escape expounded:

She quoted every word you said.

And misinterpreted it on purpose. Janet got it, I think you did, too.
But because our politics differ, you're playing dumb. Ok.

I also don't put people into neat categories, as it
seems you feel comfortable doing.

Oh, of course you don't. You never talk about conservatives in a
general way quote: '...and today I was in the truck and heard some of
Hannity's show and he and the former Bush campaign muckity muck was
praising god and "the lord" with Hannity
that Bush won. Yay.': end quote

And before you go into another one of your anti-religion rants,
remember who you're talking to.
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm In case you don't understand
my point, you quite frequently put people into neat categories. Many
people do. It's amazing to me how many claim they don't when caught.

But that's okay, you must be very happy now.

Now why would I be happy? You must be happy for 'exposing' me. Well,
aren't you?

I'm not happy at all with the outcome of the election, because there
wasn't anyone to vote for. I voted against Kerry and would do it
again in a heartbeat.

Once again, as I've said many times, hopefully next time around there
will be someone worth voting for.
--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

"Jim Carlock" expounded:

Next election...
Skull and Bones (R)
Skull and Bones (D)
Unknown Wildcard Independents

Oh, I hope not. We've got to break the Republican/Democrat logjam
somehow. I wish the Libertarians would get it together somehow. But
I'm afraid you're right. MOTS.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:18:48 -0500, Ann opined:

And misinterpreted it on purpose. Janet got it, I think you did, too.
But because our politics differ, you're playing dumb. Ok.

I didn't misinterpret it, or interpret it. I read it and it spoke for itself.
It's a parrot of what I'm hearing on the conservative talk radio shows. Nothing
original.

I also don't put people into neat categories, as it
seems you feel comfortable doing.

Oh, of course you don't. You never talk about conservatives in a
general way quote: '...and today I was in the truck and heard some of
Hannity's show and he and the former Bush campaign muckity muck was
praising god and "the lord" with Hannity
that Bush won. Yay.': end quote

I didn't mention the word conservative. I was expressing my aghast at how this
country is turning into a religious state where masses of people are swaying
politics because of their god. That scares me.


And before you go into another one of your anti-religion rants,
remember who you're talking to.
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm In case you don't understand
my point, you quite frequently put people into neat categories. Many
people do. It's amazing to me how many claim they don't when caught.

I didn't have time or desire to read the website, but I don't think religion has
any place in politics or government. No place at all. That is not the same
thing as anti-religion ranting. I am a very active practitioner in my
tradition, but I would never want to see it govern anyone. It's a personal
thing, not something to use against people.

But that's okay, you must be very happy now.

Now why would I be happy? You must be happy for 'exposing' me. Well,
aren't you?

No, that wasn't my intention at all. You simply don't sound like a very happy
person. It was sarcastic.

I'm not happy at all with the outcome of the election, because there
wasn't anyone to vote for. I voted against Kerry and would do it
again in a heartbeat.

Once again, as I've said many times, hopefully next time around there
will be someone worth voting for.

So you voted for the guy who is against science because we are all embryo's at
one time or another? Embryo's which are going to be discarded anyway. You
voted for a religious fanatic who is going to possibly appoint the next set of
lifetime Supreme Court Justice symbols and you voted for a man who thinks we are
on a crusade. Oh good. I'd prefer not to vote in that case. I did vote for
Kerry and would vote for him again in a heartbeat. At least he didn't use buzz
words in order to sell out and gather his religious right.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

"escape" wrote in message
...


...and today I was in the truck and heard some of Hannity's show and he
and the
former Bush campaign muckity muck was praising god and "the lord" with
Hannity
that Bush won. Yay.


Just for grins, I'm gonna behave like one of the Bush Borg. Ready?

"Got a link that proves what was really said on Hannity's show?"

ROFL!!!!!

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:34:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
opined:

"escape" wrote in message
.. .


...and today I was in the truck and heard some of Hannity's show and he
and the
former Bush campaign muckity muck was praising god and "the lord" with
Hannity
that Bush won. Yay.


Just for grins, I'm gonna behave like one of the Bush Borg. Ready?

"Got a link that proves what was really said on Hannity's show?"

ROFL!!!!!


