Re: POLITICS :-D

[Guest guest]

>>~~~~~~> But it was Bush's choice to make a preemptive war.

Chris<<

~~~He just pushed a button all by himself and no one else wanted it to happen?

:-) The prior remark was inferring that the admin. was spending more money than

Democrats spend. Not true, especially if you don't consider the war, which was

backed by many people, even many Democrats.

Carol

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Lynn Siprelle [mailto:lynn@...]

>

> > It is grossly unfair to stereotype all Southerners as

> either ignorant,

> > racist, or religious nuts, just because some in the South voted red.

> > Argue/discuss politics and various view points all you want, but

> > you're in danger of becoming what you criticize, if all you

> can do is

> > judge people en masse.

>

> Let me be clear: I am talking about the states, not the

> individuals in them.

The " state, " if by that you mean the electorate, is composed of the

individuals who live there.

> If your state held an election today

> that would put prayer back in the schools and make

> homosexuality illegal (if it could, which right now it

> legally cannot), how do you think it would vote?

First, prayer is still in the schools; students are free to pray during

breaks and form religious clubs. If it came to a vote, they'd probably

reinstate prayer during class time. While that's wrong, I don't really see

it as a great imposition or threat to freedom, and it certainly doesn't

amount to forcing you to worship or not to worship any particular gods.

Personally, I (an atheist) object more to the Pledge of Allegiance ( " under

God " or no) than to prayer.

According to the 2004 exit polls, 49% of the voters polled in the South

supported same-sex marriages (17%) or civil unions (32%). I doubt that more

than half of the remainder, if that, would vote to reinstate anti-sodomy

laws.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any firsthand experience with Southern

culture, or are you getting this from hearsay and stereotypes?

[Guest guest]

>According to the 2004 exit polls, 49% of the voters polled in the South

>supported same-sex marriages (17%) or civil unions (32%).

In the poll why are the civil union results lumped with same-sex?

There are probably plenty of civil unioners who disagree with those

who support same-sex marriages. Sounds like smoke and mirrors

to me. Not knowing the specific phrasing used in the poll, those

supporting civil unions could have been referring to a man/woman

union having the same legal benefits as husband/wife marriages.

If that's the case its simply 17%.

Darrell

[Guest guest]

> But regarding the illegality of homosexuality, it was the legal

> definition of marriage that was voted on here. Our state hasn't

> outlawed homosexuality, but we haven't legalized homosexuals to be

> married either.

Rebekah, I don't remember which state you're in but chances are very

good that there were anti-sodomy laws on the books that were struck

down by a recent Supreme Court decision. Anti-sodomy laws outlaw

homosexuality. (They also outlaw certain kinds of sex among straight

people but that was almost never enforced.)

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

>> Let me be clear: I am talking about the states, not the

>> individuals in them.

>

> The " state, " if by that you mean the electorate, is composed of the

> individuals who live there.

All righty then I mean the majority of the electorate. The majority of

the electorate in red states holds a certain set of views, which is

what makes them red states. Not everyone in the red states holds

these views. Howzat?

> First, prayer is still in the schools; students are free to pray during

> breaks and form religious clubs. If it came to a vote, they'd probably

> reinstate prayer during class time. While that's wrong, I don't really

> see

> it as a great imposition or threat to freedom, and it certainly doesn't

> amount to forcing you to worship or not to worship any particular gods.

> Personally, I (an atheist) object more to the Pledge of Allegiance

> ( " under

> God " or no) than to prayer.

As long as there are tests there will be prayer in schools. I have

NOTHING against individual student religious expression (as long as

minority religions are allowed expression). I have EVERYTHING against

*organized* prayer of any form in schools or other public

institutions. Because it absolutely is a threat to religious freedom

and it puts a great deal of pressure on people who are not members of

the dominant local religion. If you're in a school with a mandatory

Christian prayer, or even a voluntary one, and you're the only

non-Christian kid in a class full of Christians, you better believe

they're going to notice you if you don't say the prayer. Remember high

school? That kind of notice is never good. And why should a Jewish kid

be forced to say a Christian prayer that goes against everything he

believes? Because if the kid gets beat up after school for not saying

the prayer, even though the violence is not officially sanctioned it

has the same effect as if it were--it's religious coercion. And this

kind of thing can backfire; there are schools in Michigan where the

majority is Muslim. How about official prayer breaks five times a day

toward Mecca? The non-Muslim kids don't have to get out their prayer

rugs...

Re: gay marriage, fwiw I think government should get entirely out of

the marriage business--any marriage, gay or straight. Marriage is a

religious institution. Let's return it to the churches, synagogues,

