In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote:


She didn't say "Christians". She said "the religious right".

Right. All Christian Republicans. Sorry,
the "good ******/bad ******" distinction
didn't work 50 years ago, either. Bigots are
bigots, whether they make bigoted statements
about race or religion.


billo

I believe that subject was taking from one group to give to another.

"Sheila" wrote in message
...
I believe that subject was taking from one group to give to another.

You must be talking about Bush's tax reforms.

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote:


She didn't say "Christians". She said "the religious right".

Right. All Christian Republicans. Sorry,
the "good ******/bad ******" distinction
didn't work 50 years ago, either. Bigots are
bigots, whether they make bigoted statements
about race or religion.


You are under the mistaken assumption that the religious right has some
monopoly on Christianity.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
newsgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a
trifecta of insults.

So, are you saying the Helen Crames was insulting dykerider?

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for
it?'

For the same reason the government pays for other medical procedures, like
hip replacements, or medication for childrens' ear infections. However, I'll
add this: The same government should also pay for health education which
would help minimize some health disorders, and said education should be
completely factual & not influenced by church committees.

So you believe in taking from one group to give to another, even to the
point of taking innocent lives.




My ex-wife's Unitarian church ran a series of sex ed classes which were very
explicit. They honored parents' wishes through a real high tech scheme which
involved typing and printing things on paper - quite revolutionary. All
parents were given VERY detailed copies of each week's lesson plan so they
could keep their kids out of certain classes if they wished to do so. Why
couldn't public schools do this, rather than have the typical all-or-nothing
wars which seem to be the hobby of the fundamentalists?


Well, when I grew up, parents taught their children about sex. I think
that is where it should be taught today too. Let schools teach real
subjects.

You just keep changing the subject!

In article , (Bill
Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote:


She didn't say "Christians". She said "the religious right".

Right. All Christian Republicans. Sorry,
the "good ******/bad ******" distinction
didn't work 50 years ago, either. Bigots are
bigots, whether they make bigoted statements
about race or religion.

billo

The "you just called me a ******" gambit is the only stupid argument being
made here. Let's just call inbred honky rednecks white trash & leave it at
that.

Repost:

GEORGE BUSH, AMERICA'S FIRST COKEHEAD PRESIDENT!

Here are the facts (again) for disbelievers who're strangely planning to
vote for the honest-to-shit cokehead president:

Georgie initially refused to confirm or deny his cocaine abuse. Later,
questioned again about cocaine use, he replied "when I was young and
irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."

Getting fallout from that "near Yes" reply, he next said that the issue
wasn't relevant. Since everyone else thought it WAS relevant, & he was
the ONLY republican candidate that refused to answer a Daily News query
on this matter, within days he was saying that he wouldn't address
"rumors" & tried a little belatedly to get the cat back in the sack.

Eventually he claimed that he could pass a standard security check dating
back seven years. When this was interpreted to mean he'd used cocaine
&/or marijuana eight years ago, & only after that time could he have
passed a urine test, he ammended his claim & said he could've passed his
father's White House security check too -- meaning he hadn't used
cocaine & marijuana for fifteen years.

Later still he pushed the date back to about 1973. It began to look like
he was really into it only when he was an out-of-control teenager, but if
that was all, why did he start with the milder boast that he'd not done
coke for seven years?? In 1972 when he went AWOL from his
already-draft-dodging National Guard Duty, it is widely believed he took
off because that was the year they instigated mandatory drug testing, &
it's in his record his being reprimanded for avoiding that particular
mandate. Does he REALLY mean to be admitting he WAS a cokehead until 1972
but after his AWOL period he cleaned himself up??? Then it's still a
wonder he previously claimed to be clean for only 7 years

Could it be he was so bonkers DRUNK through that period he's actually not
certain when it was that he last snorted coke? And he kept moving the date
back only as his handlers were able to clear him for another year or so,
after some paid detective work came in?

He has said a hell of a lot about the issue he claims he won't address
but the one thing he's never said is that he's never been a drug abuser.
You'd think he'd just lie & say "No way, no how, never did it, cocaine's
not for me," but is it possible the SHrub doesn't like to lie? Hell no, all
politicians like to lie -- the Shrub more than most, whether about Weapons
of Mass Destruction that didn't actually exist, or about Kerry being a
coward who misrepresented his war record (Machievelli said that if you
want to destroy a good man, take his BEST traits & reverse them, hence the
new anti-Kerry ads from the Republicans saying Kerry was a coward in Viet
Nam & didn't deserve a purple heart -- which ads Bush has publicly refused
to criticize).

