to make those choices independent of any state intrusion.

This needs to be done for the protection of the churches, and the
protection of people who choose not to belong to a church. Separation of
church and state. I know it's a new concept that some folks won't be
able to accept, but I think it's a good idea. It almost rolls off the
tongue: "separation of church and state."

And since I can't spin this back to anything to do with Home Depot, I've
changed the subject line, and people not interested can easily skip the
rest of this thread.


I agree completely. I found it interesting that Gov. Romney suggested that
the government get out of the marriage business and simply issues civil
union certificates to everyone, leaving "marriage" to religious
institutions. This is probably the only time I will ever agree with him. I
do think that would be the very best solution. As you point out, religious
sects are not required to marry everyone who shows up with a license. Most
churches decide who they will marry and what those people have to do to
qualify for marriage in that church. Orthodox Jews don't recognize
marriages between Jews and gentiles, nor are priestly lines of orthodox Jews
able to marry converts. In doing some research on this subject, I found
that there is a movement in the fundamentalist Christian world that also
thinks the state should remove itself from the marriage business. They
reason that marriages are an institution of the church and the state has no
right requiring that people get a license before being able to receive a
holy sacrament.

"Warren" wrote in message
news:s%YNc.48987$eM2.44420@attbi_s51...
Vox Humana wrote:
I think that marriage is an institution that has changed with time
and will continue to change. The religious right will tell you that
for
5000 years, marriage has been between one man and one woman. However,
the
Bible details how people like David had many wives and even more
concubines.
Marriage wasn't even adopted as a sacrament of the Catholic Church
until the
Council of Trent in 1563. That makes it a rather new institution.
The
ultimate challenge to the stability of marriage is easy divorce, but
no one
proposes to prohibit divorce in the Constitution.

Marriage has changed even over the past 100 years. A century ago many
churches wouldn't recognize marriages with partners outside the faith.
Some allowed a conversion of sorts, but they still would look down on
the folks who dared to challenge the sanctity of marriage.

Of course many ethnic groups still prefer marriages within their own
ethnic group, but it wasn't that long ago that if the ethnic group was
of another race, in some states it wasn't just shunned -- it was
illegal.

Whatever happens with the legal view of same-sex marriages, it's not
going to make a lick of difference to who lives with who, and who loves
who. There always has been love across the boundaries, and always will
be.

The problem is that marriage is more than what happens after a
certificate is obtained at the courthouse. Marriage is a legal contract
much like a business partnership. And marriage is the foundation of a
"traditional" family. Partners in marriage sometimes love each other.
Sometimes they don't -- or they stop loving each other. And some
marriages (common law marriages) never had a legal piece of paper
signifying the start of the union.

Before we can have a rational dialog as to whether same-sex marriage is
appropriate, we have to define what marriage really is, and what is the
state's roll in marriage.

If one believes in the separation of church and state, then a marriage
is simply a partnership with certain rights given to each partner. It's
only when religious definitions of marriage are brought into the picture
that we start seeing restrictions on which adults may enter into these
contracts, and with who they may enter into those contracts.

Ultimately, church and state need to be separated. Churches have no
business imposing their narrow view upon everyone else, and states have
no business imposing broader guidelines upon churches than what the
churches will accept. And the only way to do this is for one or the
other to get out of the whole marriage thing.

Since churches seem to be grabbing onto the term "marriage" as being
something defined in the eyes of their God (or the guy who says he's
God's voice on Earth), let's go ahead and let the churches have whatever
they want to call a "marriage". Take "marriage" entirely out of the
secular law. Replace it with some other term for purposes of the state,
and legal issues, and then look solely to the constitution and the state
constitutions to decide what kind of discrimination is allowed, if any.
Churches would be free to recognize or not recognize whatever they want,
and to make those choices independent of any state intrusion.

This needs to be done for the protection of the churches, and the
protection of people who choose not to belong to a church. Separation of
church and state. I know it's a new concept that some folks won't be
able to accept, but I think it's a good idea. It almost rolls off the
tongue: "separation of church and state."

And since I can't spin this back to anything to do with Home Depot, I've
changed the subject line, and people not interested can easily skip the
rest of this thread.


I agree completely. I found it interesting that Gov. Romney suggested that
the government get out of the marriage business and simply issues civil
union certificates to everyone, leaving "marriage" to religious
institutions. This is probably the only time I will ever agree with him. I
do think that would be the very best solution. As you point out, religious
sects are not required to marry everyone who shows up with a license. Most
churches decide who they will marry and what those people have to do to
qualify for marriage in that church. Orthodox Jews don't recognize
marriages between Jews and gentiles, nor are priestly lines of orthodox Jews
able to marry converts. In doing some research on this subject, I found
that there is a movement in the fundamentalist Christian world that also
thinks the state should remove itself from the marriage business. They
reason that marriages are an institution of the church and the state has no
right requiring that people get a license before being able to receive a
holy sacrament.

Captain Infinity wrote:

*peep*


**
Captain Infinity


Thanks Cap'n,
I was beginning to think nobody cared [sniff].

Best regards,
Bob

Captain Infinity wrote:

*peep*


**
Captain Infinity


Thanks Cap'n,
I was beginning to think nobody cared [sniff].

Best regards,
Bob

Captain Infinity wrote:

*peep*


**
Captain Infinity


Thanks Cap'n,
I was beginning to think nobody cared [sniff].

Best regards,
Bob