mosques, etc. and provide civil registration for families.

> Just out of curiosity, do you have any firsthand experience with

> Southern

> culture, or are you getting this from hearsay and stereotypes?

I have no direct experience living in the South, I confess. I base most

of what I'm saying on the very real utterances of the people the red

(not just Southern) states elect to office, and on the direct

experiences of friends. I have one friend who left Texas because she

and her family are atheists and she just couldn't take it any more, and

another friend who left Indiana for similar reasons.

I have nothing against Southerners. Honest. I don't think they're

stupid (to the contrary--many of the most brilliant thinkers this

country has ever produced have been from the South), I don't think

they're ignorant, I don't think they're all fundamentalists, I don't

think even a large minority are racist. This wasn't even about the

South so much as the red states. I do have a problem with red politics,

and I'm at the point now where I'm ready to let them do what they want

as long as we in the blue states are allowed to do what we want and as

long as I don't have to fund the red states' policies (since they're

not funding ours anyway). That was my original point.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Darrell [mailto:lazlo75501@...]

>

> >According to the 2004 exit polls, 49% of the voters polled

> in the South

> >supported same-sex marriages (17%) or civil unions (32%).

>

> In the poll why are the civil union results lumped with same-sex?

Because there are many people who support same-sex marriages as long as we

don't call them marriages. Isn't democracy great?

> Not knowing the specific phrasing used in the

> poll, those supporting civil unions could have been referring

> to a man/woman union having the same legal benefits as

> husband/wife marriages.

Sorry; I meant to include a link. They asked about same-sex couples

specifically.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html

[Guest guest]

What is the difference between a man/woman marriage and a man/woman

civil union?

--- In , " Darrell " <lazlo75501@y...>

wrote:

> >According to the 2004 exit polls, 49% of the voters polled in the

South

> >supported same-sex marriages (17%) or civil unions (32%).

>

> In the poll why are the civil union results lumped with same-sex?

> There are probably plenty of civil unioners who disagree with those

> who support same-sex marriages. Sounds like smoke and mirrors

> to me. Not knowing the specific phrasing used in the poll, those

> supporting civil unions could have been referring to a man/woman

> union having the same legal benefits as husband/wife marriages.

> If that's the case its simply 17%.

>

> Darrell

[Guest guest]

Amen! Why haven't more people expressed this view?!

>

> Re: gay marriage, fwiw I think government should get entirely out

of

> the marriage business--any marriage, gay or straight. Marriage is

a

> religious institution. Let's return it to the churches,

synagogues,

> mosques, etc. and provide civil registration for families.

>

[Guest guest]

> ~~~~~~> But it was Bush's choice to make a preemptive war.

>

> Chris

What do you think September 11th was?

http://www.slackdaddy.org/flash/pentagon.swf

Worth some entertainment points anyway, this animation is.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

> Amen! Why haven't more people expressed this view?!

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: gay marriage, fwiw I think government should get entirely out

> of

> > the marriage business--any marriage, gay or straight. Marriage is

> a

> > religious institution. Let's return it to the churches,

> synagogues,

> > mosques, etc. and provide civil registration for families.

I think I was the first long ago on this list to advocate that the

state get entirely out of the relationship business, period. Not even

civil registration unless it was voluntary.

If you can manage the archives (good luck!) you will find a long

thread on the subject.

[Guest guest]

This is what they do in Holland. If you want to be legally married, you

must have a civil ceremony. Then religious people also have a " church "

wedding. Being married in a religious service is not recognized by the

state. I think this is a sensible approach. Although I don't know if

Holland allows same sex marriage or not.

Irene

At 02:55 AM 11/16/04, you wrote:

>Amen! Why haven't more people expressed this view?!

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: gay marriage, fwiw I think government should get entirely out

>of

> > the marriage business--any marriage, gay or straight. Marriage is

>a

> > religious institution. Let's return it to the churches,

>synagogues,

> > mosques, etc. and provide civil registration for families.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>What is the difference between a man/woman marriage and a man/woman

>civil union?

At the time of the post I was thinking of common law marriages. Maybe it

wasn't the best example. But same-sex could even refer to a human and

a sheep.

Darrell

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/15/04 10:46:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, cah@...

writes:

> ~~~He just pushed a button all by himself and no one else wanted it to

happen?

____

~~~~~> Not that it matters, since it was his final decision-- but the Bush

Administration obviously drummed up support for the war, and made a huge

propaganda campaign preceding the war implying Iraq's involvement in 9/11 and

exaggerating the need for war.