So Bush loves to lie. So why not just lie outright & sazy he was never a
cokehead? Only one possible reason: he knows this time bomb will
eventually
explode & the one thing people won't be able to say in retrospect is that
he lied about it. He'll be able to claim he hedged & winged but didn't lie.

Georgie openly admits to having had a severe problem with alcohol until
age 40 (his formative years & then some -- no wonder he's even now not
completely a grown-up!) but when asked about his youthful indulgences of
pot & cocaine, he gets all nervous and slick-willy-like.

Another "rumor" explains his reluctance to just lie & claim innocence:
there exist photographs of him indulging & it's a matter of time before
some sleezy outfit decides to publish them or put them on the net (though
the Bush campaign IS busy trying to netcop the world wide web on this
matter).

There is every likelihood that Bush still abuses drugs, with the
assistance of whitehouse physician Col Richard J. Tubb whose prescriptions
some people have suspected explain Bush's poor language use, losing his
thread of thought mid-sentence, eratic behavior, mood swings, screaming
that top journalists were all "mother****ers" at his handlers shortly
after reporters asked questions about his friends at Enron, injuring
himself with a pretzel, & his unusual number of falling incidents (fainted
while sitting down, fell off his couch, twice off his bike -- Bush has
fallen down more often in the last two years than I have in the last
twenty, & the "official" explanation for these accidents is he suffers
from blaclk-outs). All very explicable for someone on psychotropic
medications or with a background history of cocaine & alcohol abuse which
without exception causes brain damage & retards emotional & intellectual
development.

Col Tubb has been widely reported to have prescribed psychotropic
medications to Bush as a treatment for depression & paranoia, which more
than anything to date could explain why Bush sat stone still for 7 minutes
doing nothing but his "deer in the headlights" impersonation when told the
SECOND time that the twin towers had been struck. Many have blamed his
eratic behavior & accidentally comical use of vocabulary on him being
low-IQ -- but really the old drug addiction problem explains it better.

This from the "Bush Watch" newsletter:

---begin quote
We wonder how long it will take the nation to get sick of Bush's game of
"Obfuscation." Here's how it has worked with his cocaine crisis.
According to Washington Post reporter Dan Balz, "Bush has privately
reassured some top supporters that his 'youthful mistakes' did not
involve hard drugs and would not disqualify him to be president,
according to several sources." If that's really the case, why can't Bush
assure the American people? Is it because the only people that really
count in Dubya's world are people with big money? Why can't Bush tell the
average citizen that "his 'youthful mistakes' did not involve hard
drugs"? Why is he playing "Obfuscation"? With respect to his drip-feeding
of cocaine facts to the American people, few TV talk show reporters have
addressed Bush's reason for providing information as he did. Those who
have addressed that topic suggest that the Bush temper took over his
common sense, and once the original "Not in 7 Years" story was out of the
bag, Bush and the spinners spent the next 48 hours revising the story,
evantually turning it into "Not in 25 Years." One scribe suggested that's
what can happen at any time when Bush makes a campaign stop without one
of his press spokespersons nearby. Another factor was that Bush was being
pressed for an answer by the reporters and he grew angry.

According to Balz, Bush's original "7 years" response was in answer to a
a question about what he would do as President, not what he had done in
the past, and Bush decided that it was relevant. By the following day,
his spinners evolved the answer to cover the last 25 years, but Bush
never said that, which is why the New York Times headline read that Bush
"implied" 25 years. Wednesday and Thursdaay were filled with many
statements, clarifications, and contradictions by Bush and his spinners,
indicating how the game of "Obfuscation" is played in Texas. However, the
final obfuscation is that Bush finally never really addressed his own
question: could he pass the current White House test? Based on what Bush
has said thus far, the answer is, no: "Bush's answer yesterday fell short
of the standard required of senior government officials both in the Bush
administration and in the Clinton administration, who must reveal drug
use back to age 18," wrote Balz. Further, Bush has never addressed the
specific question reporters have been asking for months: Did he ever use
cocaine? "Yes" or "no" would suffice. We don't want to play the Austin,
Texas game of "Obfuscation."
-----end quote

Fortunately for Bush, polls show that most republican voters don't give a
shit if he was a cokehead in 1972 -- just like democrats really didn't
care all that much if Clinton HAD inhaled.

