|
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:21:25 GMT, "Vox Humana" opined:
I was thinking the same thing. If you tune into the "shout shows" on cable news like HANNITY and colmbs, you will see that the conservatives have mastered being loud. I was reluctant to speak up until recently thinking that people might not like me if I asked too many questions or said something that was unpopular. It occurred to me that I was in a situation where our president was supporting constitutional amendments to discriminate against me. Violent hate crimes are on the rise. The religious-right is going on TV saying that people like me are responsible for 9/11. The Pope has blamed the moral failures in his organization on gays and has blamed feminists for the advancement of the gay movement. It was obvious that there was nothing to lose. Yeah, I do listen to Hannity when in the car. I also check out that blabbing, blowhole, Limbaugh. He pulls stuff right out of his ass and says whatever he damn well wants. It doesn't have to be true, but in the days that follow after Limbaugh asserts some bullshit, my MIL immediately writes a letter saying she heard this or that and she is so dumb she takes it for truth! I wonder if she realizes Rush is a common junkie. Aren't junkies the blame for any moral downfall in America? I suppose they put Tommy Chong away. Phew, we're all safe. He's back out, maybe not! Then of course there's George Jung, who of course brought more cocaine into American than probably anyone else to this day, but if I remember correctly, dubya was snorting that cocaine back when Jung was smuggling. Hmmm. Yeah, it's the queers. Holy cow. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
Vox Humana wrote: "William Brown" wrote in message ... Now, I'm not saying that Bob shouldn't have posted the messages. I just find it interesting that he has a problem with others posting to off-topic threads here while he posts to off-topic threads on other news groups. No. The problem is that you babbling yahoos are tying up server space and driving out legitimate postings. Take this crap to an appropriate forum! I would be interested in some specifics. For instance, how many messages have you been unable to post because of this thread? What happens if this thread is taken to another newsgroup on the same server? Its not that one can't post, its that postings disappear very shortly as they are replaced by newer postings, and we get a message that the posting is no longer available. The ISP allocates a given amount of space to the newsgroups they carry, individually, so taking this to an appropriate newsgroup would not free space for this newsgroup, which would still have its alloted space. -- SPAMBLOCK NOTICE! To reply to me, delete the h from apkh.net, if it is there. |
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:19:00 -0400, William Brown opined:
Its not that one can't post, its that postings disappear very shortly as they are replaced by newer postings, and we get a message that the posting is no longer available. The ISP allocates a given amount of space to the newsgroups they carry, individually, so taking this to an appropriate newsgroup would not free space for this newsgroup, which would still have its alloted space. What ISP do you have, CaveDweller.com? Want better newsgroup coverage, pay for it and sign up with Giganews. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Doug Kanter wrote: Ah....but I will *never* affect your life. If you think words interfere with your chosen ways, you're dreaming. Bigotry is bigotry. Claiming impotence is not an excuse. And, by the way, the minute you vote, you are translating your bigotry into actions that affect my life. And the more you attempt to make your bigotry socially acceptable, the more it affects my life. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your love affair with hate instead of trying to justify it. billo I don't hate right wing Kristians. Matter of fact, I only reserve the word "hate" for dogs. But, how would you feel if I started a political party based on the beliefs of Osama bin Laden , and hounded YOUR local politicians to toe the line according to those beliefs? After all, the bible was written by HUMANS. How do you know they were any different than Osama? May as well be Mark Twain. |
"William Brown" wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: "William Brown" wrote in message ... Now, I'm not saying that Bob shouldn't have posted the messages. I just find it interesting that he has a problem with others posting to off-topic threads here while he posts to off-topic threads on other news groups. No. The problem is that you babbling yahoos are tying up server space and driving out legitimate postings. Take this crap to an appropriate forum! I would be interested in some specifics. For instance, how many messages have you been unable to post because of this thread? What happens if this thread is taken to another newsgroup on the same server? Its not that one can't post, its that postings disappear very shortly as they are replaced by newer postings, and we get a message that the posting is no longer available. The ISP allocates a given amount of space to the newsgroups they carry, individually, so taking this to an appropriate newsgroup would not free space for this newsgroup, which would still have its alloted space. -- How much space is allotted to this newsgroup on your server? |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Doug Kanter wrote: Bigotry is bigotry. Claiming impotence is not an excuse. And, by the way, the minute you vote, you are translating your bigotry into actions that affect my life. And the more you attempt to make your bigotry socially acceptable, the more it affects my life. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your love affair with hate instead of trying to justify it. Hate? Talk about hate, take it up with Jesus H. Christ! Matthew 10: 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
