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

Big Bill wrote:
> 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?

Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.

Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?

Sparky wrote:
> Big Bill wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>
> Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.
>
> Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?

You know, I love men. i love one man in particular (no, not you Matt!!!
i know it breaks your heart!!!)... and i have no scientific proof -; ,
but l think you misspelled a word.. instead of "running" you should have
said "ruining"....

lw

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:05:01 GMT, Sparky > wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.

So you think they aren't making these shows and commercials?
*That* would be fiction.
The reality is that these shows and commercials *are* being made and
shown.
>
>Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?

Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
don't you?
No where am I saying that white males aren't doing anything. I'm
saying they are being discriminated against.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

linda wrote:
> Sparky wrote:
>
>> Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>> Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.
>>
>> Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?
>
>
> You know, I love men. i love one man in particular (no, not you Matt!!!
> i know it breaks your heart!!!)... and i have no scientific proof -; ,
> but l think you misspelled a word.. instead of "running" you should have
> said "ruining"....

LOL, that works, too.

Sparky wrote:
> linda wrote:
>
>> Sparky wrote:
>>
>>> Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.
>>>
>>> Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?
>>
>>
>>
>> You know, I love men. i love one man in particular (no, not you
>> Matt!!! i know it breaks your heart!!!)... and i have no scientific
>> proof -; , but l think you misspelled a word.. instead of "running"
>> you should have said "ruining"....
>
>
> LOL, that works, too.


thanks! i appreciate your LOL.. haven't got much of that on this NG...

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>>And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or
>>>>a rock - what do you tell him?
>
>
>>>You tell him, Bill, that his dog, his tree or his rock is not sentient and
>>>is therefore unable to give consent, and that family members are
>>>prohibited from intermarrying for medical reasons.
>
>
>>Well if the medical thing was used in the past to prevent racially mixed
>>marriage, then, by liberal logic, "medical reasons" can never be used
>>for denail of alleged rights in any "rights" issue in the future,
>>because we all know that if a = b, then d = f (by liberal logic).
>
>
> The above paragraph consists of you railing against something that has not
> been argued -- at least you've not provided a cite for any such an
> argument. It seems to be something you're afraid might be argued.
>
>
>>Oh, but Daniel - he disagrees with you about the sentient part,
>
>
> Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is noted.

Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest.

You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point that the
criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two *humans*, both
parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than the criteria that a
marriage must be between one man and one woman. I claim, although,
tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose your very narrow and
chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call them your own religious
beliefs) on others. It's a valid point - deal with it rather than
trying the shell game.

Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no
other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view on
others? To throw out all rules imposed by personal belief systems means
that sadult ought ot be able to marry minors. And any attempt by you to
rationalize such a taboo would be like the arguments that people give
for not allowing marriage to be anything but one man/one woman.

One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for medical
reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So why not
brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister - no medical
problem there since no children can be produced by that "relationship"
(we'll overlook for the moment one of the main purposes of true
marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would be "sexually"
discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro and bro but not bro
and sis - clearly a case of sexual discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think.
So by liberal/ACLU-think, you'd then have to allow sis and sis
"marriage". And, once again, to not allow bro on bro would be imposing
your narrow-minded view on others.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Big Bill wrote:
>
> Well, tongue in cheek or not, declaring what's sentient and what's not
> can be tricky.
> There are people who claim to be able to understand what animals are
> thinking. *I* think they're frauds, but who's to say with authority?
> And as for laws governing marriage between close blood relatives, what
> if one or both are 'fixed' so children are not possible?
> Point being, once you open the door to such things, well, there's the
> camel.

BB - You must be new at the game of arguing with liberals. Don't you
know that liberals reject all such arguments by calling them "slippery
slope" arguments, as if "slippery slope" logic isn't valid. Even though
it is indeed valid, by attaching a name to it and ridiculing it, they
pretend that, by default, they win any argument at the instant they can
label it "slippery slope". It's in the liberal play book right after
the section on winning an argument by asking your conservative opponent
if they've "seen any black helicopters lately?".

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> > Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is noted.
>
> Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest.

Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together; you
are.

> You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point that the
> criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two *humans*, both
> parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than the criteria that a
> marriage must be between one man and one woman.

It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but
that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and dogs are
not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees, rocks and dogs do
not write laws. Religious and political beliefs are held by humans, not by
trees, rocks or dogs.

> I claim, although, tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose your
> very narrow and chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call them your own
> religious beliefs) on others.

I call your bluff: How?

> Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no
> other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view on
> others?

No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for you
about the concept of "consenting adults"?

> One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for medical
> reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So why not
> brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister - no medical
> problem there since no children can be produced by that "relationship"
> (we'll overlook for the moment one of the main purposes of true
> marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would be "sexually"
> discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro and bro but not bro
> and sis - clearly a case of sexual discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think.
> So by liberal/ACLU-think, you'd then have to allow sis and sis
> "marriage".

Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your tortured
hypotheticals.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> liberals reject all such arguments by calling them "slippery
> slope" arguments, as if "slippery slope" logic isn't valid.

It isn't. Pity you never learnt logic.

> Even though it is indeed valid

In your opinion. Go read up on logical fallacies so you can understand
*why* the slippery slope tactic is not logically sound, then get back to
us. There are lots of highly regarded texts on the subject, some of which
were written by extremely conservative individuals. I'm sure you can find
one...if you look.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> 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.

Ahh ohh! Another "slippery slope" argument. 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---