I'm just waiting for the dancing-hamster variant "Snorting Georgie"
preferably to some Grateful Dead tune.

-paghat the ratgirl

All about Cokehead Bush, read 'em & be shocked:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
http://www.bobharris.com/scoop/bushcocaine.htm
http://www.progress.org/archive/drc12.htm
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushcoke.htm
http://www.g21.net/drug43.html
http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=5508&fcategory_desc=The%20 Bush%20Crime%20Family

--
"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

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote:


She didn't say "Christians". She said "the religious right".

Right. All Christian Republicans. Sorry,
the "good ******/bad ******" distinction
didn't work 50 years ago, either. Bigots are
bigots, whether they make bigoted statements
about race or religion.


billo



But....I know Christians who don't meddle in other peoples' business. Maybe
THAT is the distinction, not the names we use for various groups. If a name
is necessary, perhaps something like Obsessive Obnoxious Missionaries would
do. When we hear the word "missionary", we think of religious zealots raping
cultures in third world countries. However, they try and do it here, too.
They can't see that some people get along just fine without them, thank you.

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
newsgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to
denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it")
is
code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones.
It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal
medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of
view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in
any
way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this
is
a
trifecta of insults.



The NeoCons don't want the government paying for abortion because it
acknowledges the existence of sex for purposes other than
procreation.
Uh
oh.

They also see abortion as a way to dodge a bullet. The would rather
see
a
child born into a situation where they are not wanted or where there
are
too
few resources to adequately provide for their health and welfare. The
child
would be a constant reminder to them and everyone else of the parent's
"immoral" acts - a modern equivalent to the scarlet letter. The
abortion
derails this scheme.



Yes - I know someone who thinks this way. He says the evil mother
wouldn't
be in such a situation to begin with if she had "proper morals". When I
remind him that an otherwise non-evil mother could be the victim of a
failed
condom, he says the solution is abstinence, but that the evil mother is
probably addicted to sex and wouldn't consider abstinence as an option.

Yes, this same person probably worships Ronald Reagan who had a child with
Nancy about 5 months after they were married.



SIN!!!!!!!!!!

In article , Sheila
wrote:

You just keep changing the subject!

What's up with so many RED cars in those autombile ads?

--
"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

"Sheila" wrote in message
...

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for
it?'

For the same reason the government pays for other medical procedures,
like
hip replacements, or medication for childrens' ear infections. However,
I'll
add this: The same government should also pay for health education which
would help minimize some health disorders, and said education should be
completely factual & not influenced by church committees.

So you believe in taking from one group to give to another, even to the
point of taking innocent lives.

Two separate issues. "taking from one group...." refers to who should pay
for ALL medical procedures, including setting broken bones, eye exams and
abortions. Because of the economic structure of this country, there will
ALWAYS be people who cannot afford health insurance, so you'd better get
used to the idea unless you have a better solution. What do you suppose a
hotel room would cost if the maids were paid $35,000.00 per year? How about
the lower paid kitchen staff in restaurants? Are you ready for an $11.00
hamburger at your typical diner? How about a 3 lb bag of carrots for $8.00?
As long as menial work needs to be done, the government will have to pay for
health insurance for millions of people.

"Taking innocent lives" is not connected with the financial issue. You
either accept government supported health care IN GENERAL, or you don't.


My ex-wife's Unitarian church ran a series of sex ed classes which were
very
explicit. They honored parents' wishes through a real high tech scheme
which
involved typing and printing things on paper - quite revolutionary. All
parents were given VERY detailed copies of each week's lesson plan so
they
could keep their kids out of certain classes if they wished to do so.
Why
couldn't public schools do this, rather than have the typical
all-or-nothing
wars which seem to be the hobby of the fundamentalists?


Well, when I grew up, parents taught their children about sex. I think
that is where it should be taught today too. Let schools teach real
subjects.