Vox Humana wrote: "William Brown" wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: "William Brown" wrote in message ... Now, I'm not saying that Bob shouldn't have posted the messages. I just find it interesting that he has a problem with others posting to off-topic threads here while he posts to off-topic threads on other news groups. No. The problem is that you babbling yahoos are tying up server space and driving out legitimate postings. Take this crap to an appropriate forum! I would be interested in some specifics. For instance, how many messages have you been unable to post because of this thread? What happens if this thread is taken to another newsgroup on the same server? Its not that one can't post, its that postings disappear very shortly as they are replaced by newer postings, and we get a message that the posting is no longer available. The ISP allocates a given amount of space to the newsgroups they carry, individually, so taking this to an appropriate newsgroup would not free space for this newsgroup, which would still have its alloted space. -- How much space is allotted to this newsgroup on your server? I don't know, but I know it is not enough to accomodate the large number of off topic postings that a small number of inconsiderate posters are flooding this newsgroup with. There is no reason that people who want to discuss gardening should have to subscribe to a separate service just to accomodate people who lack the self discipline to stick to the topic, and the courage to discuss politics in a political forum. -- SPAMBLOCK NOTICE! To reply to me, delete the h from apkh.net, if it is there. |
"William Brown" wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: "William Brown" wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: "William Brown" wrote in message ... Now, I'm not saying that Bob shouldn't have posted the messages. I just find it interesting that he has a problem with others posting to off-topic threads here while he posts to off-topic threads on other news groups. No. The problem is that you babbling yahoos are tying up server space and driving out legitimate postings. Take this crap to an appropriate forum! I would be interested in some specifics. For instance, how many messages have you been unable to post because of this thread? What happens if this thread is taken to another newsgroup on the same server? Its not that one can't post, its that postings disappear very shortly as they are replaced by newer postings, and we get a message that the posting is no longer available. The ISP allocates a given amount of space to the newsgroups they carry, individually, so taking this to an appropriate newsgroup would not free space for this newsgroup, which would still have its alloted space. -- How much space is allotted to this newsgroup on your server? I don't know, Exactly. |
"William Brown" wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: "William Brown" wrote in message ... Now, I'm not saying that Bob shouldn't have posted the messages. I just find it interesting that he has a problem with others posting to off-topic threads here while he posts to off-topic threads on other news groups. No. The problem is that you babbling yahoos are tying up server space and driving out legitimate postings. Take this crap to an appropriate forum! I would be interested in some specifics. For instance, how many messages have you been unable to post because of this thread? What happens if this thread is taken to another newsgroup on the same server? Its not that one can't post, its that postings disappear very shortly as they are replaced by newer postings, and we get a message that the posting is no longer available. The ISP allocates a given amount of space to the newsgroups they carry, individually, so taking this to an appropriate newsgroup would not free space for this newsgroup, which would still have its alloted space. That's ridiculous. I can view postings as far back as June 9th, and more, if I set up my newsreader differently. You use Mozilla - you can do the same thing. Read the help files before you place blame, Einstein. And if your ISP only stores messages for a matter of days, get yourself a real ISP. |