And like a good liberal democrat, no, I don't have the need to prove it! LOLWY!

V





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

In article ,
says...

Oh, I hope not. We've got to break the Republican/Democrat logjam
somehow.

The solution is simple - but it'll never get implemented. Put the name
of every registered voter in a hat (OK, a computer). 3 months before
the election start pulling names until you get 3 people willing to run
(for each office). 2 months before the election they get free TV time
on a weekly basis to expound their phiosophy of government. Negative
campaigning is considered grounds for disqualification.

No big contributors, no organized parties, no career politicians.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:57:19 -0800, "gregpresley"
wrote:

Not that anyone cares at this point in the thread, but it's clear that there
were 5 main groups voting strongly for Bush. People who earn more than
$200,000, people who believe that the only real business of government is
defense/(offence), people who think that sticking to one point of view (no
matter how discredited) is more indicative of leadership than flexibility
is, people who live in small towns with perhaps less access to a variety of
news sources, and people who are religious conservatives. There are some
overlaps between these groups, notably the religious conservatives and small
town groups.
What can be said unequivocably is that Bush could not have won this election
without the religious conservative vote. Just subtract their numbers
(20,000,000 or so) and you get a Kerry over Bush victory 56,000,000 to
39,000,000. So on issues which could be argued on a rational basis, you have
a significant, but smaller group of Republicans. Even though I disagree with
those voters, at least we could argue political philosophy, numbers,
motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you get into the realm of which candidate
truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would prove
that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion.

A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is
their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with,
that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational?

It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to
be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people
vote based on their personal beliefs?

Swyck

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:33:42 GMT, escape
wrote:
I didn't mention the word conservative. I was expressing my aghast at how this
country is turning into a religious state where masses of people are swaying
politics because of their god. That scares me.

And before you go into another one of your anti-religion rants,
remember who you're talking to.
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm In case you don't understand
my point, you quite frequently put people into neat categories. Many
people do. It's amazing to me how many claim they don't when caught.

I didn't have time or desire to read the website, but I don't think religion has
any place in politics or government. No place at all. That is not the same
thing as anti-religion ranting. I am a very active practitioner in my
tradition, but I would never want to see it govern anyone. It's a personal
thing, not something to use against people.

You are an ignorant bigot. Its fine for you to vote for what you
think is right, but not for religious people. For your information
religion has always been influential in politics in this country.

Swyck

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:57:19 -0800, "gregpresley"
wrote:

Not that anyone cares at this point in the thread, but it's clear that
there
were 5 main groups voting strongly for Bush. People who earn more than
$200,000, people who believe that the only real business of government is
defense/(offence), people who think that sticking to one point of view
(no
matter how discredited) is more indicative of leadership than flexibility
is, people who live in small towns with perhaps less access to a variety
of
news sources, and people who are religious conservatives. There are some
overlaps between these groups, notably the religious conservatives and
small
town groups.
What can be said unequivocably is that Bush could not have won this
election
without the religious conservative vote. Just subtract their numbers
(20,000,000 or so) and you get a Kerry over Bush victory 56,000,000 to
39,000,000. So on issues which could be argued on a rational basis, you
have
a significant, but smaller group of Republicans. Even though I disagree
with
those voters, at least we could argue political philosophy, numbers,
motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you get into the realm of which
candidate
truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would
prove
that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion.

A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is
their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with,
that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational?

It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to
be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people
vote based on their personal beliefs?

Swyck

Some people don't know where to draw the line, and THAT'S the problem.
Hey...spend a week on google and try to find some examples IN THE UNITED
STATES of Jews electing a slew of public officials because they think
everyone should observe THEIR religious practices. See...some religions
have a missionary tradition. You know what THAT means: Stick your nose in
everybody else's business. These sects got away with destroying entire
civilizations. Nowadays, they'd never get away with it, so they're trying to
flex their muscles by voting.

There's nothing wrong with having one's own beliefs. It's a whole different
story when you try and impose them on others.

In article , "gregpresley"
wrote:

Not that anyone cares at this point in the thread, but it's clear that there
were 5 main groups voting strongly for Bush. People who earn more than
$200,000, people who believe that the only real business of government is
defense/(offence), people who think that sticking to one point of view (no
matter how discredited) is more indicative of leadership than flexibility
is, people who live in small towns with perhaps less access to a variety of
news sources, and people who are religious conservatives. There are some
overlaps between these groups, notably the religious conservatives and small
town groups.
What can be said unequivocably is that Bush could not have won this election
without the religious conservative vote. Just subtract their numbers
(20,000,000 or so) and you get a Kerry over Bush victory 56,000,000 to
39,000,000. So on issues which could be argued on a rational basis, you have
a significant, but smaller group of Republicans. Even though I disagree with
those voters, at least we could argue political philosophy, numbers,
motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you get into the realm of which candidate
truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would prove
that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion.
But as I wrote to my Republican brother recently, the Democrats faced
internal disunity for over 100 years between the northern Democrats and the
southern Democrats. The northerns were anti-slavery, the southerns pro, the
northerns willing to assist the implementation of Amendments XIII and XIV,
the southerns to obstruct them, the northerns to pass civil rights
legislation in the 50's and 60's, the southerns to obstruct them, the
northerns to encourage scientific knowledge and debate, the southerns to
vote on public officials depending on their stand on evolution.
Now the Republicans have "inherited" the south, and with that
inheritance come a lot of problematical issues and potential divisions down
the road. Barry Goldwater spent the last years of his life warning his
fellow Republicans that there would be tremendous trouble in store for them
if they allowed the Christian right to become dominant in their party, and I
would say that we've arrived at that point.

Excellent comment.

-paggers

--
"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 , wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:57:19 -0800, "gregpresley"
wrote:

Not that anyone cares at this point in the thread, but it's clear that there
were 5 main groups voting strongly for Bush. People who earn more than
$200,000, people who believe that the only real business of government is
defense/(offence), people who think that sticking to one point of view (no
matter how discredited) is more indicative of leadership than flexibility
is, people who live in small towns with perhaps less access to a variety of
news sources, and people who are religious conservatives. There are some
overlaps between these groups, notably the religious conservatives and small
town groups.
What can be said unequivocably is that Bush could not have won this election
without the religious conservative vote. Just subtract their numbers
(20,000,000 or so) and you get a Kerry over Bush victory 56,000,000 to
39,000,000. So on issues which could be argued on a rational basis, you have
a significant, but smaller group of Republicans. Even though I disagree with
those voters, at least we could argue political philosophy, numbers,
motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you get into the realm of which candidate
truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would prove
that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion.

A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is
their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with,
that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational?

Faith is by its nature unreasoned. If you found a rational basis for
faith, it would no longer be faith. Our nation's single greatest strength
rests on the separation of Church & State -- on the capacity to rule
rationally, which in the current administration has been forfeited.

It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to
be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people
vote based on their personal beliefs?

It would be far better if people voted on the basis of knowledge. You may
BELIEVE the devil is god so that when you vote for god you thereby get the
devil. If you become better informed you'll make an informed decision. You
could certainly still vote for the devil if you prefer him, but why be
misled about it? To me it seems that YOUR idea that a christian believer
cannot make a rational informed choice, but must rely on BELIEF, paints a
picture of christians I'm thus-far unwilling to believe is typical of
christians. But a bigot might really like what you wrote here, as it would
reinforce their bigotry as a case in point.

Now if you'd tried that ignorant stunt on me I could've understood it
because I growl when I speak. You'd be wrong, but when yelled at people do
tend to yell back, so it would be understandable. But it wasn't pugilistic
paghat you addressed this nonsense to. Greg was so gentle, generous, &
intelligent in his concise assessment, yet you immediately start screaming
Bigot! at him. That reflects wholly on you.

-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 , wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:33:42 GMT, escape
wrote:
I didn't mention the word conservative. I was expressing my aghast at
how this
country is turning into a religious state where masses of people are swaying
politics because of their god. That scares me.

And before you go into another one of your anti-religion rants,
remember who you're talking to.
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm In case you don't understand
my point, you quite frequently put people into neat categories. Many
people do. It's amazing to me how many claim they don't when caught.

I didn't have time or desire to read the website, but I don't think
religion has
any place in politics or government. No place at all. That is not the same
thing as anti-religion ranting. I am a very active practitioner in my
tradition, but I would never want to see it govern anyone. It's a personal
thing, not something to use against people.

You are an ignorant bigot. Its fine for you to vote for what you
think is right, but not for religious people. For your information
religion has always been influential in politics in this country.

Swyck

You make religious people sound like morons. But as escape & greg are by
no stretch of the imagination bigots, I'm sure neither will draw the
conclusion that christians are morons merely because of one pitifully
hate-filled sod who angrilly pretends to worship a god of love.

Most of us hang out with christians a great deal even if we're not
christians. So we well know you represent only a crazy-ass fringe & not
the real deal. If anyone thought you personally represented christianity,
THEN we'd be bigots.

As someone who has for many years studied comparative religion, whose
personal library includes everything from the Babylonian Talmud to the
Zohar and Targums and Midrash Rabbah, to the Upanishads to the the Devi
Mahatmya to Kojiki: The Record of Ancient Matters, to the complete works
of the AnteNicene fathers, five translations of the Bible, the Ng Hammadi
texts & every conceivable scrap of Pseudepigrapha, to the Koran and the
complete works of Rumi, ad infitum, & having read this entire library more
than one time through, I can say that my interest in religion goes as deep
or deeper than yours. Good chance I even know more about your faith than
do you, unless you too have Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria within
arm's reach. And I know this: At the mystic end of all religions there is
common ground, there is poetic philosophy, & there is wisdom devoid of
divisive hatred. You've only gotten as far as the divisive, damaging,
hate-justifying part of what it means to be relgious. I may not see in you
the capacity to ever become spiritual, but who knows, maybe you'll have
more than one life to work it through, & you'll become a credit to your
faith to everyone's great amaze.

-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

"gregpresley" wrote in message
...

wrote in message motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once
you
get into the realm of which candidate
truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would
prove
that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion.

A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is
their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with,
that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational?

It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to
be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people
vote based on their personal beliefs?

Swyck

First of all, I consider myself Christian, so I don't look in the mirror
every morning and say "gosh, what an irrational creature you are".....LOL
But belief is private and acceptance of fine points of dogma, an
individual
matter - not a matter for politics. . Over 2/3rds of the world's
Christians
(Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians) believe that the defnition of
Christian is "follower of Christ" - embedded in that definition is, of
course, a belief that Jesus is the Savior, but also strong in that
tradition
is the answer to the biblical question, "how will you know they are
Christians? You will know they are Christians by their love". In that
tradition of Christianity, people are not going to accept a statement of
"I
have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior" from a public official
(or
from any individual) for that matter, as being significant. They are going
to look for the acts, or the works, if you will, which translate belief
into
action. And those acts, if a person has digested the new Testament, will
necessarily have to be fully living out the Beatitudes and similar
suggestions of Jesus on how to live a holy life. From a public policy
perspective, I have no interest in a politician's political beliefs, but
if
he/she consistently votes in favor of policies that ease the lives of the
poor and downtrodden, whether for school lunch programs, or making sure
that
children have shelter, on in international policies, if he/she votes for
sustained diplomacy for peace-making efforts above war, I have all the
"moral-values" information I need on that candidate - who could be
Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist , or atheist for all that I care.



How do you deal with the business about the end of the world, when
unfortunate Jews, Buddhists, etc will be toast because they don't believe in
Jesus?

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:24:31 -0500, opined:

A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is
their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with,
that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational?

It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to
be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people
vote based on their personal beliefs?

Swyck

A Christian is not JUST someone who accepts Christ as their savior. They also
believe God created the heavens and earth, things possible and impossible.
Christians do not believe in evolution, as they are guided by the bible, who is
written by God and interpreted by man.

Yes, Christians can be reasoned with, but when it comes to things of science,
no, they cannot.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:35:52 -0500, opined:


You are an ignorant bigot. Its fine for you to vote for what you
think is right, but not for religious people. For your information
religion has always been influential in politics in this country.

Swyck

Yeah, that's the new teachings, ain't it. I am not ignorant nor am I a bigot of
any sort. You calling me a bigot is pretty funny, though.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html