Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

Bill Putney wrote:

> Abeness wrote:
>
>> vince garcia wrote:
>>
>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the
>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their
>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details.
>> I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking
>> on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my
>> business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might
>> argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their
>> customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in
>> their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully, and
>> justice must prevail.
>>
>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal
>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more
>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for
>> many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating
>> against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on
>> their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could they
>> possibly choose otherwise.
>
>
> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me to
> marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges.
>
>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other even if
>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!"
>>
>>
>>
>> You have a point here. ;-)
>>
>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact
>> would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just
>> think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by your
>> hypothesis!
>>
>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe discrimination
>>> is always unconstitutional.
>>
>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue is
>> favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to prevent
>> abuse of power with these laws.
>>
>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the hell
>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
>>
>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is
>> (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to see
>> heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I don't
>> want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop. And I
>> sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV (couldn't
>> believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public "fornication"
>> by anyone.
>
>
> Although that is being pushed for by some also.
>
>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to
>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.
>
>
> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government sanction,
> encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree - after all -
> that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove otherwise.

KNOTHEAD!

Sparky wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
>>>>> "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle
>>>>> when it
>>>>> doesn't damage their property or personal liberties?
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's called DEMOCRACY.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble
>>> over
>>> nomenclature?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
>>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
>>> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison
>>> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.
>>>
>>>> Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?
>>
>>
>> How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better
>> health benefits, Medicare, etc.
>
>
> Let's not go trans species - okay?

If we talk about homosexual marriage you can't avoid it. There are
people who are seriously in favor of this, and if the homosexuals get
their way this will be the next cause celeb.


Matt

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, WindsorFox[SS] wrote:
>
>
>>Shut up Daniel, I know a number of gays that supported Bush.
>
>
> And this proves...what, now?
>
> DS


Daniel, i get fussed at by the rest of the guys for being OT, and i
don't think that this has anything to do with cars, does it?

unless it has to do with Stupid Americans buying incredible American Gas
hogs?

hmmmmmm

Daniel, i am staying!!!!! thanks for the support...

lw

Eric Gironda wrote:


> Last time I checked "marriage" was not a
> right the people of this country are granted.

Last time you checked you had no comprehension of what the Constitution
is, and you still don't.

Our government does not grant us rights, nor does the Constitution
itself, it merely recognizes them. The Constitution limits the
government, not the People.

Too bad we have let it be trashed.


Jack

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, linda wrote:

> >>Shut up Daniel, I know a number of gays that supported Bush.

> > And this proves...what, now?

> Daniel, i get fussed at by the rest of the guys for being OT,

We all do.

> don't think that this has anything to do with cars, does it?

Nope.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:30:32 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>
>> 041108 2142 - Wound Up posted:
>
>> > Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>> > target of hatred
>
>> Well, then, maybe derision???
>
>"Maybe"...? Y'think?
>
>Turn on your TV set during primetime any night of the week. Scarcely a
>sitcom episode goes by without they don't make clunky, hamhanded innuendo
>or outright laughtrack-enhanced punchlines at the expense of
>cardigan-wearing, mincing, oh-so-coiffed fag-stereotypes, and entire
>series are built on same, e.g. "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the
>Straight Guy" or "Queer as Folk".
>
>One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine how black people felt when
>they saw such as "What's Happenin?" on television. Hollywood, for their
>part, is glibly contrite for years of making money off black stereotypes,
>but they evidently have zero problem doing the selfsame thing with gays
>right now, today.
>
>Gandhi said of social change: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule
>and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
>
>-DS

There's a group that come in for much more derision than homosexuals
on TV - the white male.
All you need to do to see this is to watch sitcoms and advertisements.
The poor bumbling white guy is the butt of so many jokes it's obvious
to anyone who watches.
But it's OK, because, after all, they are just, well, there.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Jack wrote:

> Eric Gironda wrote:
>
> > Last time I checked "marriage" was not a
>
>> right the people of this country are granted.
>
> Last time you checked you had no comprehension of what the Constitution
> is, and you still don't.
>
> Our government does not grant us rights, nor does the Constitution
> itself, it merely recognizes them. The Constitution limits the
> government, not the People.
>
> Too bad we have let it be trashed.