"William Brown" wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: "William Brown" wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: "William Brown" wrote in message ... Now, I'm not saying that Bob shouldn't have posted the messages. I just find it interesting that he has a problem with others posting to off-topic threads here while he posts to off-topic threads on other news groups. No. The problem is that you babbling yahoos are tying up server space and driving out legitimate postings. Take this crap to an appropriate forum! I would be interested in some specifics. For instance, how many messages have you been unable to post because of this thread? What happens if this thread is taken to another newsgroup on the same server? Its not that one can't post, its that postings disappear very shortly as they are replaced by newer postings, and we get a message that the posting is no longer available. The ISP allocates a given amount of space to the newsgroups they carry, individually, so taking this to an appropriate newsgroup would not free space for this newsgroup, which would still have its alloted space. -- How much space is allotted to this newsgroup on your server? I don't know, but I know it is not enough to accomodate the large number of off topic postings that a small number of inconsiderate posters are flooding this newsgroup with. There is no reason that people who want to discuss gardening should have to subscribe to a separate service just to accomodate people who lack the self discipline to stick to the topic, and the courage to discuss politics in a political forum. Learn to collapse expanded threads. You use Mozilla. It has that capability. Read the help files, Einstein. |
"Vox Humana" wrote in
: "Wil" wrote in message ... Homosexuals are not married. They are partners of a different kind, like room mates, or other kind of sex partner but can not legally enter into the marriage contract. They have rights as individual but not as a couple who is in a marriage contract between a man and a woman. It has to do with a legal contract. The contract says between a man and a woman. I don't think that is being questioned. The issue is that same-sex couples SHOULD have the right to enter into the same contract. It's simply a legal matter. If churches don't want to "marry" same-sex couples, that's their business. Remember, at one time marriage was only open to two white people of opposite genders. People in mixed race marriages were criminals in many states. People saw that as a partnership of a different kind. Things change. Bush and Kerry are both for civil unions among gay couples that would give them the same legal rights (and punishments!) that married couples receive. Both Bush and Kerry are against gay marraige saying that "marraige" should be between a man and a woman. So, if you're gonna complain about Bush you need to complain about Kerry as well. BTW, Edwards (the REALLY liberal Democratic contender) was against gay marraige (and for civil unions) as well. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/work.../JohnKerry.htm http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...bush.marriage/ |
"Charlie C." wrote in message .4... "Vox Humana" wrote in : "Wil" wrote in message ... Homosexuals are not married. They are partners of a different kind, like room mates, or other kind of sex partner but can not legally enter into the marriage contract. They have rights as individual but not as a couple who is in a marriage contract between a man and a woman. It has to do with a legal contract. The contract says between a man and a woman. I don't think that is being questioned. The issue is that same-sex couples SHOULD have the right to enter into the same contract. It's simply a legal matter. If churches don't want to "marry" same-sex couples, that's their business. Remember, at one time marriage was only open to two white people of opposite genders. People in mixed race marriages were criminals in many states. People saw that as a partnership of a different kind. Things change. Bush and Kerry are both for civil unions among gay couples that would give them the same legal rights (and punishments!) that married couples receive. Both Bush and Kerry are against gay marraige saying that "marraige" should be between a man and a woman. So, if you're gonna complain about Bush you need to complain about Kerry as well. BTW, Edwards (the REALLY liberal Democratic contender) was against gay marraige (and for civil unions) as well. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/work.../JohnKerry.htm http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...bush.marriage/ No doubt that I am not happy about Kerry's position. Here is the difference. Kerry is NOT for amending the constitution. Kerry has an excellent record in the Senate in regards to gay rights. Bush wouldn't even meet with the Log Cabin Republicans, and as governor supported the prohibition of gays to adopt children and favored the sodomy law struck down in the recent Lawrence vs.. Texas Supreme Court Ruling. Bush has demonstrated that he is good about talking "compassion" but doesn't deliver. Kerry has demonstrated that he does deliver by his voting record. Bush is beholding to the religious-right and will, under no circumstances, promote civil unions. He is just walking a tight rope, trying to please his base while not alienating undecided voters who are much more moderate. Therefore, I think we can work with Kerry, but not with Bush. Like may things in life, there is no absolute good or bad. I would much rather be voting for Dean, but if the choice is Bush or Kerry, I will vote for Kerry. I'm sure that in fifty years people will be fighting over this issue just as they do now about civil rights for blacks. Same-sex marriage will have been in existence for years. Life will be largely unaffected for most people and better for some. The Democrats will be pointing fingers at the Republicans for trying to amend the Constitution and the Republicans will point to the fact that Clinton signed DOMA and candidates like Kerry and Hillary Clinton were also against same-sex marriage. There will be plenty of shame to go around. It is just too bad that we have only a choice between sort of bad and really bad. |
In article , "Charlie C."