SOME parents teach their kids about sex. Of that group, some are idiots and
teach their kids things which are simply incorrect. Not the morals, but the
scientific facts. That's how you end up with unwanted pregnancies. You can't
scream about abortion *and* try to stamp out information which will help
lower the abortion rate. Sorry. It's immature to think that way.

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

But....I know Christians who don't meddle in other peoples' business. Maybe
THAT is the distinction, not the names we use for various groups. If a name
is necessary, perhaps something like Obsessive Obnoxious Missionaries would
do. When we hear the word "missionary", we think of religious zealots raping
cultures in third world countries. However, they try and do it here, too.
They can't see that some people get along just fine without them, thank you.

The one & only place outside of a church where you're GUARANTEED to have
100% Christians is a Ku Klux Klan meeting. That's something Christians
should always bare in mind when noting that SOME christians aren't such
racist mofo gits, as it's just one reason that mistrust of
christianity-motivated politicking is not to be trusted as even marginally
decent.

As for missionary types. Had a couple mormons on my front porch two weeks
ago who refused to leave. I was being polite in asking them to leave, &
they took the polite tone or the refusal to just slam the door as an
invitation to stay & keep jabbering at me in the most offensively
religious terms -- & I note this as someone who collects religious texts
of all faiths & know a great deal about most of these ideologies.

If these had been homeless chaps instead of mormons, being as aggressive
asking for spare change as these guys were pitching religion, they could
actually be arrested. They kept trying to get me to engage them in some
kind of religious debate, & the more I refused the more they insisted. Not
until I narrowed my eyes & alluded to them as "trespassing mother****ing
gits" did they finally catch my meaning & go away.

A week later, another pair of Mormons peered in at my open door & called
for my attention. I refused to go to the door, but called back at them
from the kitchen to put this address on their "don't bother the
godforsaken Jews' house" list. One of the chaps actually said, "Okay," &
they left.

-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

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for
it?'

For the same reason the government pays for other medical procedures,
like
hip replacements, or medication for childrens' ear infections. However,
I'll
add this: The same government should also pay for health education which
would help minimize some health disorders, and said education should be
completely factual & not influenced by church committees.

So you believe in taking from one group to give to another, even to the
point of taking innocent lives.

Two separate issues. "taking from one group...." refers to who should pay
for ALL medical procedures, including setting broken bones, eye exams and
abortions. Because of the economic structure of this country, there will
ALWAYS be people who cannot afford health insurance, so you'd better get
used to the idea unless you have a better solution. What do you suppose a
hotel room would cost if the maids were paid $35,000.00 per year? How about
the lower paid kitchen staff in restaurants? Are you ready for an $11.00
hamburger at your typical diner? How about a 3 lb bag of carrots for $8.00?
As long as menial work needs to be done, the government will have to pay for
health insurance for millions of people.

There are not as many uninsured people as you believe.


"Taking innocent lives" is not connected with the financial issue. You
either accept government supported health care IN GENERAL, or you don't.

I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand.


My ex-wife's Unitarian church ran a series of sex ed classes which were
very
explicit. They honored parents' wishes through a real high tech scheme
which
involved typing and printing things on paper - quite revolutionary. All
parents were given VERY detailed copies of each week's lesson plan so
they
could keep their kids out of certain classes if they wished to do so.
Why
couldn't public schools do this, rather than have the typical
all-or-nothing
wars which seem to be the hobby of the fundamentalists?


Well, when I grew up, parents taught their children about sex. I think
that is where it should be taught today too. Let schools teach real
subjects.

SOME parents teach their kids about sex. Of that group, some are idiots and
teach their kids things which are simply incorrect. Not the morals, but the
scientific facts. That's how you end up with unwanted pregnancies. You can't
scream about abortion *and* try to stamp out information which will help
lower the abortion rate. Sorry. It's immature to think that way.

No, it's not immature to thing that way. Sex education at school seems
to encourage sexual activity, not just educate. It makes it much harder
for girl's to so 'no' to a guy today.

In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


You are under the mistaken assumption that the religious right has some
monopoly on Christianity.



No, bigot.

billo

In article ,
paghat wrote:

The one & only place outside of a church where you're GUARANTEED to have
100% Christians is a Ku Klux Klan meeting.

Well, no. And the primary force combatting the KKK was Christian.
Antichristian bigots like to forget that Martin Luther King was
*Rev.* Martin Luther King.

billo