Amen to that.

I wish I thought Gonzalez would be an improvement over Ashcroft, but I
don't.

Big Bill wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:30:32 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>>
>>>041108 2142 - Wound Up posted:
>>
>>>>Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>>>target of hatred
>>
>>>Well, then, maybe derision???
>>
>>"Maybe"...? Y'think?
>>
>>Turn on your TV set during primetime any night of the week. Scarcely a
>>sitcom episode goes by without they don't make clunky, hamhanded innuendo
>>or outright laughtrack-enhanced punchlines at the expense of
>>cardigan-wearing, mincing, oh-so-coiffed fag-stereotypes, and entire
>>series are built on same, e.g. "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the
>>Straight Guy" or "Queer as Folk".
>>
>>One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine how black people felt when
>>they saw such as "What's Happenin?" on television. Hollywood, for their
>>part, is glibly contrite for years of making money off black stereotypes,
>>but they evidently have zero problem doing the selfsame thing with gays
>>right now, today.
>>
>>Gandhi said of social change: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule
>>and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
>>
>>-DS
>
> There's a group that come in for much more derision than homosexuals
> on TV - the white male.
> All you need to do to see this is to watch sitcoms and advertisements.
> The poor bumbling white guy is the butt of so many jokes it's obvious
> to anyone who watches.
> But it's OK, because, after all, they are just, well, there.

Feeling sorry for yourself, BB?

Adult white guys still seem to be running things across the USA.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:36:09 GMT, Sparky > wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:30:32 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>>>
>>>>041108 2142 - Wound Up posted:
>>>
>>>>>Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>>>>target of hatred
>>>
>>>>Well, then, maybe derision???
>>>
>>>"Maybe"...? Y'think?
>>>
>>>Turn on your TV set during primetime any night of the week. Scarcely a
>>>sitcom episode goes by without they don't make clunky, hamhanded innuendo
>>>or outright laughtrack-enhanced punchlines at the expense of
>>>cardigan-wearing, mincing, oh-so-coiffed fag-stereotypes, and entire
>>>series are built on same, e.g. "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the
>>>Straight Guy" or "Queer as Folk".
>>>
>>>One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine how black people felt when
>>>they saw such as "What's Happenin?" on television. Hollywood, for their
>>>part, is glibly contrite for years of making money off black stereotypes,
>>>but they evidently have zero problem doing the selfsame thing with gays
>>>right now, today.
>>>
>>>Gandhi said of social change: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule
>>>and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
>>>
>>>-DS
>>
>> There's a group that come in for much more derision than homosexuals
>> on TV - the white male.
>> All you need to do to see this is to watch sitcoms and advertisements.
>> The poor bumbling white guy is the butt of so many jokes it's obvious
>> to anyone who watches.
>> But it's OK, because, after all, they are just, well, there.
>
>Feeling sorry for yourself, BB?
>
>Adult white guys still seem to be running things across the USA.

So you don't think what I say is right?
Have you watched TV lately?

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> Yes, but here at home I'm not sure we have a right to expect better than
> sloppy thinking. We don't teach critical analysis and reasoning, we don't
> teach civics and government, and what we do teach is, by and large, taught
> sloppily.

Indeed. Just look at our President in one of the debates: the solution
to people being unable to survive on minimum wage is "no child left
behind", and the solution to the expiration of the assault weapons ban
is to prosecute crimes with guns. And he went to Yale. Hah hah. So the
children whose parents won't be able to feed them won't be able to think
in the classroom (unless the school has free breakfast/lunch programs,
that is), and let the murderers mow down 50 people with their AK-47s and
then prosecute them for it.

We don't pay teachers enough (at least here in NYC) to expect top-notch
teaching, we have classrooms filled beyond capacity (try teaching
anything when they're yelling and throwing things at each other), and we
have mothers who, when told that their 8-year-old has threatened a
teacher with a gun, ask, "What did you do to prompt him to do that?"
Extremely disconcerting.