wrote: "Vox Humana" wrote in : "Wil" wrote in message ... Homosexuals are not married. They are partners of a different kind, like room mates, or other kind of sex partner but can not legally enter into the marriage contract. They have rights as individual but not as a couple who is in a marriage contract between a man and a woman. It has to do with a legal contract. The contract says between a man and a woman. I don't think that is being questioned. The issue is that same-sex couples SHOULD have the right to enter into the same contract. It's simply a legal matter. If churches don't want to "marry" same-sex couples, that's their business. Remember, at one time marriage was only open to two white people of opposite genders. People in mixed race marriages were criminals in many states. People saw that as a partnership of a different kind. Things change. Bush and Kerry are both for civil unions among gay couples that would give them the same legal rights (and punishments!) that married couples receive. Both Bush and Kerry are against gay marraige saying that "marraige" should be between a man and a woman. So, if you're gonna complain about Bush you need to complain about Kerry as well. BTW, Edwards (the REALLY liberal Democratic contender) was against gay marraige (and for civil unions) as well. Only Bush, however, calls for a Constitutional Convention to revise the Constitution so that homosexuals can never have equal rights under law. This would be the first time the Constitution was ammended to restrict rather than to extend rights. Kerry thinks it's fine if Massachussetts extends gay right of marriage, but California bans it. Kerry's stance is that it should be each state's right to decide for or against, & from my p.o.v. his stance sucks raw eggs, is wussy, & certainly not pro-gay. But it's not the high degree of EVIL that calling for Constitutional restrictions of civil rights happens to be. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote: I don't hate right wing Kristians. Matter of fact, I only reserve the word "hate" for dogs. But, how would you feel if I started a political party based on the beliefs of Osama bin Laden , and hounded YOUR local politicians to toe the line according to those beliefs? You would be more convincing if you didn't insist on characterizing Christians by equating them with terrorists and murderers. billo |
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Doug Kanter wrote: I don't hate right wing Kristians. Matter of fact, I only reserve the word "hate" for dogs. But, how would you feel if I started a political party based on the beliefs of Osama bin Laden , and hounded YOUR local politicians to toe the line according to those beliefs? You would be more convincing if you didn't insist on characterizing Christians by equating them with terrorists and murderers. I think he has been clear. He only equates the right wingers with terrorists and murders, just like Franklin Graham equates Muslims with terrorism. You do realize that not all religious people are right-wing nut cases? I know how you hate religious bigotry, so I await your unequivocal condemnation of Rev. Franklin Graham. "The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it [Islam] is a very evil and wicked religion." Rev. Franklin Graham 11/16/2001 MSNBC |
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:17:13 -0000, (Bill Oliver) opined:
In article , Doug Kanter wrote: I don't hate right wing Kristians. Matter of fact, I only reserve the word "hate" for dogs. But, how would you feel if I started a political party based on the beliefs of Osama bin Laden , and hounded YOUR local politicians to toe the line according to those beliefs? You would be more convincing if you didn't insist on characterizing Christians by equating them with terrorists and murderers. billo When they bomb abortion clinics and burn crosses they are terrorists. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
It is a medical procedure. like all medical procedures it carries some risk. for
girls younger than 18 having an abortion carries much less risk than carrying a fetus to term. that is on average. of course, carrying a fetus to term is always a medical risk for a woman and an early abortion done at proper facility probably carries less risk than going to full term as well. abortion as "birth control" is not ideal as there are always some medical risks. now the morning after pills or taking a higher dose of birth control pills seems like a better methodology when normal birth control measure fail. In that sense, I dont think it is rational to be "pro abortion" any more than it would be to advocate other kinds of medical procedures unnecessarily. Of course I believe women making a choice to not carry to term can be absolutely the best ethical/moral choice for herself and family. I dont see how Sanger advocating choice is being "pro abortion". Ingrid "Vox Humana" wrote: I have heard some pro-abortion advocates lately. Alexander Sanger, the grandson of Margaret Sanger, wrote a book on the subject called "Beyond Choice." I heard an interview with him on the Signorile show on Sirius Radio. He made some good points and didn't appear to be a lunatic. Unless you think that abortion is a moral issue instead of a medical issue, there is no reason to make moralistic judgment about the person who has an abortion. In fact, Sanger argues that a person who chooses an abortion can actually be doing the moral thing for herself, her family, and society. The anti-abortion movement has been wonderfully successful in framing the issue in religious and moralistic terms just as they have turned same-sex marriage into a religious argument instead of a civil rights or legal argument. http://www.alexandersanger.com/book.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. |