_____

> :-) The prior remark was inferring that the admin. was spending more

money

> than Democrats spend. Not true, especially if you don't consider the war,

> which was backed by many people, even many Democrats.

____

~~~~~> What's true is that the government spending increased much more during

Bush's first term than it did in both of Clinton's terms combined, which has

consistently happened for decades. Removing the cost of the war is silly,

since the war is here, and the war costs money. Nearly everything the

government

does has some support from both parties, or it usually couldn't be passed.

Nevertheless, the size of the government consistently increases more under

Republican administrations than under Democratic administrations.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/16/04 5:56:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

susanmemert@... writes:

> What is the difference between a man/woman marriage and a man/woman

> civil union?

____

~~~~> The same difference that there is between gay marriage and gay civil

union. The name of it.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/16/04 4:55:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> In wide-ranging interviews with the CBS program 60 Minutes and Time

magazine,

> O'Neill said Bush and a number of top advisers began planning to get rid of

> Saddam Hussein soon after the 2000 election. As early as January 2001, they

> began looking for ways to justify an invasion, O'Neill said.

_____

~~~~> And by the way, I thought this was obvious as soon as they took office.

I don't think this was a secret confined to the inner circle. I got this

impression from reading the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, etc, in

early 2001.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/16/04 7:51:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, cah@...

writes:

> ~~~This has now become a discussion that is going nowhere, since figuring

out

> who spends the most money is impossible to determine for anyone who isn't

> intimately involved in the administration of the finances of the

government.

> The figures we see change, depending on whether we're getting them from the

> Republicans or the Democrats. So, we're right back to what I've said

before,

> it's too bad both parties have become so morally bankrupt that we have to

> decide upon the lesser of two evils, instead of being able to vote our

> convictions. Not to mention how convoluted the government has become,

> compared to how it was intended to be. End of story, in my opinion.

_______

~~~~~~~> Any moment will probably pop up with links to prove it one

way or the other. :-)

You must be speaking of projected budgets, no? Isn't spending that has

already occurred available in concrete figures, or at least estimated by

independent organizations?

I don't think it's a matter of dispute that the size of the government

increased more under Bush than it did under Clinton, and more under Reagan than

it

did under Clinton or , etc. But the flip side is that it increased under

all of them, Republican or Democrat. So you can't really say that

Republicans spend more than Democrats, or vice versa, because spending has

consistently

increased, so who spends more is more of a question of time than party

affiliation. Also, tthe party opposite the administration tends to gain in

Congress

mid-term, so if Democratic Presidents tend to have Republican Congresses, this

would factor in to. For example, Clinton probably would have spent much,

much more with a Democratic Congress.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> What is the difference between a man/woman marriage and a man/woman

> civil union?

As far as I can figure, the word " marriage " and all its attendant

cultural baggage.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

> At the time of the post I was thinking of common law marriages. Maybe

> it

> wasn't the best example. But same-sex could even refer to a human and

> a sheep.

Sheep have no legal standing, which is why you can eat a sheep and not

your next-door neighbor.

Lynn S.

who gets royally sick of people bringing out the

pedophilia/incest/bestiality stuff when we talk about same sex

relationships...

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

>>~~~~~~> But it was Bush's choice to make a preemptive war.

Chris<<

~~~He just pushed a button all by himself and no one else wanted it to happen?

Carol:

Well, yeah, more or less. A group of Bush plus his inner circle started looking

for an excuse to go to war as soon as he took office, which was rumored at the

time but confirmed by O'Neill (Republican who was there ... and backed by

documents). Now the fact they were able to convince a bunch of patriotic and

trusting folks into going along with them (including the moderate and

intelligent Colin ) is testimony to an amazing sales job.

But even if you really, really wanted to get rid of Saddam, some of the moderate

folks were proposing ways to do that which would not be so expensive or require

the massive loss of life. Bush 1 didn't topple Saddam because he was advised it

would create a quagmire. Like says, the choice to use " Shock and Awe " and

only US troops and US money was decidedly a choice. Whether it was a good choice

or a bad choice history will tell, but it was Bush's choice. And millions of

people protested it at the time.

-- Heidi Jean

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm

In wide-ranging interviews with the CBS program 60 Minutes and Time magazine,

O'Neill said Bush and a number of top advisers began planning to get rid of

Saddam Hussein soon after the 2000 election. As early as January 2001, they

began looking for ways to justify an invasion, O'Neill said.

[Guest guest]

,

Just for your information, prayer was not allowed in my school. It was

an offense punished by detention the first time...up to suspension if

you persisited. Illinois in the '80s.

L.

>

> First, prayer is still in the schools; students are free to pray during

> breaks and form religious clubs. If it came to a vote, they'd probably

> reinstate prayer during class time. While that's wrong, I don't really see

> it as a great imposition or threat to freedom, and it certainly doesn't

> amount to forcing you to worship or not to worship any particular gods.

> Personally, I (an atheist) object more to the Pledge of Allegiance ( " under

> God " or no) than to prayer.

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>

> ~~~~> And by the way, I thought this was obvious as soon as they took

> office.

> I don't think this was a secret confined to the inner circle. I got this

> impression from reading the New York Times and Wall Street Journal,

> etc, in

> early 2001.

>

> Chris

Isn't anyone going to watch the animated flick on the 757 hitting the

Pentagon? The music toward the end might have foul language, so be advised.

http://www.slackdaddy.org/flash/pentagon.swf

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>>~~~~~> What's true is that the government spending increased much more during

Bush's first term than it did in both of Clinton's terms combined, which has

consistently happened for decades. Removing the cost of the war is silly,

since the war is here, and the war costs money. Nearly everything the

government

does has some support from both parties, or it usually couldn't be passed.

Nevertheless, the size of the government consistently increases more under

Republican administrations than under Democratic administrations.

Chris<<

~~~This has now become a discussion that is going nowhere, since figuring out

who spends the most money is impossible to determine for anyone who isn't

intimately involved in the administration of the finances of the government.

The figures we see change, depending on whether we're getting them from the

Republicans or the Democrats. So, we're right back to what I've said before,

it's too bad both parties have become so morally bankrupt that we have to decide

upon the lesser of two evils, instead of being able to vote our convictions.

Not to mention how convoluted the government has become, compared to how it was

intended to be. End of story, in my opinion.

Carol

____

[Guest guest]

>~~~~> And by the way, I thought this was obvious as soon as they took office.

>I don't think this was a secret confined to the inner circle. I got this

>impression from reading the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, etc, in

>early 2001.

>

>Chris

It didn't seem very secret to me either, but when I talked about it everyone

called it a " conspiracy theory " . Most of the Dems in congress seemed convinced

that when Bush moved troops to the Gulf, it was just to force Saddam to

allow inspectors in. Which was one of the reasons they supported the use

of troops: that it would convince Saddam to allow inspectors, to find those WMD.

Most of them seemed genuinely convinced that Bush would not REALLY go

to war, that the inspectors would inspect and that would be that. Which goes to

show that they don't read the NYT or Wall Street Journal, I guess.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>>You must be speaking of projected budgets, no? Isn't spending that has

already occurred available in concrete figures, or at least estimated by

independent organizations?<<

~~~I don't think I've ever seen figures from independent organizations. Doesn't

sound like you have either. :-) But, I have noticed that the figures given by

Democrats are different from those given by Republicans for the same items.

>>I don't think it's a matter of dispute that the size of the government

increased more under Bush than it did under Clinton, and more under Reagan than

it

did under Clinton or , etc.

~~~I think all Republicans would disagree with you there. The Republicans'

biggest gripe about Democrats is that government is too big under them, and

they'd like to cut all the social programs Democrats have initiated. Social

programs make for big government.

But the flip side is that it increased under

all of them, Republican or Democrat. So you can't really say that

Republicans spend more than Democrats, or vice versa, because spending has

consistently

increased, so who spends more is more of a question of time than party

affiliation. Also, tthe party opposite the administration tends to gain in

Congress

mid-term, so if Democratic Presidents tend to have Republican Congresses, this

would factor in to. For example, Clinton probably would have spent much,

much more with a Democratic Congress.<<

~~~Yes, it's for sure Clinton would have spent more if he could have. The

National health care system he wanted to install would have weighted the

spending scale to the side of the Democrats for sure. I don't have much of an

axe to grind with you, because as I said, it's a mess on both sides.

Carol

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Isn't anyone going to watch the animated flick on the 757 hitting the

>Pentagon? The music toward the end might have foul language, so be advised.

>

>http://www.slackdaddy.org/flash/pentagon.swf

Huh. Y'know I never thought of that.

(my apologies for not watching it earlier: my DSL connection

isn't working at the moment and I figured it wouldn't work

well, but for those of you with slow connections, it runs

fine once loaded, and worth the wait.)

Heidi Jean