wrote in message ... It is a medical procedure. like all medical procedures it carries some risk. for girls younger than 18 having an abortion carries much less risk than carrying a fetus to term. that is on average. of course, carrying a fetus to term is always a medical risk for a woman and an early abortion done at proper facility probably carries less risk than going to full term as well. abortion as "birth control" is not ideal as there are always some medical risks. now the morning after pills or taking a higher dose of birth control pills seems like a better methodology when normal birth control measure fail. In that sense, I dont think it is rational to be "pro abortion" any more than it would be to advocate other kinds of medical procedures unnecessarily. Of course I believe women making a choice to not carry to term can be absolutely the best ethical/moral choice for herself and family. I dont see how Sanger advocating choice is being "pro abortion". Ingrid We don't disagree on this. I said the same thing about the medical aspect of abortion. But, you can be pro-abortion, and not a lunatic, especial if the alternative is to be anti-abortion. The religious-right tries to assert that abortions are used as form of birth control. I'm sure that is true for a few people as in any large sample you will find people at the extremes. I don't think that the average person would see abortion as a rational form of birth control. As for Sanger, he claimed to be pro-abortion in the interview that I heard. I believe his point is that if you look at abortion as a medical procedure, then there is no reason to avoid the term "pro-abortion" assuming that you approach it in a rational manner just as you would any other invasive procedure. |
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:17:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Let's compare evil religions, shall we? Billy can't get anyone to engage in a gardening discussion. Leave the Doc where he belongs.....in a kill file! |
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote: I think he has been clear. He only equates the right wingers with terrorists and murders, just like Franklin Graham equates Muslims with terrorism. You do realize that not all religious people are right-wing nut cases? I know how you hate religious bigotry, so I await your unequivocal condemnation of Rev. Franklin Graham. You mean all right wingers are terrorists and murderers the same way all leftists are mass murderers and genocidal maniacs? The way all Democrats are the equivalent of Stalin and the Khmer Rouge? That way? I can see why you defend that attitude so. billo |
In article ,
escapee wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:17:13 -0000, (Bill Oliver) opined: In article , Doug Kanter wrote: I don't hate right wing Kristians. Matter of fact, I only reserve the word "hate" for dogs. But, how would you feel if I started a political party based on the beliefs of Osama bin Laden , and hounded YOUR local politicians to toe the line according to those beliefs? You would be more convincing if you didn't insist on characterizing Christians by equating them with terrorists and murderers. billo When they bomb abortion clinics and burn crosses they are terrorists. Oh? And how many of "them" do that? The same way atheists all commit genocide? billo |
In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote: If you'd stop removing the words "right wing" from "Christians", you'd understand that I'm referring to a small, but intrusive segment of the religious community as a whole. But, you've chosen to ignore that fact. Let's compare evil religions, shall we? Right. The same way all atheists are guilty of gulags and mass starvation and genocide. Sure. Oh, I mean only the *leftist* atheists. billo |
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Vox Humana wrote: I think he has been clear. He only equates the right wingers with terrorists and murders, just like Franklin Graham equates Muslims with terrorism. You do realize that not all religious people are right-wing nut cases? I know how you hate religious bigotry, so I await your unequivocal condemnation of Rev. Franklin Graham. You mean all right wingers are terrorists and murderers the same way all leftists are mass murderers and genocidal maniacs? The way all Democrats are the equivalent of Stalin and the Khmer Rouge? That way? I can see why you defend that attitude so. Still waiting for that condemnation of the Rev. Graham for being a religious bigot. |
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote: Still waiting for that condemnation of the Rev. Graham for being a religious bigot. Still waiting for you to stop being one. billo |
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Vox Humana wrote: Still waiting for that condemnation of the Rev. Graham for being a religious bigot. Still waiting for you to stop being one. Anti-Muslim bigot. |
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote: "Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Vox Humana wrote: Still waiting for that condemnation of the Rev. Graham for being a religious bigot. Still waiting for you to stop being one. Anti-Muslim bigot. Nice try. billo |
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Vox Humana wrote: "Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Vox Humana wrote: Still waiting for that condemnation of the Rev. Graham for being a religious bigot. Still waiting for you to stop being one. Anti-Muslim bigot. Nice try. Bigot! |
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Vox Humana wrote: I think he has been clear. He only equates the right wingers with terrorists and murders, just like Franklin Graham equates Muslims with terrorism. You do realize that not all religious people are right-wing nut cases? I know how you hate religious bigotry, so I await your unequivocal condemnation of Rev. Franklin Graham. You mean all right wingers are terrorists and murderers the same way all leftists are mass murderers and genocidal maniacs? The way all Democrats are the equivalent of Stalin and the Khmer Rouge? That way? I can see why you defend that attitude so. billo I hope your career doesn't involve science or economics, because the conclusions you come up with are in no way connected with reality. |
In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote: I hope your career doesn't involve science or economics, because the conclusions you come up with are in no way connected with reality. You are right -- no more than your bigoted claims. billo |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter